APPENDICES 

Miles City Field Office 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

BLM
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-1

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains tables and figures that provide additional air resource and climate information for the 

planning area. Explanations of the data are provided in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Technical data 

presented in this appendix address climate, air quality, and air quality related values (AQRVs). The Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office Air Resource Management Plan: Adaptive Management 

Strategy for Oil and Gas Resources (ARMP) is also included in this appendix and begins on page ARMP-1.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-2

TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1.

BAKER CO-OP STATION TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1948 TO 2005)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 31.0 34.4 43.8 60.4 67.7 76.7 90.7 88.2 76.5 59.5 44.6 33.7 58.9

Average Min. 

Temperature 9.4 12.0 21.4 33.4 42.1 51.7 61.0 57.8 46.8 32.6 19.7 11.8 33.3

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.42 0.38 0.56 1.28 1.90 3.03 1.85 1.22 1.34 1.00 0.49 0.40 13.87

Average Total Snow 

Fall 4.8 4.0 4.9 3.1 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.0 3.5 4.7 27.4

Average Snow Depth 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010c

Baker: Co-op station 240412

Period of Record: 01 July 1948 through 31 December 2005

Elevation: 2933 feet, 46°22'N / 104°17'W

Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth: inches

TABLE 2.

BROADUS CO-OP STATION TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1948 TO 2005)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 32.1 38.7 46.5 58.7 68.7 78.3 87.4 86.3 74.5 62.2 45.6 35.6 59.6

Average Min. 

Temperature 6.5 13.1 20.5 31.0 41.2 50.3 56.0 53.5 42.3 31.3 19.4 10.2 31.3

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.47 0.45 0.77 1.45 2.22 2.43 1.52 1.02 1.09 1.01 0.58 0.48 13.49

Average Total 

Snow Fall 6.5 5.7 7.4 4.4 1.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.2 5.6 7.0 40.6

Average Snow 

Depth 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010d

Broadus: Co-op station 241127

Period of Record: 01 July 1948 through 31 December 2005

Elevation: 3032 feet, 45°27'N / 105°24'W

Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth: inches
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-3

TABLE 3.

GLENDIVE CO-OP STATION TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1905 TO 2005)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 26.1 31.3 43.0 60.0 71.2 80.1 88.9 87.7 75.5 62.2 43.2 31.0 58.4

Average Min. 

Temperature 3.8 7.7 18.9 32.9 43.6 53.0 58.7 55.9 44.7 33.7 20.7 9.6 31.9

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.45 0.37 0.66 1.15 2.03 3.12 1.83 1.37 1.20 0.84 0.46 0.45 13.93

Average Total 

Snow Fall 6.0 4.6 5.7 1.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 3.6 5.3 28.8

Average Snow 

Depth 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010e

Glendive: Co-op station 243581

Period of Record: 01 January 1893 through 31 December 2005

Elevation: 2076 feet, 47°06'N / 104°43'W

Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth: inches

TABLE 4.

JORDAN CO-OP STATION TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1905 TO 2005)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 28.8 34.5 45.3 59.7 70.4 79.7 89.6 88.3 76.0 62.9 44.7 33.5 59.5

Average Min. 

Temperature 2.8 7.7 18.4 30.0 40.1 49.4 55.2 52.3 41.4 30.6 17.9 7.9 29.5

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.45 0.32 0.54 1.03 1.81 2.5 1.55 1.09 0.98 0.73 0.34 0.42 11.74

Average Total 

Snow Fall 3.1 3.1 1.3 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 1.8 11.0

Average Snow 

Depth 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010f

Jordan: Co-op station 244522

Period of Record: 01 January 1905 through 31 December 2005

Elevation: 2620 feet, 47°19'N / 106°55'W

Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth: inches
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-4

TABLE 5.

LAME DEER CO-OP STATION TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1948 TO 1998)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 33.7 41.0 48.3 60.6 70.4 79.5 89.2 89.0 77.3 64.5 46.3 36.7 61.4

Average Min. 

Temperature 4.9 11.4 18.9 27.9 37.8 46.0 50.8 48.9 38.6 28.9 18.5 9.0 28.5

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.53 0.59 0.85 1.48 2.69 2.63 1.33 1.06 1.26 1.16 0.77 0.64 14.98

Average Total 

Snow Fall 9.5 7.3 8.0 4.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.4 6.3 8.2 46.3

Average Snow 

Depth 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010g

Lame Deer: Co-op station 244839

Period of Record: 01 July 1948 through 31 May 1998

Elevation: 3300 feet, 45°38'N / 106°40'W

Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth: inches

TABLE 6.

MILES CITY FAA AIRPORT TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1937 TO 2005)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 27.3 33.7 44.0 58.4 69.3 78.6 88.8 87.2 74.3 61.1 42.8 32.2 58.1

Average Min. 

Temperature 6.8 11.9 21.3 33.6 44.1 53.2 60.1 58.2 46.8 35.5 21.6 11.7 33.7

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.45 0.39 0.62 1.28 2.09 2.89 1.58 1.13 1.14 0.95 0.47 0.43 13.43

Average Total 

Snow Fall 5.8 4.6 4.7 3.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.2 4.2 5.1 29.9

Average Snow 

Depth 5 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 2

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010m

Miles City FAA Airport: Co-op station 245690

Period of Record: 16 January 1937 through 31 December 2005

Elevation: 2624 feet, 46°26'N / 105°53'W

Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth: inches
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-5

TABLE 7.

SIDNEY CO-OP STATION TEMPERATURE AND PRECIPITATION DATA (1910 TO 2005)

Month Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature 23.0 30.3 41.4 58.5 69.9 78.1 84.9 84.1 72.3 59.6 40.9 28.7 56.0

Average Min. 

Temperature 1.0 7.7 17.2 30.2 41.4 50.4 54.9 52.7 42.5 32.1 18.8 7.5 29.7

Average Total 

Precipitation 0.40 0.35 0.55 1.09 1.97 2.82 2.11 1.45 1.34 0.95 0.48 0.41 13.91

Average Total 

Snow Fall ( 6.2 5.2 5.1 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5 5.1 6.3 33.0

Average Snow 

Depth 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010p

Sidney: Co-op station 247560

Period of Record: 16 October 1910 through 31 December 2005; Elevation: 1931 feet, 47°44'N / 104°09'W; Temperature: degrees Fahrenheit; precipitation, snowfall, and snow 

depth: inches

TABLE 8.

HOURLY WIND DATA FROM STATIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Month

Station

Baker

(1998 to 2006)

Glendive

(1996 to 2006)

Jordan

(1996 to 2006)

Miles City (1996 to 

2006)

Sidney

(1996 to 2006)

Direction1Speed Direction Speed Direction Speed Direction Speed Direction Speed

Jan. W 10.4 S 9.5 W 7.3 S 8.8 SSW 8.9

Feb. W 10.5 S 9.7 W 7.9 S 9.4 S 9.0

March SE 12.2 S 10.5 W 9.3 NW 10.6 S 9.5

April SE 12.5 NW 11.3 W 10.0 NW 11.2 N 10.2

May W 12.7 NW 11.6 W 10.5 NW 11.3 S 10.4

June W 11.7 W 10.4 W 9.7 NW 10.5 S 9.0

July SE 10.7 NW 9.4 W 8.4 NW 9.9 S 7.7

Aug. SE 10.8 S 9.6 W 8.4 SSE 9.7 S 7.9

Sept. ESE 10.0 NW 9.6 W 8.2 NW 9.7 S 8.2

Oct W 10.3 S 10.1 W 8.2 S 9.7 S 8.8

Nov. W 10.5 S 9.7 W 7.9 S 9.3 SSW 8.7

Dec. W 10.7 S 10.2 W 8.1 S 9.3 SSW 9.4

Annual W 11.1 S 10.1 W 8.6 NW 9.9 S 9.0

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010a and 2010b

1The wind direction was defined as the direction with the highest frequency (percent) from the direction of origin in mph. 

The data were derived from hourly measurement during the 1996 to 2006 period, although the measurement periods varied depending on the site as noted. Although some 

generalities can be considered, since these data were collected at airports with few obstructions for aviation safety, these data may not be representative of a particular region.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-6

FIGURE 1.

WIND ROSE, PINE HILL, MONTANA (1999 TO 2009)

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010n
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-7

FIGURE 2.

WIND ROSE, POPLAR, MONTANA (1992 TO 2009)

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010o
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-8

FIGURE 3.

WIND ROSE, MEDICINE LAKE, MONTANA (2003 TO 2009)

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010l
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-9

FIGURE 4.

WIND ROSE, BADGER PEAK, MONTANA (1986 TO 2009)

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010i
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-10

FIGURE 5.

WIND ROSE, KNOWLTON, MONTANA (2009)

Source: DRI and NOAA 2010k
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-11

FIGURE 6.

PROJECTED UNITED STATES TEMPERATURE CHANGES FROM 1961 TO 1979 BASELINE

Source: USGCRP 2009

This map is based on projections of future temperature by 16 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Three (CMIP3) 

climate models using two emissions scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Special Report on 

Emission Scenarios. The higher emission scenario is shown in the top half of the figure, while the lower emission scenario is shown 

in the bottom half. Temperature predictions for the middle of the 21st century are shown on the left, with end-of-century predictions 

shown on the right. The brackets on the thermometers represent the likely range of model projections, though lower or higher 

outcomes are possible.
AIR-12

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 7.

UNITED STATES WINTER TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM 1975 TO 2007

Source: USGCRP 2009
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-13

FIGURE 8.

PREDICTED NUMBER OF DAYS OVER 100 DEGREES 

FAHRENHEIT IN THE UNITED STATES

Source: USGCRP 2009
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-14

FIGURE 9.

PREDICTED SEASONAL CHANGES IN NORTH AMERICAN 

PRECIPITATION FROM 2080 TO 2099

Source: USGCRP 2009
AIR-15

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 10.

PROJECTED CHANGE IN UNITED STATES GROUND-LEVEL OZONE IN THE 2090s

Source: USGCRP 2009
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-16

FIGURE 11.

PREDICTED CHANGES IN WILDFIRE AREA BURNED IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES

Source: NRC 2011
AIR-17

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 12.

MEAN ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF NITROGEN COMPOUNDS IN THE

MILES CITY STUDY AREA (THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Concentration (μg/m3)

Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet)

CASTNet Theodore Roosevelt National Park station THR422

Typical concentrations for remote areas:

Nitric Acid (HNO3): 0.05 - 0.80 μg/m3

Ammmonium (NH4+): 0.20 μg/m3

Nitrate (NO3-): 0.50 μg/m3

Nitric Acid

Ammonium

Nitrate
AIR-18

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 13.

MEAN ANNUAL CONCENTRATIONS OF SULFUR COMPOUNDS IN THE MILES CITY STUDY AREA

(THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK)

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Concentration (μg/m3)

Clean Air Status and Trends (CASTNet)

CASTNet Theodore Roosevelt National Park station: THR422

Typical concentrations for remote areas:

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2): 2.6 - 26 μg/m3

Sulfate (SO4-2): 2.5 μg/m3

Sulfur

Dioxide

Sulfate
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-19

FIGURE 14.

MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION PH REPRESENTING THE PLANNING AREA, LITTLE BIGHORN BATTLEFIELD

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

1980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Precipitation pH (mg/L)

National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument NADP station MT00

Normal range of precipitation pH (mg/L): 5.0 - 5.6 (Seinfeld 1986)
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-20

FIGURE 15.

MEAN ANNUAL PRECIPITATION PH REPRESENTING THE PLANNING AREA

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

1980198119821983198419851986198719881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010

Precipitation pH (mg/L)

Glacier National Park

Little Big Horn

Poplar River

Theodore Roosevelt

National Park

National Atmospheric Deposition Program 

(NADP)

Glacier National Park NADP station MT05

Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument 

NADP station MT00

Poplar River NADP station MT96

Theodore Roosevelt NADP station ND00

Normal range of precipitation pH (mg/L): 5.0 to 5.6 

(Seinfeld 1986)

Little Bighorn
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-21

FIGURE 16.

TOTAL NITROGEN DEPOSITION IN THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK

Source: USEPA 2010h
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-22

FIGURE 17.

TOTAL SULFUR DEPOSITION IN THEODORE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL PARK

Source: USEPA 2010g
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-23

FIGURE 18.

INORGANIC NITROGEN WET DEPOSITION FROM NITRATE AND AMMONIUM IN 2008

Source: NADP 2010b
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

AIR-24

FIGURE 19.

TOTAL MERCURY WET DEPOSITION IN 2008

Source: NADP 2010c
AIR-25

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 20.

HYDROGEN ION CONCENTRATION AS PH FROM MEASUREMENTS MADE AT

THE CENTRAL ANALYTICAL LABORATORY IN 2008

Source: NADP 2010d
AIR-26

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 21.

NITRATE ION CONCENTRATION IN 2008

Source: NADP 2010e
AIR-27

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 22.

AMMONIUM ION CONCENTRATION IN 2008

Source: NADP 2010f
AIR-28

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 23.

TOTAL MERCURY CONCENTRATION IN 2008

Source: NADP 2010g
AIR-29

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 24.

DAILY VISIBILITY REPRESENTING THE MILES CITY STUDY AREA,

NORTHERN CHEYENNE INDIAN RESERVATION

0

50

100

150

200

250

Standard Visual Range (miles)

IMPROVE Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation station: NOCH1

Visibility measured every 3 days from 6/2002 through 2008

Date
AIR-30

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 25.

DAILY VISIBILITY REPRESENTING THE MILES CITY STUDY AREA, MEDICINE LAKE

0

50

100

150

200

250

Standard Visual Range (miles)

IMPROVE Medicine Lake station: MELA1

Visibility measured every 3 days from 1999 through 2008

Date
AIR-31

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

FIGURE 26.

DAILY VISIBILITY REPRESENTING THE MILES CITY STUDY AREA, UL BEND

0

50

100

150

200

250

Standard Visibility Range (miles)

IMPROVE UL Bend station: ULBE1

Visibility measured every 3 days from 2000 through 2008

Date
AIR-32

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

 FIGURE 27.

 DAILY VISIBILITY REPRESENTING THE MILES CITY STUDY AREA, FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION

0

50

100

150

200

250

Standard Visual Range (miles)

IMPROVE Fort Peck station: FOPE1

Visibility measured every 3 days from 2002 through 2008

Date
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-1

DRAFT MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE AIR RESOURCE 

MANAGEMENT PLAN: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

STRATEGY FOR OIL AND GAS RESOURCES
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-2

This page intentionally left blank.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-3

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................ARMP-5

1.1 Purpose of the Air Resource Management Plan .............................................................................ARMP-5

1.2 Revision of the Air Resource Management Plan ............................................................................ARMP-6

1.3 Current Air Quality.........................................................................................................................ARMP-6

1.4 Background of the Air Quality Technical Workgroup and the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding 

Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the NEPA Process

........................................................................................................................................................ARMP-6

1.5 Relationship to the Montana Record of Decision for the Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans ARMP .............................................................................................................ARMP-7

2.0 Oil and Gas Activity Assessment ............................................................................................................ARMP-9

3.0 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Support ...............................................................................................ARMP-9

4.0 Air Quality and Air Quality Related Value Assessment........................................................................ ARMP-10

4.1 Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

Assessment ................................................................................................................................... ARMP-10

4.2 Preliminary Ozone Assessment .................................................................................................... ARMP-11

4.3 Assessment ................................................................................................................................... ARMP-12

5.0 Future Modeling .................................................................................................................................... ARMP-13

5.1 Photochemical Grid Modeling...................................................................................................... ARMP-13

5.1.1 Data Acquisition............................................................................................................. ARMP-13

5.1.2 Photochemical Grid Modeling Schedule ........................................................................ ARMP-14

5.1.3 Air Quality Technical Workgroup and Interagency Working Group Review and Input to 

Photochemical Grid Modeling........................................................................................ ARMP-14

5.1.4 Availability of Photochemical Grid Modeling Results................................................... ARMP-14

5.2 Limited CALPUFF Visibility Modeling....................................................................................... ARMP-15

5.3 Post-Photchemical Grid Modeling................................................................................................ ARMP-16

6.0 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................. ARMP-16

6.1 Initial Mitigation Actions.............................................................................................................. ARMP-16

6.2 Monitoring-based Mitigation........................................................................................................ ARMP-17

6.2.1 Monitoring-based Thresholds before Photochemical Grid Modeling Completion......... ARMP-17

6.2.2 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures before Photochemical Grid Modeling

Completion ....................................................................................................................ARMP-18

6.2.3 Monitoring-based Thresholds after Photochemical Grid Modeling Completion ........... ARMP-17

6.2.4 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures after Photochemical Grid Modeling

Completion ..................................................................................................................... ARMP-20

6.3 Modeling-Based Mitigation.......................................................................................................... ARMP-20

6.3.1 Modeling-Based Thresholds........................................................................................... ARMP-20

6.3.2 Determination of Modeling-based Enhanced Mitigation Measures ............................... ARMP-20

7.0 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... ARMP-21

List of Tables

Table ARMP-1. Ambient Concentration Data for Pollutants Monitored in the Planning Area.......................ARMP-7

Table ARMP-2. Miles City Field Office Monitoring Stations ...................................................................... ARMP-10

Table ARMP-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards for Pollutants Monitored in the Planning Area................. ARMP-12

Table ARMP-4. Data Acquisition and Photochemical Grid Modeling Schedule .......................................... ARMP-15
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-4

Acronyms

APD Application for Permit to Drill 

AQRV Air Quality Related Value

AQTW Air Quality Technical Workgroup

ARMP Air Resource Management Plan

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CO Carbon Monoxide

CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards

μg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter

MCFO Miles City Field Office

MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NO Nitric Oxide

NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

NPS National Park Service

O3 Ozone

Pb Lead

PGM Photochemical Grid Modeling

PM10 Particulate Matter with a Diameter Less than or Equal to 10 Microns

PM2.5 Particulate Matter with a Diameter Less than or Equal to 2.5 Microns

POD Plan of Development

ppb Parts per Billion

ppm Parts per Million

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development

ROD Record of Decision

RMP Resource Management Plan

SLAMS State or Local Air Monitoring Station 

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

VOC Volatile Organic Compound
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-5

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office Air Resource Management Plan: Adaptive 

Management Strategy for Oil and Gas Resources (ARMP) for oil and gas activities describes the air resource 

adaptive management strategy that would be used to assess future air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs) 

and identify mitigation measures to address unacceptable impacts that may be associated with future oil and gas 

development. The adaptive management strategy focuses on oil and gas activity because aggregated emissions from 

multiple small sources at well sites can potentially cause air quality and AQRV impacts under certain circumstances. 

Many of these small oil and gas emission sources are not required to obtain air quality permits from the Montana 

Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), unlike large stationary sources such as coal mines that are 

permitted and inspected by the MDEQ. The oil and gas adaptive management strategy was prepared in collaboration 

with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and three federal land management agencies 

under the Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal 

Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process (USDA, USDI, and USEPA 2011). 

This agreement is described in more detail in Section 4.

The ARMP includes both near-term actions and long-term actions. In the near-term, the ARMP sets forth initial 

actions to maintain good air quality until regional modeling can be performed to further assess potential impacts to 

air quality and AQRVs. In the long-term, the ARMP provides ongoing management strategies to assess and adapt to 

new air quality and AQRV ambient monitoring and modeling data during the life of this resource management plan 

(RMP).

The ARMP includes a multifaceted approach involving the following activities:

 oil and gas activity assessment,

 ambient air quality monitoring support,

 air quality and AQRV assessment,

 future air quality and AQRV modeling, and

 initial and enhanced mitigation.

Pollutant emissions addressed by the ARMP include the criteria air pollutants listed below:

 carbon monoxide (CO),

 nitrogen dioxide (NO2),

 ozone (O3),

 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).

The ARMP also addresses modeling and mitigation for the following AQRVs:

 deposition of sulfur and nitrogen,

 lake acid neutralizing capacity, and

 visibility.

The adaptive management strategy for oil and gas resources provides the flexibility to respond to changing 

conditions that could not have been predicted during RMP development and allows for the use of new technology 

and methods that may minimize or reduce impacts.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-6

1.2 REVISION OF THE AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

This ARMP may be modified as necessary to comply with law, regulation, and policy and to address new 

information and changing circumstances. Changes to the goals or objectives set forth in the MCFO RMP would 

require maintenance or amendment of the RMP while changes to the implementation, including modifying this 

ARMP, may be made without maintaining or amending the RMP.

1.3 CURRENT AIR QUALITY

Based on available monitoring data for rural oil and gas nativity areas in eastern Montana, air quality is good as 

described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Non-tribal areas within the MCFO to attain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and state-based standards, which are known as the Montana Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (MAAQS). 

For nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), ambient concentrations measured in recent years are less 

than 65 percent of the NAAQS and MAAQS. Ozone concentrations are no more than 74 percent of the 8-hour ozone 

standard. Based on monitoring data available as of December 31, 2011, particulate matter (PM10) is the only 

pollutant of potential concern. The monitor located near Broadus in Powder River County indicated a concentration 

that is 84 percent of the particulate matter (PM10) NAAQS based on the second maximum 24-hour concentration 

measured during 1 year. Compliance with the NAAQS is determined based on 3 years of data, which were not 

available at this monitor as of December 1, 2011. Table ARMP-1 provides recent concentration data for each 

pollutant monitored within the planning area. NAAQS and MAAQS set forth allowable concentrations in terms of 

parts per million (ppm) or parts per billion (ppb) for gaseous pollutants while particulate pollutant concentrations are 

provided in micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3).

1.4 BACKGROUND OF THE AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL WORKGROUP AND THE MEMORANDUM 

OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING AIR QUALITY ANALYSES AND MITIGATION FOR FEDERAL 

OIL AND GAS DECISIONS THROUGH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT PROCESS

The Air Quality Technical Workgroup (AQTW) is required to include representatives from the following agencies: 

the BLM, USEPA, United States Forest Service (USFS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 

National Park Service (NPS). Each of these agencies is a party to the Memorandum of Understanding Among the 

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

Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National 

Environmental Policy Act Process (USDA et al. 2011) (referred to as the MOU). This agreement is designed to 

“... facilitate the completion of NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] environmental analyses for Federal land 

use planning and oil and gas development decisions“(USDA et al. 2011, p. 1). Additional entities, such as the 

MDEQ and tribal entities, may also participate in the AQTW.

This MOU sets forth collaborative procedures that the AQTW agencies use to analyze potential air quality and 

AQRV impacts. The agencies also work together to identify potential mitigation measures that may be needed to 

reduce impacts to air quality and AQRVs. The lead agency (the BLM in this case), in collaboration with the other 

agencies, has the responsibility to identify reasonable mitigation and control measures and design features to address 

adverse impacts to air quality. Mitigation measures may also address impacts to AQRVs at Class I areas and at 

sensitive Class II areas that have been identified by the BLM, USFS, USFWS, and NPS.

The AQTW provided input to this ARMP and will continue to work collaboratively on future modeling efforts 

associated with this RMP. Provisions of the MOU continue to apply to future oil and gas activities in the planning 

area. In some cases, air quality and AQRV modeling performed under this ARMP may be sufficient to address 

modeling needs for future oil and gas projects that would otherwise require additional modeling under the MOU. 

However, the ARMP in no way replaces provisions of the MOU. Determinations of existing modeling adequacy for 

future oil and gas activities that trigger the MOU would be made collaboratively by the AQTW using the procedures 

included in the MOU.

The MDEQ has the primary authority to protect air quality within the state. Although the MDEQ is not a signatory 

to the national MOU, successful air quality management of BLM-authorized oil and gas activities depends on a 

close working relationship between the BLM and the MDEQ. The two agencies have worked together to improve air 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-7

quality monitoring and will continue to cooperate by sharing data, planning modeling efforts, and working together 

to identify emission reduction measures needed to maintain good air quality.

TABLE ARMP-1. 

AMBIENT CONCENTRATION DATA FOR POLLUTANTS

MONITORED IN THE PLANNING AREA

Pollut. Avg. 

Period Metric Form NAAQS NAAQS Units

Maximum 

Monitored 

Concentrations 

During 

Monitored 

Years (Birney, 

Broadus, 

Sidney)1

Percentage 

of Standard 

(Birney, 

Broadus, 

Sidney)

(%)2

NO2

1-hour 98th

Percentile

3-year 

average

100 ppb 7, 15, 9 7%, 15%, 9%

Annual Mean 1 year 53 ppb 1.61, 7.33, 1.85 3%, 14%, 3%

O3 8-hour 4

th

maximum

3-year 

average

0.075 ppm

0.052, 0.054, 

0.056

69%, 72%, 

75%

PM2.5

24-

hour

98th

Percentile

3-year 

average

35 μg/m311, 17, 14 31%, 49%, 

40%

Annual Mean

3-year 

average

15.0 μg/m34.1, 5.8, 6.0

27%, 39%, 

40%

PM10

24-

hour

Not to be 

exceeded 

more than 

once per 

year

3-year 

average

150 μg/m3

Not exceeded, 

not exceeded, 

not exceeded

39%, 80%, 

64%3

SO2 1-hour 99th

Percentile

3-year 

average

75 NA/NA/6

4 NA/NA/8%4

Source: USEPA 2012a; USEPA 2013

NA = not available

1Based on data for three full calendar years 2009 to 2011 of Sidney monitoring data and one calendar year (2011) of Birney and 

Broadus monitoring data. When an insufficient number of years are available to calculate multi-year averages, the results cannot be 

used to determine compliance with the NAAQS.

2 Percentages were calculated based on the data available and may not include a sufficient number of years for comparison to the 

NAAQS. 

3 Estimated by comparing the second maximum value to the NAAQS.

4A full calendar year ofsulfur dioxide concentration data is available only for 2011 at the Sidney monitoring site. 

1.5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE MONTANA RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE 

MONTANA STATEWIDE OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND 

AMENDMENT OF THE POWDER RIVER AND BILLINGS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS 

ARMP

This ARMP integrates and supplements earlier ARMP provisions within the Record of Decision for the Supplement 

to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and 

Billings Resource Management Plans (BLM 2008b). Provisions of this document’s ARMP are currently in effect 

and were developed to address substantial predicted growth in coal bed natural gas (CBNG) drilling and production 

in the Powder River Basin (PRB). Based on extensive air quality and AQRV far-field modeling, predicted impacts 

described in the Supplemental Air Quality Analysis to the Draft Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans

(BLM 2007; BLM 2008a) were associated primarily with projected emission increases from the operation of 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-8

additional compressor engines. Consequently, increases in total compression horsepower were determined to be an 

indicator of growth in oil and gas activity that could potentially degrade air quality and AQRVs.

ARMP provisions included in the BLM’s 2008 Record of Decision for the Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil 

and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management 

Plans are summarized below.

Emission Mitigation

o Fugitive dust controls are required to reduce particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) emissions from unpaved roads.

o The number of wells connected to each compressor must be maximized and natural-gas-fired or 

electrical compressors or generators are required.

o Operators within 5 miles of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and the Crow Indian 

Reservation may be required to restrict the timing or location of CBNG development if monitoring 

or modeling by the MDEQ finds that their CBNG development is causing or threatening to cause 

noncompliance with applicable local, state, tribal, and federal air quality laws, regulations, and 

standards, as well as state implementation plans developed by the MDEQ.

Activity and Emission Monitoring

o Compression horsepower associated with CBNG is required to be reviewed.

o Annual emission inventory reports for CBNG operations are required to be submitted by 

operators.

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring

o The BLM will develop monitoring plans to track regional cumulative impacts to air quality and 

establish programmatic mitigation at predetermined action levels.

o Ambient concentration data from the Birney and Broadus sites will be used to meet ambient 

monitoring requirements included in Table MON-1 in the Monitoring Appendix of the BLM’s 

2008 Record of Decision for the Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas

Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans.

Air Quality Impact Review

o Oil and gas operators are required to provide information necessary for the BLM to conduct an 

analysis of air quality impacts when submitting exploration applications for permits to drill 

(APDs) or field development project plans for CBNG development. The BLM uses the 

information to determine the individual and cumulative impacts on Tribal air quality, disclose the 

analysis results in the appropriate NEPA document, and consult with the Tribe when the analysis 

shows impacts from a specific drilling or development proposal. 

o An interagency working group was formed consisting of the BLM, USEPA, NPS, and USFS and 

other federal, state agencies, and tribal authorities to address CBNG development in the Montana 

portion of the PRB and its impacts to air quality. In addition to other resource responsibilities, the 

interagency working group is responsible for developing and recommending the monitoring and 

mitigation measures needed for each agency to ensure its actions achieve compliance with 

applicable air quality standards across jurisdictional boundaries.

Air Quality and Visibility Modeling

o The MDEQ agreed to complete an annual cumulative air quality impact model to track air quality 

impacts of CBNG development, including relevant CBNG development in Wyoming.

o The BLM and the MDEQ will perform additional visibility modeling to assess visibility impacts 

when horsepower requirements for new CBNG wells in the Montana portion of the

PRB exceed 133,956 horsepower.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-9

The above requirements are being integrated into this ARMP. Some provisions are being updated to reflect the 

current state of knowledge while other provisions are being expanded to provide for a more comprehensive adaptive 

management strategy. Modeling provisions within the ARMP included in the BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the 

Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans are being revised to reflect an improved modeling approach (described in Section 0) 

that would provide a more comprehensive assessment of visibility and criteria pollutants, including ozone. CBNG 

development in the Montana portion of the PRB did not materialize as predicted at the time of the BLM’s 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder 

River and Billings Resource Management Plans. According to the MDEQ, CBNG compression within the PRB has 

decreased by 1,676 horsepower since January 1, 2010 (MDEQ 2011). Because of the lack of CBNG development 

and the lack of new compression equipment to model, the MDEQ determined that additional ambient air quality 

monitoring would be the best air quality indicator. With funding provided by the BLM, two new monitoring stations 

were installed in the PRB near Birney (Rosebud County) and Broadus (Powder River County) in 2009.

The remainder of this ARMP describes each of the provisions being carried forward from the ARMP included in the

BLM’s 2008 Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans.

2.0 OIL AND GAS ACTIVITY ASSESSMENT

Each year, the BLM would track the number and locations of new oil and gas wells drilled on federal mineral estate 

and the number of new and abandoned producing wells on federal mineral estate. These numbers would be 

compared to the planning area reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) and to the level of oil and gas 

development identified in the preferred alternative.

In addition, the BLM would estimate oil and gas emissions from federal mineral estate every 3 years for oil and gas 

wells drilled and producing after the record of decision (ROD) is signed. Emission estimates will be based on well 

types, well numbers, and knowledge of typical equipment and operations. Methods used to estimate emissions are 

expected to improve over time as better data become available. The emission estimates will also account for 

implemented mitigation measures and for new emission control regulations as they become effective. Each 3-year 

oil and gas emission inventory would be compared to emission estimates for the RFD and the preferred alternative. 

The BLM would collect additional data related to oil and gas equipment and operations to improve emission 

inventory quality. One area identified for improvement involves acquiring better data on oil and gas equipment used 

in the planning area. In order to improve fugitive dust emission estimates, the number, type, and length of vehicle 

trips in high-activity areas would be assessed.

Each 3-year oil and gas emission inventory would be compared to emission estimates for the preferred alternative.

For the portion of the PRB located in the MCFO, increases in compressor horsepower will be tracked annually using 

data provided by the MDEQ. 

3.0 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUPPORT

The Air Resources Management Bureau of the MDEQ has primary responsibility for siting and operating ambient 

air quality monitors within Montana and for reporting monitoring data to the USEPA and to the public. As described 

in its annual State of Montana Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (MDEQ 2012), the MDEQ identifies 

monitoring objectives for assessing ambient concentrations of criteria air pollutants and assessing compliance with

the NAAQS and MAAQS. Historically, most MDEQ monitors were placed in cities to assess human health impacts 

in the more densely populated areas of Montana.

The BLM is working collaboratively with the MDEQ to place ambient air quality monitors in less densely populated 

areas in which oil and gas activities are occurring or may occur in the future. The purpose of these monitors is: 

 to assess compliance with ambient air quality standards, and 

 to provide background ambient air quality concentrations for use in modeling efforts. 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-10

Using cooperative agreements, the BLM has provided funding to help purchase, install, and operate monitoring 

equipment at the locations shown in Table ARMP-2. 

Each of the monitors described above measures ambient concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen 

oxides, ozone, particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5), as well as meteorological parameters 

such as temperature, wind speed, and wind direction. In addition, the Sidney monitoring station began monitoring 

sulfur dioxide during 2011. 

TABLE ARMP-2.

MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE MONITORING STATIONS

Station 

Name Monitored Pollutants Year Installed

Station 

Number County Latitude Longitude

Birney NO, NO2, NOx, 

O3, PM10, PM2.5

2010 30-87-0001 Rosebud 45.366 -106.490

Broadus NO, NO2, NOx, 

O3, PM10, PM2.5

2010 30-75-0001 Powder 

River 45.440 -105.370

Sidney NO, NO2, NOx, 

O3, PM10, PM2.5, SO2

1 2008 30-83-001 Richland 47.803 -104.486

1

SO2 monitoring began in June 2011.

In its 2012 State of Montana Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, the MDEQ proposed to change the status of 

particulate matter (PM10) monitors at the Birney, Broadus, and Sidney monitoring sites (MDEQ 2012). Particulate 

matter (PM10) monitors at the Birney and Broadus sites are currently designated as State or Local Air Monitoring 

Station (SLAMS) monitors, which are used to determine compliance with the NAAQS and MAAQS. However, the 

MDEQ has proposed to the USEPA that the Birney and Broadus particulate matter (PM10) monitors be redesignated 

to non-regulatory special purpose monitors because the monitors are located within 60 meters of unpaved gravel 

roads used for ranching access. High episodic particulate matter (PM10) levels have been measured at the Birney and 

Broadus sites. The MDEQ characterizes the high episodic monitored concentrations as “... not indicative or 

representative of general PM10 concentrations in the desired monitored area” (MDEQ 2012, p. 14).

Existing monitors at the Sidney monitoring station are currently designated as “industrial-non-regulatory” monitors. 

In response to a request from the USEPA, the MDEQ intends to redesignate each of the Sidney monitors to SLAMS 

monitors, except for the particulate matter (PM10) monitor. Because of concerns regarding episodic particulate 

matter (PM10) concentrations associated with travel on unpaved gravel roads, the MDEQ does not plan to change the 

status of the Sidney particulate matter (PM10) monitor (MDEQ 2012).

Although the particulate matter (PM10) monitors proposed for redesignation indicate high particulate matter (PM10)

concentrations, data through 2011 indicate that particulate matter (PM10) concentrations are well below the NAAQS 

and MAAQS at the Birney and Sidney monitors (Table ARMP-1). In contrast, 24-hour particulate matter (PM10)

concentrations at the Broadus monitor (based on only 1 year of data) are approaching the NAAQS.

4.0 AIR QUALITY AND AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUE ASSESSMENT

The BLM would assess air quality and AQRVs on an annual basis using quality-assured data from the USEPA, 

MDEQ, USFS, USFWS, NPS, and other sources. In addition, preliminary assessments of ozone concentrations 

would be performed on a weekly basis using data provided by the MDEQ. 

4.1 ANNUAL NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND MONTANA AMBIENT AIR 

QUALITY STANDARDS ASSESSMENT

Based on the monitors listed in Section 3.0, the BLM would assess air quality monitoring data annually and share 

the results of the assessment with the MDEQ and AQTW. The purposes of the annual assessment are to compare 

monitored data to NAAQS and MAAQS and to identify seasonal and long-term trends in air pollutant 

concentrations. The BLM would complete the annual assessment will be performed by May 31 of each year in order 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-11

to ensure that quality-assured data are available for review. Monitoring data associated with exceptional events, 

typically due to wildfires, would be excluded from the assessment.

NAAQS and MAAQS are provided in Table ARMP-3 for pollutants monitored within the planning area. Montana 

standards are shown only if they are more stringent than the NAAQS. As of November 1, 2012, lead and carbon 

monoxide are criteria pollutants that are not monitored within the planning area. With regard to pollutants regulated 

exclusively under the MAAQS, hydrogen sulfide and settleable particulate matter (PM) are not monitored within the 

planning area. Hydrogen sulfide is not monitored because ambient concentrations are believed to be very low due to 

low sulfur levels in gas produced in the area. Settleable PM is not monitored in the area because the MDEQ 

prioritizes monitoring of pollutants subject to NAAQS and settleable PM is a state ambient air quality standard.

The BLM would use design values to compare ambient monitoring data to the NAAQS. Design values reflect the 

form of the NAAQS and MAAQS; they define the statistical metric used to compare monitoring data to federal and 

state standards. Depending on the pollutant and averaging time being assessed, a NAAQS is typically stated in terms 

of the maximum or second maximum concentration, average concentration, or a percentile of the standard. The form

of a standard also states whether the design value is determined based on 1 or more years of monitoring data.

USEPA-calculated design values serve a critically important regulatory purpose of determining whether areas are 

designated attainment or nonattainment. As such, the USEPA’s design value determinations may take more than a 

year to finalize.

In order to review air quality trends more quickly, the BLM would calculate “mitigation design values” by May 31 

of each year for the previous calendar year or years. The mitigation design value would be a metric calculated by the 

BLM that uses procedures similar to the USEPA’s regulatory design value calculation methodology, with the 

advantage that the BLM-calculated values can be determined more quickly. The timing allows the MDEQ adequate 

time to quality assure monitoring data. However, the MDEQ may not yet have USEPA concurrence on data that has 

been flagged by the MDEQ resulting from exceptional events, such as wildfires. Consequently, the BLM-calculated 

mitigation design values would exclude monitoring data associated with MDEQ-identified exceptional events. Each 

BLM annual assessment would look back the requisite number of years for each pollutant and include data from the 

time period prior to ROD issuance for the first several annual BLM assessments. Additional information concerning 

design value calculations is provided in Section 6.2.3

Results of the annual NAAQS assessment would be used to determine if additional mitigation measures were

needed to reduce air quality impacts from oil and gas operations, as discussed in Section 0.

4.2 PRELIMINARY OZONE ASSESSMENT

The BLM would perform weekly preliminary ozone concentration reviews to determine if high ozone events occur 

at the monitors listed in Section 3.0. If a high-ozone event occurred, the BLM would document meteorological and 

other conditions that may have contributed to the event. Because high-ozone events in other rural parts of the nation 

are not well understood and contributing factors can be site-specific, the BLM would gather data to develop baseline 

information relevant to any high-ozone events that may occur within the planning area. Relevant baseline 

information includes capturing meteorological data for each event, determining the amount of snow on the ground 

(if applicable), and identifying any other data that may help describe circumstances associated with the event. For 

the purposes of this effort, a high-ozone event would be defined as a day for which the maximum 8-hour average 

ozone concentration is at or above 0.065 ppm.

In order to quickly ascertain relevant circumstances, the preliminary ozone assessments would use non-qualityassured data provided by the MDEQ. As part of the annual NAAQS assessment, quality-assured ozone data would

be reviewed to determine if the preliminary ozone monitoring data were valid or if monitored high ozone 

concentrations were due to monitor malfunctions or exceptional natural events.

If high-ozone events occur within the planning area, a summary of events and a discussion of relevant 

meteorological data and circumstances would be developed as part of the annual NAAQS assessment. These 

summaries and the underlying data will create baseline information describing ozone behavior in the planning area. 

The data may provide important information that can be used to identify mitigation measures that could prevent 

future events.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-12

TABLE ARMP-3.

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS FOR

POLLUTANTS MONITORED IN THE PLANNING AREA

Pollutant Averaging 

Period

Federal NAAQS1 MAAQS2

Concentration Standard 

Type

Form of NAAQS 

Primary Standard Concentration

NO2

1-hour 100 ppb Primary 3-year average of the 98th

percentile concentrations 0.30 ppm

Annual 53 ppb Primary, 

Secondary Annual mean 0.05 ppm8

Ozone

1-hour 0.10 ppm --- --- 0.12 ppm9

8-hour 0.075 ppm Primary, 

Secondary

3-year average of the 

fourth daily maximum 8-

hour average

---

PM2.5

24-hour 35 μg/m3 Primary, 

Secondary4

3-year average of the 

maximum ---

Annual 15.0 μg/m3 Primary, 

Secondary Annual mean ---

PM10

24-hour 150 μg/m3 Primary, 

Secondary

Not to be exceeded more 

than one per year on 

average over 3 years

---

Annual Revoked5--- --- 50 μg/m3,7

SO2 1-hour 75 ppb Primary 3-year average of the 99th

percentile concentrations 0.50 ppm

SO2

3-hour 0.5 ppm Secondary Annual 2nd maximum ---

24-hour 0.14 ppm6Primary Annual 2nd maximum 0.10 ppm

Annual 0.0306Primary Annual mean 0.02 ppm8

1NAAQS are codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 50.

2Montana AAQS are codified in Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 2 of the Ambient Air Quality in the Administrative Rules of 

Montana.

3USEPA proposed to revise the annual primary PM2.5 standard to within a range of 12 to 13 μg/m3.

4USEPA proposed a new secondary standard for PM2.5 visibility of 28 or 30 deciviews (equivalent to 24 or 19 kilometers [15 or 12 

miles] standard visual range).

5The annual PM10 NAAQS was revoked October 17, 2006.

6The existing annual and 24-hour SO2 NAAQS will be revoked 1 year after the effective date in areas with a designated attainment 

status for the revised SO2 NAAQS, per 40 CFR §50.4(e).

7Based on annual second maximum.

8Not to be exceeded in the averaging period specified.

9

State violation when exceeded more than once during any 12 consecutive months.

4.3 ASSESSMENT

Federal land managers track the status, condition, and trends of AQRVs for Class I and sensitive Class II areas under 

their jurisdictions. Consequently, the BLM would request visibility, sulfur, and nitrogen deposition, and lake acid 

neutralizing capacity data from the USFS, USFWS, and NPS and would include agency-submitted data in the 

BLM’s annual review of AQRV trends. The annual review would also include AQRV data from any Class I or data 

for sensitive Class II areas BLM jurisdiction.

Based on these reviews, the BLM would maintain an awareness of AQRV trends. However, it should be noted that 

the reviews would not necessarily link AQRV trends to oil and gas development. AQRV impacts are often 

associated with pollutants that can be transported long distances from many different types of sources. For example, 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-13

visibility degradation in eastern Montana primarily results from large stationary sources such as electric generating 

units and cement kilns, as described in the Montana Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan (USEPA 2012b). 

Prior to completion of the final RMP, CALPUFF modeling would be performed to assess visibility impacts from 

potential BLM-authorized oil and gas emission sources in a portion of the planning area. Photochemical grid 

modeling (PGM) would provide information concerning the potential impact of oil and gas activities on AQRVs.

5.0 FUTURE MODELING

The BLM has committed to perform PGM in order to assess regional air quality and AQRV impacts. Because of

insufficient monitoring and regional emissions data available during development of the RMP, PGM would not be 

completed prior to issuance of the RMP and the ROD. In order to complete PGM expeditiously, the BLM has begun 

data acquisition and PGM protocol development. When PGM is completed and the results assessed, the BLM may 

identify additional emission mitigation measures for oil and gas activities.

5.1 PHOTOCHEMICAL GRID MODELING

Comprehensive regional air quality and AQRV regional modeling of emission sources within the MCFO and 

surrounding areas requires PGM. This type of modeling can predict ozone and regional haze impacts (major 

pollutants and precursors can be transported for many hundreds of miles). 

5.1.1 Data Acquisition

PGM requires three main types of concurrent data: 

 meteorological data, 

 ambient monitoring data, and 

 comprehensive emission data. 

The BLM’s analysis determined that the latter two types of data need to be augmented and updated prior to 

performing PGM. 

5.1.1.1 Additional Monitoring

Ambient monitoring data throughout the PGM domain (which would extend throughout most of Montana and into 

adjacent states) are needed in order to validate model performance, which is assessed by modeling a previous year 

and comparing the model’s predicted concentrations to actual monitored concentrations.

In cooperation with the MDEQ, the BLM funded two new monitoring stations in north-central Montana and would 

provide staffing and additional funding to operate the monitors. One monitor is located near Malta in Phillips 

County and the other is located in Lewistown (Fergus County). Both monitors became operational in July 2012 and 

measure ambient concentrations of nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx, an ozone precursor), 

ozone, particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). These data would be particularly helpful in 

assessing the model’s ability to accurately predict concentrations of these pollutants and its ability to accurately 

predict regional haze and visibility impacts west of the planning area.

5.1.1.2 Updating Emission Inventories

Comprehensive emission inventories are also critically important in predicting cumulative air quality and AQRV 

impacts. Current oil and gas regional emission inventories for Montana and the Dakotas are known to lack important 

emission sources, particularly sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which contribute to ozone formation. 

The existing oil and gas inventories for the Williston and Central Montana Basins represent the year 2002 and were 

developed as part of the Western Regional Air Partnership (or WRAP) Phase II inventory. Since then, 2006 Phase 

III emission inventories have been developed for oil and gas basins within Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, and New 

Mexico, but have not yet been completed for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The Phase III inventories 

have more comprehensive emission inventories of VOC sources at oil and gas facilities.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-14

The BLM Montana and Dakotas State Office is providing financial assistance to the Western Regional Air 

Partnership so that Phase III oil and gas emission inventories can be completed in 2013 for the Williston Basin and 

the Central Montana Basin. These inventories would represent calendar year 2011 emissions. In addition to covering 

the planning area, the inventories would include comprehensive recent emission estimates for oil and gas activity in 

North Dakota and South Dakota.

5.1.2 Photochemical Grid Modeling Schedule

In order to use a full 12 months of ambient monitoring data from the new Malta and Lewistown monitors, the 

baseline year for PGM is expected to be 2013 or a 12-month period beginning in late 2012 and ending in 2013. 

PGM planning began in 2012 and development of the PGM modeling protocol is expected to be completed during 

2013, with modeling occurring primarily in 2014 and early 2015. Review and assessment of PGM results would be 

completed by June 2015. Table ARMP-4 provides the planned data acquisition and PGM schedule.

The Weather Research and Forecasting (or WRF) model will likely be used to model meteorological conditions and 

the photochemical grid model to be used will be either the USEPA Models-3/Community Multiscale Air Quality (or 

CMAQ) modeling system or the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (or CAMx). In addition, 

multiple models will be used to develop and process emission inventories for input into the photochemical grid 

model. When modeling is completed, an air resource technical support document will be developed.

Initial PGM would include future year modeling for a year between 2017 and 2020; the specific year would be 

determined by the BLM based on the ability to predict future regional oil and gas emissions in the Williston and 

Central Montana basins. After initial PGM was completed, the BLM would begin an assessment process to 

determine when additional PGM updates are needed. Factors to be considered in determining when additional PGM 

is needed include the adequacy of the adaptive management strategy to maintain good air quality, and the level of 

BLM-authorized oil and gas activity and emissions compared to modeled levels.

5.1.3 Air Quality Technical Workgroup and Interagency Working Group Review and Input to Photochemical 

Grid Modeling

Throughout the PGM data collection and modeling process, the BLM will work collaboratively with the MDEQ and 

the AQTW that was formed to work on this RMP, with the interagency working group, and with a other agencies or 

Tribes that request to be involved in the PGM effort. These collaborators would provide technical review and 

comment on the draft modeling protocol, on WRF and PGM performance evaluations, and on the draft air resource 

technical support document. Substantial time has been included in the schedule shown in Table ARMP-4 to allow 

adequate review and comment periods during the PGM process.

5.1.4 Availability of Photochemical Grid Modeling Results 

Future PGM results would be presented in the final air resource technical support document and in a summary of the 

results. The air resource technical support document and summary document would be posted on the MCFO BLM 

website. In addition, the modeling protocol document will be provided via the website when the photochemical 

modeling air resource technical support document is made available. Outreach information regarding the availability 

of the results would be made through the MDEQ, AQTW, interagency working group, and agencies involved in the 

PGM process, as well as other interested parties.

5.2 LIMITED CALPUFF VISIBILITY MODELING

Through their participation under air quality MOU, the USFWS and the NPS specifically requested that limited 

CALPUFF modeling be prepared between the Draft and the Final RMP. This limited modeling effort would assess 

direct visibility impacts from potential future BLM-authorized oil and gas sources in the northern portion of the 

planning area near the USFWS UL Bend Wilderness and Medicine Lake Wilderness.

For the purposes of this RMP, the CALPUFF modeling would be used as a screening tool to estimate direct oil and 

gas visibility impacts at Class I and potential sensitive Class II areas. In addition, potential plume blight impacts 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-15

would be assessed using the VISCREEN model. The results of these efforts would disclose potential visibility 

impacts to the public. 

TABLE ARMP-4. 

DATA ACQUISITION AND PHOTOCHEMICAL GRID MODELING SCHEDULE

Task/Subtask

Duration 

(calendar 

days)

Start Date End Date

Pre-Modeling Emission Inventory Development

Emission Inventory Contracting 56 7/16/2012 8/27/2012

Western Regional Air Partnership Williston and Central 

Montana Basin Inventory 270 11/1/2012 7/29/2013

Contracting for Weather Research and Forecasting Model and PGM Protocol

Weather Research and Forecasting and PGM Protocol 

request for proposal 56 7/16/2012 9/10/2012

Select PGM Modeling Protocol Contractor 14 9/11/2012 9/25/2012

PGM Protocol

Develop Initial Draft Weather Research and Forecasting 

and PGM Protocol 102 10/1/2012 1/10/2013

AQTW and interagency working group Protocol Review 26 1/11/2013 2/6/2013

Finalize Protocol 54 2/7/2013 4/2/2013

Contracting for Weather Research and Forecasting and PGM Modeling

Weather Research and Forecasting and PGM request for 

proposal 30 4/2/2013 5/2/2013

Select Weather Research and Forecasting and PGM 

Contractor 21 5/3/2013 5/24/2013

Base Year (calendar year 2013) Modeling and Evaluation

Weather Research and Forecasting Modeling 120 10/23/2013 2/20/2014

Draft Weather Research and Forecasting Model 

Evaluation 30 2/20/2014 3/22/2014

AQTW and interagency working group Weather 

Research and Forecasting Evaluation Review 30 3/22/2014 4/21/2014

Emission Modeling (Base and Future Year) and Report 120 10/23/2013 2/20/2014

Photochemical Grid Modeling 150 2/20/2014 7/20/2014

Draft PGM Evaluation 30 7/20/2014 8/19/2014

AQTW and interagency working group PGM Evaluation 

Review 30 8/19/2014 9/18/2014

Finalize Weather Research and Forecasting and PGM 

Evaluations 21 9/18/2014 10/9/2014

Future Year Modeling and Evaluation

PGM 150 10/9/2014 3/8/2015

Analyze Air Quality and AQRV Impacts 21 3/8/2015 3/29/2015

Draft air resource technical support document 21 3/29/2015 4/19/2015

AQTW and interagency working group air resource 

technical support document review 30 4/19/2015 5/19/2015

Finalize air resource technical support document 21 5/19/2015 6/9/2015
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-16

Regional far-field visibility and other AQRV impact analysis for this RMP would be based on results from future 

PGM described above in Section 0. Photochemical grid models are recommended for AQRV analysis of large 

domains in the Appendix to the Memorandum of Understanding among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. 

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

Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas Decisions through the National Environmental Policy Act Process (USDA et al.

2011).

5.3 POST-PHOTOCHEMICAL GRID MODELING

To the extent that future emission increases are within the levels modeled with PGM or other modeling and are 

proximate to modeled emission locations, far-field air quality and AQRV impact analysis may incorporate by 

reference PGM and other modeling results. The BLM and the AQTW would determine whether previous modeling 

is sufficient to satisfy MOU requirements. This air quality management approach is consistent with the

Memorandum of Understanding among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, and 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for Federal Oil and Gas 

Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process (USDA et al. 2011) and allows for efficient air 

quality and AQRV impact analysis.

If additional modeling is performed after PGM is complete, an assessment of air quality and AQRV impacts would

be made and, if necessary, additional mitigation measures may be identified.

6.0 MITIGATION

Air quality and AQRV impact mitigation would involve two types of mitigation: 

 initial mitigation measures that become effective when the ROD is signed, and 

 enhanced mitigation measures that may be identified based on future ambient monitoring data or modeling 

results.

6.1 INITIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS

The air quality mitigation measures described below will be applied upon issuance of the ROD through leasing 

documents and project-specific NEPA documents. To the extent practical, emission reductions associated with these 

mitigation measures have been included in the MCFO emission inventory.

1. Design and construct roads and well pads to reduce the amount of fugitive dust generated by traffic or other 

activities. During construction activities, apply water, apply dust-suppression chemicals, apply gravel, or 

use other control methods to achieve 50-percent fugitive dust control efficiency except when the ground is 

wet or frozen.

2. Use water or other BLM-approved dust suppression during drilling, completion, and well workover

operations for dust abatement on access roads, as needed, to achieve 50-percent fugitive dust control 

efficiency except when ground is wet or frozen.

3. Use water or other BLM-approved dust suppression in high traffic areas during production operations for 

dust abatement, as needed, to achieve 50-percent fugitive dust control efficiency except when ground is wet 

or frozen. Operators would work with local government agencies to improve dust suppression on roads.

4. For oil and gas project plans of development (PODs), oil and gas operators would establish speed limits for 

project-required unpaved roads in and adjacent to the project area; oil and gas operator employees would 

comply with these speed limits.

5. For oil and gas project PODs, oil and gas operators would be encouraged to reduce surface disturbance, 

vehicle traffic, and fugitive dust emissions by consolidating facilities (e.g., using multi-well pads, storage 

vessels) when feasible.

6. Diesel drill rig engines greater than 200 horsepower will meet Tier 4 emission standards for non-road diesel

engines. Alternatively, oil and gas operators may use drill rig engines that exceed Tier 4 emission standards 

if modeling demonstrates compliance with the NAAQS and protection of AQRVs.

7. For hydraulically fractured gas wells that do not qualify as “low pressure wells”, “wildcat,” or 

“delineation” wells, oil and gas operators would comply with reduced emissions completion requirements 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-17

specified in Subpart OOOO, Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production,

Transmission and Distribution (40 CFR Section 60.5375) within 6 months of ROD issuance.

8. Non-road diesel engines would be required to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (15 parts per million weight

[ppmw]) as required by 40 CFR Section 80.610(e)(3)(iii).

9. Natural-gas-fired or electrical compressors or generators would be required at compressor stations in the 

PRB.

10. CBNG operators proposing a POD within 5 miles of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation or the 

Crow Indian Reservation would be required to provide the information necessary for the BLM to conduct 

an analysis of air quality impacts. The BLM will use the information to determine the impact on air quality 

in the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and the Crow Indian Reservation, disclose the analysis results 

and subsequent mitigation in the appropriate NEPA document, and consult with the Tribes when the 

analysis shows that air quality or AQRV impacts are anticipated from a specific development proposal. 

11. CBNG operators within 5 miles of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation and the Crow Indian 

Reservation may be required to restrict the timing or location of CBNG development if monitoring or 

modeling by the MDEQ finds that their CBNG development is causing or threatening to cause 

noncompliance with applicable local, state, Tribal, and federal air quality laws, regulations, and standards, 

as well as state implementation plans developed by the MDEQ.

6.2 MONITORING-BASED MITIGATION

Enhanced mitigation would be evaluated and implemented if ambient monitoring data at monitors located in oil and 

gas activity within the planning area indicates that pollutant concentrations are approaching or threatening the 

NAQQS or MAAQS. Prior to completion of initial PGM, monitoring-based thresholds would be based on 

evaluation of exceedances of the NAAQS, as described in Section 6.2.1. After completion of initial PGM, 

monitoring-based thresholds would be based on BLM-calculated design values, as described in Section 6.2.3.

6.2.1 Monitoring-based Thresholds before Photochemical Grid Modeling Completion

Based on requests from the USEPA during the MOU review process, the BLM would review NAAQS exceedances 

and determine if enhanced mitigation would be warranted during the interim period between ROD issuance and 

PGM completion. Unless the BLM determines that enhanced mitigation is not warranted after completing specified 

steps (as outlined below and in Section 6.2.2), the BLM would require enhanced mitigation for BLM-authorized oil 

and gas activities if there is a monitored exceedance of the NAAQS at the Birney, Broadus, or Sidney monitors.

1. The BLM would notify the USEPA and the MDEQ within 30 days after monitoring data showing an 

exceedance has been posted on the USEPA’s Air Quality System. The notification would state that the 

BLM is reviewing the exceedance according to this procedure.

2. After consulting with the MDEQ, the BLM would determine whether an exceptional event may have 

caused the exceedance1. 

 If the MDEQ informs the BLM that an exceptional event likely caused the exceedance, the BLM 

would provide a letter to that effect to the USEPA and no further action would be necessary.

 If an exceptional event did not cause the exceedance or if the MDEQ would not submit an 

exceptional event waiver to the USEPA, the BLM would perform Step 3. 

3. The BLM would conduct a screening level analysis2to determine the likely source and location of the 

exceedance and whether mitigation is needed.3

 

1 The BLM would not formally decide that an exceptional event occurred, because this decision would be made by MDEQ. Until a final 

determination of an exceptional event is presented to the USEPA by the MDEQ and the USEPA has concurred, the BLM would assume that an 

exceptional event occurred based on a stated intention by the MDEQ to submit an exceptional event waiver.

2

Publicly available web-based applications suggested by the USEPA to identify sources of air pollution and potential impacts include the 

following sites: trajectory analysis tools like HySplit (http://ready.arl.noaa.gov/), air quality data at the USEPA’s air quality system site 

(http://airnow.gov ), state regulatory agency sites and airnowtech.org, an interactive snow site (http://www.nohrsc.nws.gov/interactive/html/map.

html), daily ozone modeling (http://airquality.weather.gov/), daily ozone and PM2.5 modeling site (http://www.getbluesky.org/), and daily 

satellite imagery site (http://ge.ssec.wisc.edu/modis-today/).

3

If data necessary to conduct a screening level analysis is not available, the BLM would consult with the MDEQ and the USEPA regarding 

source attribution and the need for mitigation.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-18

 If the screening analysis indicates that the exceedance was not caused by BLM-authorized oil and 

gas sources within the planning area or indicates that the BLM-authorized oil and gas sources

within the planning area did not contribute to the exceedance, the BLM would convey this finding 

in writing to the MDEQ and USEPA for review and comment. No further action would be 

necessary.

 If the screening analysis indicates that the exceedance was caused or contributed to by BLMauthorized oil and gas sources inside the planning area, the BLM would perform Step 4.

4. The BLM would consult with the MDEQ and USEPA to determine whether there is a need for a refined 

attribution analysis (e.g., attribution test using Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (or 

CAMx) ozone source attribution technology or anthropogenic precursor’s culpability assessment), or 

mitigation on BLM-authorized oil and gas emission sources within the planning area. If the refined 

analysis:

 is warranted, the BLM would perform the refined analysis within 6 months of completing Step 3 

in consultation with MDEQ and USEPA;

 indicates that the exceedance was not caused or contributed to by BLM-authorized oil and gas 

sources inside the planning area, the BLM would provide that recommendation to the MDEQ and 

USEPA for review and comment (no further action would be necessary); or

 indicates that the exceedance was caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources within the 

planning area, the BLM would evaluate enhanced mitigation measures as described in Section 

6.2.2.

6.2.2 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures Before Photochemical Grid Modeling Completion

If a NAAQS exceedance occurs prior to completion of PGM and the refined analysis in Step 4 above determined 

that the exceedance was caused by BLM-authorized oil and gas sources within the planning area, enhanced 

mitigation measures would be evaluated and selected by the BLM, in cooperation with the MDEQ, interagency 

working group, and AQTW, when appropriate. Preference would be given to mitigation methods that the MDEQ 

intends to impose as new regulations or air quality permitting provisions. Selected mitigation measures would be 

implemented within 1 year after the BLM decision to apply additional mitigation.

Potential enhanced mitigation measures include the measures listed below based on current information concerning 

potential emission reduction technologies. Additional measures or equivalent methods or emission restrictions may 

be identified in the future. Potential measures include:

 drilling or blowdown activity restrictions based on meteorological conditions,

 construction activity restrictions based on meteorological conditions,

 centralization of gathering facilities,

 electric drill rigs,

 field electrification for compressors or pumpjack engines,

 plunger lift systems with smart automation,

 oil tank load out vapor recovery,

 VOC controls on tanks with a potential to emit less than 5 tons per year,

 selective catalytic reduction on non-drill rig stationary engines,

 reduced emission completions beyond those required by USEPA regulations if determined to be technically 

and economically feasible,

 well pad density limitations,

 a reduced total number of drill rigs operating simultaneously,

 seasonal reductions or cessations of drilling during specified periods,

 use of only lower-emitting drill and completion rig engines during specified time periods,

 use of natural-gas-fired drill and completion rig engines,

 replacement of internal combustion engines with gas turbines for natural gas compression,

 employment of a monthly, forward-looking infrared leak detection program to reduce VOCs,

 tank load out vapor recovery,
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-19

 enhanced VOC emission controls with 95-percent control efficiency on additional production equipment 

having a potential to emit of greater than 5 tons per year, and

 enhanced direct inspection and maintenance program.

6.2.3 Monitoring-Based Thresholds after Photochemical Grid Modeling Completion

By May 31 of each year following completion of PGM and annually thereafter, the BLM would calculate design 

values for each pollutant monitored at a federal reference monitor within the planning area and identified as a 

representative monitor in Section 3.0. The design value would be calculated based on calendar year monitoring data 

available at the time. For pollutants requiring 3 years of monitoring data for design value calculation, data from the 

appropriate prior period would be used. For example, based on PGM completion in mid-2015, the first annual 

design value calculation would be performed by May 31, 2016, and would include monitoring data for calendar 

years 2013, 2014, and 2015 for 3-year design values and on monitoring data for calendar year 2015 for single-year 

design values. 

Calculation methods would, to the extent possible, follow USEPA procedures provided in the appendices described 

below within Title 40 of the CFR, Part 50 in effect as of December 1, 2012:

 nitrogen dioxide (Appendix S),

 ozone (Appendix P),

 particulate matter (PM10) (Appendix K),

 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (Appendix N), and

 sulfur dioxide (Appendix T).

These procedures may be updated by future USEPA regulations and this section of the ARMP would be revised to 

reflect changing regulations.

Design values would be calculated on a site-specific basis (i.e., no spatial averaging of multiple monitors). BLM

design value calculations would exclude data associated with MDEQ-identified exceptional events and would be 

performed in accordance with USEPA regulations and guidance.

6.2.4 Determination of Enhanced Mitigation Measures after Photochemical Grid Modeling Completion

If the air quality assessment described in Section 6.2.3 indicates that a BLM-calculated design value is greater than 

85 percent of a NAAQS, enhanced mitigation measures addressing that pollutant or pollutant precursor would be 

evaluated and selected by the BLM, in cooperation with the MDEQ, interagency working group, and USEPA, when 

appropriate. Potential enhanced mitigation measures include the measures listed above in Section 6.2.2 as well as 

additional measures that may be identified in the future.

6.3 MODELING-BASED MITIGATION

6.3.1 Modeling-based Thresholds

Future modeling would assess air quality and AQRV impacts from future BLM-authorized oil and gas activity and 

would include regional PGM and project-specific modeling. Modeling-based thresholds for evaluating enhanced 

mitigation would include potential future impacts on NAAQS or MAAQS or impacts above specific levels of 

concern for AQRVs in Class I or sensitive Class II areas (as identified on a case-by-case basis by MDEQ or a 

federal land management or Tribal agency).

6.3.2 Determination of Modeling-based Enhanced Mitigation Measures

If BLM-authorized oil and gas activity is predicted to cause or contribute to impacts above the thresholds described 

above, the BLM would facilitate an interagency process to ensure that a comprehensive strategy is developed to 

manage air quality impacts from future oil and gas development within the region. The local, state, federal, and 

Tribal agencies involved in the regulation of air quality and the authorization of oil and gas development would 

evaluate modeling results from future modeling studies and identify potential air quality concerns and necessary 
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-20

reductions in air emissions. If the modeling predicts significant impacts, these agencies would use their respective 

authorities to implement enhanced emission control strategies, operating limitations, equipment standards, or pacing 

of development as necessary to ensure continued compliance with applicable ambient air quality standards, 

including the enhanced mitigation measures listed in Section 6.2.2; other future mitigation measures identified 

through the BLM’s adaptive management strategy; or reasonable mitigation measures suggested by the MDEQ, 

IWG, or AQTW. If necessary, implementation of mitigation measures would occur within 1 year of obtaining final 

modeling results for mitigation measures that conform to currently implemented land use planning decisions and 

constraints.
AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE APPENDIX

Air Resource Management Plan

ARMP-21

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

2007 Supplemental Air Quality Analysis to the Draft Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management 

Plans. November 2007 (as revised). BLM, Miles City Field Office. MT.

Bureau of Land Management.

2008a Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans. October 2008. BLM, Miles 

City Field Office. MT.

Bureau of Land Management.

2008b Record of Decision for the Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans. 

December 2008. BLM, Miles City Field Office. MT.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ).

2011 Email and spreadsheet from Vickie Walsh (MDEQ) to Susan Bassett (BLM). September 21, 2011.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

2012 State of Montana Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. May 2012. MDEQ, Air Resources Management

Bureau. Helena. Available at: www.deq.mt.gov/AirQuality/AQInfo/PDF/2012_NETWORK_PLAN.pdf.

United States Department of Agriculture, United States Department of the Interior, and United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USDA, USDI, and USEPA).

2011 Memorandum of Understanding Among the U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regarding Air Quality Analyses and Mitigation for 

Federal Oil and Gas Decisions Through the National Environmental Policy Act Process. June 23, 2011. 

Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/resources/policies/nepa/air-quality-analyses-mou-2011.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

2012a AirData website. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed July 17, 2012. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency.

2012b Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Montana; State Implementation Plan and 

Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan. Docket No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0851. August 15.

United States Environmental Protection Agency.

2013 AirData website. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed January 9, 2013. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/airdata/.

<End of ARMP>
This page intentionally left blank.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-1

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation in the 

planning area. Information includes:

 mitigation guidelines and objectives; and

 guidelines for specific activities, including coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development, wind energy

activities, and sage-grouse management.

MITIGATION GUIDELINES

Miles City Field Office (MCFO) Mitigation Guidelines are a compilation of practices employed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) to mitigate impacts from various activities (e.g., operations stipulations, 

conditions of approval [COAs]). They apply to activities such as road or pipeline construction, range 

improvements, and permitted recreation activities. The guidelines are designed to protect resources such as soil, 

water, air, vegetation, wildlife habitat, and cultural or historic properties. The guidelines are examples of 

mitigation measures, not land use decisions, that would be applied to minimize impacts to such resources. The 

guidelines apply to many resources and are derived from many laws. This appendix is not comprehensive and is 

intended to be used as a guide for appropriate project planning, design, and implementation within the MCFO. 

Because mitigation measures change or are modified based on new information and technology, the guidelines 

are updated periodically for the MCFO. 

The purpose of the MCFO Mitigation Guidelines is to reserve, for the BLM, the right to modify the operations 

of all activities as part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection, and to inform a potential 

lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that would be met when using BLM-administered public 

lands. 

Application of the Mitigation Guidelines to activities concerning BLM-administered public lands and resources 

also provides uniformity in mitigation. These guidelines are primarily intended for the purpose of consistency in 

determining avoidance or mitigation for environmental impacts and resource and land use conflicts. However, 

consistency in this sense does not mean that identical requirements would be applied for all similar types of land 

use activities that may cause similar types of impacts. It also does not mean that the requirements or guidelines 

for a single land use activity would be identical in all areas. Individual measures may not be appropriate for 

every situation and would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Mitigation employs measures that have been developed to reduce environmental impacts associated with certain 

types of activities. BMPs are mitigation measures designed to reduce undesirable impacts to the environment. 

Incorporation of mitigation can typically result in a more efficient environmental review process, increased 

operating efficiency, reduced reclamation, and fewer environmental impacts (BLM and USFS 2007b). 

MITIGATION OBJECTIVES

1. Avoidance or relocation would be the preferred strategy for reducing potential adverse effects.

2. As much mitigation as possible would be employed during planning. 

3. Surface-disturbing effects of operations would be minimized and the reclamation potential of the site 

would be maintained through design, construction, and other practices or techniques.

a. The total disturbance area would be kept to a minimum and located in an area that would 

reduce environmental impacts as much as possible. Surface disturbances would be co-located 

where feasible; and sites would be located using existing roads and previously disturbed sites 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-2

unless it would cause or aggravate an erosion problem. All linear facilities would be located 

in the same trenches (or immediately parallel to) and placed during the same period.

b. Plans of development would be required for renewable energy and minerals development

(e.g., oil, gas, and coal). Such plans would include the use of centralized collection facilities.

c. Vegetation would be removed only when necessary. Mowing of vegetation would be 

preferred. If vegetation were mowed, work would be performed when vegetation is dormant,

when possible.

d. Two-track (primitive) roads would be used whenever possible.

e. Access roads would be no wider than 18 feet and would be located in an area suitable for 

year-round use. The Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas 

Exploration and Development (i.e., The Gold Book) has further guidance for the design of 

roads, utilities, and oil and gas operations BMPs (BLM and USFS 2007b).

f. Directional drilling, drilling multiple wells from the same pad, co-mingling, recompletion, or 

the use of existing well pads would be employed to minimize surface impacts from oil and 

gas development.

g. Utilities would be ripped or wheel-trenched whenever practical.

h. Well pad designs with cut or fill material in excess of 10 vertical feet would be avoided.

i. Remote telemetry would be used to reduce vehicle traffic (e.g., monitoring oil and gas 

operations). 

j. Designing infrastructure on stable, high-bearing-strength locations with proper drainage 

would avoid destabilizing erosive soils. Developing roads with gentle grades and along 

contours would reduce accelerated erosion from overland flow.

k. Perennial streams would be crossed using bore crossing (directional drill) or other methods as 

technology allows (see Guidelines for Specific Activities below, for additional guidance on 

stream crossing).

l. Interim and final reclamation would begin within 25 days of the disturbance. Interim 

reclamation would be completed to within a few feet of facilities.

m. For surface-disturbances, a mitigation monitoring and reporting strategy would be developed 

and implemented (see the Reclamation Appendix for further guidance). 

4. Impacts to soil and water resources would be reduced. Sources of groundwater and surface water 

contamination would be eliminated.

a. Operations would avoid sensitive resources including riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains, 

waterbodies, and areas subject to erosion and soil degradation. Vehicle movement in sensitive 

areas would be restricted or confined to the smallest reasonable area.

b. Accelerated erosion, soil loss, and impacts to water quality would be reduced by diverting 

stormwater and trapping sediment during activity. 

c. There would be minimal impacts from well water discharge to soils. Discharge water may be 

impounded, re-injected, or applied as beneficial use if it contains less than 10,000 parts per 

million total dissolved solids. See the Soils Appendix for further information on land 

application of discharge water.

d. Pitless or aboveground closed-loop drilling technology would be used. Recycle drilling mud 

and completion fluids. Fluids, drilling mud, and cuttings would be disposed of in approved 

disposal areas (e.g., landfills).

e. Pits would be lined with an impermeable liner. Pits would not be placed in fill material or 

natural watercourses, and pits may not be cut or trenched. Plastic liners would be required to 

have a minimum 140 pound (lb) per square inch burst strength, 30 lb tear strength, 

permeability less than 10-7 centimeters (cm) per second, and thickness greater than or equal 

to 12 mils (1/1000th of an inch), and be ultraviolet and chemical resistant. Bedding material 

(e.g., sand, clay, felt, or other materials) would be installed if the bedrock had the potential to 

puncture or tear the liner. Pits would be at least 50 percent below ground level and designed 

to contain all material with a minimum of 2 feet of freeboard. 

f. Pipelines would be tested for leaks prior to backfilling the trench. Pipelines would be 

pre-cleaned prior to hydrostatic testing.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-3

g. Diesel fuel and toxic substances used in drilling and hydraulic fluids would be minimized to 

ensure the protection of water resources. Surface casing would be installed to protect 

domestic ground water sources from contamination.

h. No adverse changes in quality of receiving surface or ground waters would occur. See the 

Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines on water quality assessments. Sources of 

contamination would be controlled to protect surface water and groundwater quality. 

Fertilizer would not be applied within 500 feet of wetlands and waterbodies. Vehicle and 

equipment servicing and refueling activities would take place 500 feet from the outer edge of 

riparian areas, wet areas, and drainages (except where present facilities exist).

i. Infrastructure would be placed on stabile, locations with high bearing strength, and include 

appropriate drainage. Roads would follow the contours of the terrain and long, steep road 

grades would be avoided. Road ditches would have flat bottoms and water turnouts to prevent 

ditch erosion. Road and infrastructure maintenance would include control of surface runoff, 

accelerated erosion, sedimentation, rutting, and fugitive dust. Fugitive dust would be 

controlled by biodegradable dust suppressants or water with a low salt content. Fugitive dust 

would be controlled by biodegradable dust suppressants or water with a low salt content.

j. Activity may be restricted during wet or frozen conditions. Mechanized equipment use would 

be avoided if the equipment causes rutting to a depth of 4 inches or greater.

k. Soil compaction would be minimized by using smooth-treaded flotation tires, low-groundpressure tracked equipment, reducing the number of passes, offsetting travel patterns, working 

during dry or frozen soil conditions, or working on snow.

l. Using chains on off-road vehicles during moist soil conditions would avoid pulverizing 

biological soil crusts. 

m. See the Water Quality BMPs for Montana Forests (Logan 2001) for further information on 

maintaining water quality, including BMPS for harvesting timber.

5. Invasive species would be managed as described below (same as appears in the Reclamation 

Appendix).

a. The project area would be inventoried for invasive species on and adjacent to the site before 

initial activities.

b. An invasive species management plan would be developed if appropriate.

c. Invasive species would be controlled utilizing an integrated pest management approach.

d. Vehicle wash stations would be used prior to entering or leaving disturbance to reduce the 

transport and establishment of invasive species.

e. Invasive species would not be allowed to be transported off site without appropriate disposal 

measures.

6. Impacts to air resources, air quality related values, and atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) 

concentrations would be reduced.

a. Fugitive dust emissions would be reduced by:

 restricting the extent of surface impacts during construction activities and ongoing 

operations by using directional drilling to reduce the number of well pads,

 locating linear facilities in the same or parallel trenches and constructing them at the 

same time,

 mowing rather than removing vegetation,

 using two-track primitive roads whenever possible rather than developing a dirt road,

 applying water or chemical suppressants (e.g., magnesium chloride, calcium 

chloride, lignin, sulfonate, or asphalt) to unpaved roads,

 surfacing roads with chip-seal or asphalt, and

 requiring vehicle speed limits on unpaved roads.

b. Fugitive dust and vehicle exhaust emissions would be reduced by restricting vehicle trips by:
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-4

 consolidating facilities by using directional drilling and multiwall pads,

 developing centralized liquid collection (water, produced water, and fracturing 

liquid) facilities and production (treatment and product storage) facilities to reduce 

the number and average distance of vehicle trips,

 using shuttles or vanpools for employee commuting,

 using automated equipment and remote telemetry, and 

 using solar power to add automated equipment in areas without access to electricity.

c. Non-vehicular engine exhaust emissions would be reduced by:

 electrifying equipment when feasible,

 achieving high levels of emission control on diesel drill rig engines by using Tier 4 

drill rig engines or engines that have been retrofitted with additional emission 

controls such as nonselective catalytic reduction,

 using natural gas driven engines rather than diesel engines,

 using compressor engines that meet New Source Performance Standards for sparkignition and compression-ignition engines (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

[CFR] 60, Subparts IIII and JJJJ) regardless of engine age,

 using alternative energy (solar power, wind power, or both) to power new water 

source developments, and

 converting power sources at existing water well development to alternative energy 

sources.

d. Fugitive volatile organic compound (VOC), hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or methane (a 

GHG) would be reduced by:

 using green completion technology to capture methane (and some VOC and HAP) 

emissions during completion and route them to sales pipelines,

 using flaring rather than venting, but only in cases in which product capture is not 

feasible,

 using closed tanks rather than open tanks or pits,

 installing vapor recovery units on storage tanks,

 using closed-loop drilling,

 replacing pneumatic (natural gas) pumps with electric or solar pumps,

 optimizing glycol circulation rates on glycol dehydrators,

 replacing wet seals with dry seals in centrifugal compressors,

 replacing worn rod packing in reciprocating compressors,

 installing automated plunger lift systems in natural gas wells, and

 monitoring and repairing equipment leaks.

BMP A - GUIDELINES FOR SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES

WATERBODY-CROSSING GUIDELINES

1) Stream crossings would be designed to minimize current and future impacts, including impedance of flow, 

and would not block, dam, or change any natural drainage.

2) Multiple crossings would be avoided.

3) Site reclamation measures would be initiated as soon as a particular area is no longer needed for 

construction.

4) Erodible material would not be placed in stream channels. Soil stockpiles and other materials would be 

located above the high water mark.

5) Crossings would be designed at a right angle to the main channel.

6) The crossing would be designed for aquatic species passage.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-5

7) Timing of construction and adjustment of flow conditions may be required to accommodate aquatic 

species.

8) Linear facilities would follow the guidelines described below.

a. Perennial streams would be crossed using bore crossing (directional drill) or other methods as 

technology allows, which would reduce erosion, sedimentation, and impacts to streambanks 

and riparian areas. 

b. Any waterbody with flowing water at the time of construction (including intermittent and 

ephemeral streams) would require an isolated crossing method such as bore crossing 

(directional drill) or open-cut dry crossing methods (e.g., dam-and-pump or flume methods) to 

reduce erosion and sedimentation. Diversion of stream flow would be required prior to and 

during trenching, backfilling, and compaction for open-cut crossing construction. An 

impermeable diversion and techniques to avoid erosion and sedimentation would be used. 

c. Open-cut non-isolated (wet) crossings would not be allowed if the intermittent or ephemeral 

stream has any surface flow at any time during construction activities, which includes 

trenching, backfilling, compaction, and restabilization. 

CULVERTS 

Refer to The Gold Book [BLM and USFS 2007b] for installation details.

1) Culverts would be installed to prevent erosion, scour, seepage, and failure.

2) Culverts would be installed to conform to the natural streambed and slope. Culverts would be installed 

slightly below normal stream grade.

3) Use drop structures, rock armor, downspouts, and energy dissipaters to reduce erosion as long as they do 

not impede aquatic wildlife passage.

4) Culverts would be installed to ensure fish and aquatic wildlife passage in all fish-bearing streams. Culverts 

would follow guidelines and requirements provided by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP)

Regional Biologist or BLM Fishery Biologist and in coordination and cooperation with the Montana 

Department of Transportation Environmental Services District Biologist. Flat-bottom or bottomless 

culverts would be preferred for fish passage because they reduce velocity and can be bedded with the 

natural substrate so that it functions like a streambed. 

5) Culverts would extend at least 1 foot beyond the toe of slope.

6) Work would be performed at low flow and flow would be diverted to minimize erosion and turbidity.

7) Culverts and fill would be maintained, and inflow would be protected from plugging.

COAL BED NATURAL GAS WATER MANAGEMENT

This guidance is in addition to the normal requirements for permitting pits and impoundments. All 

informational and design requirements normally required by the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation 

(MBOGC) and the BLM (BLM 1993) would also be met. See the MCFO’s Coal Bed Natural Gas APD and 

Project POD Guidance Manual for more information (BLM 2003i).

BACKGROUND

CBNG impoundments used solely to hold or treat produced water or other wastes from oil and gas activities are 

not considered state waters (75-5-103(29)(b), Montana Code Annotated [MCA]). To meet the condition “used 

solely to hold or treat” an impoundment would be located off channel and not intercept a significant amount of 

surface flow. This category includes infiltration or percolation pits and ponds, evaporation ponds, holding or 

storage impoundments, and other earthen pits used exclusively for impounding CBNG wastes as defined in the 

Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 36.22.302(25). Impoundments used exclusively for impounding 

CBNG wastewater are not subject to water quality standards and do not require Montana Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (MPDES) discharge permits. Seepage of wastewater from these impoundments may not 

result in any surface expression (seeps, springs, or discharge via subcrop to alluvium). 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-6

Any impoundment that will result in discharge to state surface waters is subject to MPDES requirements. An 

impoundment constructed in a natural drainage may be subject to water quality standards and MPDES permit 

requirements. If a discharge permit is required, it would be obtained prior to construction or use of the facility. 

Impoundments located in or near a natural drainage require a site-specific analysis to determine the applicable 

regulatory requirements. The owner or operator of the impoundment is responsible for making this 

determination or requesting a determination from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ)

pursuant to 75-5-402(2) MCA and would provide the necessary plans, supporting information, and fee.

For this guidance, “off channel” means the pond is located in an area other than a natural drainage way or 

ephemeral drainage. The definition of ephemeral stream in the surface water quality standards is used to 

determine if the structure is located in a natural drainage, and it states that an ephemeral stream is one that flows 

water in response to precipitation in the immediate watershed or in response to the melting of snow or ice in the 

watershed (ARM 17.30.602(12)). 

State waters are defined in statute and include any body of water, irrigation system, or drainage system, 

including ephemeral drainages on the surface or underground (groundwater). This definition also includes lakes

and ponds, both natural and human made (reservoirs). Any on-channel impoundments used for livestock 

watering or other uses are state waters; subsequently, CBNG wastewater may not be discharged to these 

impoundments without an MPDES permit.

Although discharge to groundwater and discharge of wastewater from CBNG impoundments permitted or 

approved by the MBOGC under Title 82 are not subject to the permit requirements of the Montana Ground 

Water Pollution Control System, these activities are subject to groundwater standards. 

Impoundments associated with oil and gas activities in the State of Montana (excluding Indian Reservations) 

would be permitted by the MBOGC. In permitting unlined CBNG impoundment, MBOGC has required that a 

hydrologic analysis be done to evaluate the potential for the creation of seeps or springs. MBOGC would also 

ensure that groundwater standards were met.

If water from federal wells is to be managed in an impoundment, it would be approved by the BLM. In order for 

these impoundments to be approved under Onshore Order 7 (§III, D.2.a), it would be ensured that “the water to 

be disposed of will not degrade the quality of surface or subsurface waters in the area” (BLM 1993). In order 

for this criterion to be assessed, an investigation will be needed to determine the quality and quantity of the 

groundwater to be protected and the potential for the water to surface either at outcrop or to alluvial subcrop. 

Subsequently, the owner or operator of the impoundment is required to conduct an evaluation of the potential 

for water to surface and to monitor the impoundment to determine if the water is surfacing. The potential to 

cause groundwater standards to be exceeded would be evaluated, and monitoring to document actual impacts 

will be required. In conducting this investigation, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality’s

(WDEQ) Compliance Monitoring and Siting Requirements for Unlined Impoundments Receiving Coalbed 

Methane Produced Water (2008) or the most recent version of this document should be used as guidance. If a 

similar document is developed for Montana, it should be used for guidance instead of the Wyoming document.

REQUIRED APPROVALS

If these guidelines are followed, the following approval scenarios apply:

 when 100 percent of the water will be from federal CBNG wells, only BLM approval is needed;

 when the water entering the impoundment will be a mix of water from federal and nonfederal (fee and 

state) wells, approval is needed from the BLM and MBOGC;

 when all of the water entering the impoundment will be from nonfederal wells but the impoundment is 

located on federal surface, approval is needed from the BLM and MBOGC; and

 when all of the water entering the impoundment will be from nonfederal sources and the impoundment 

is not located on federal surface, only MBOGC approval is needed.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-7

If an impoundment is proposed that will not meet these guidelines, the following additional scenarios are likely 

to apply:

 MPDES permit from MDEQ is needed if the impoundment will be used for uses other than 

impounding waste (i.e., stock water); and

 if site analysis determines that there is the potential for the creation of seeps, an MPDES permit from 

MDEQ is needed.

These guidelines are intended to assist the efficient permitting of properly sited impoundments; however, the 

operator is solely responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable laws. All applicable permits and 

approvals would be in place prior to initiating construction of an impoundment.

MONITORING SETUP

In order to evaluate the potential for the creation seeps or springs, at least three boreholes should be installed 

around each proposed impoundment site; each boring should be located approximately 50 feet from the toe of 

the bank and be placed approximately equally spaced around the impoundment. The first should be located 

topographically down gradient from the proposed impoundment and be installed to the water-bearing zone, or 

150 feet below the proposed base of the impoundment, whichever comes first (the depth limit is 200 feet for 

impoundments greater than 50 acre-feet). 

If groundwater is encountered its specific conductance (SC) should be measured as described below. 

 If drilling was done without fluid (e.g., water or mud), a sample can be collected from the borehole. 

The SC should be measured within 15 minutes of sample collection. 

 If fluid was used in drilling, the boring should be completed as a monitoring well. A water sample 

should be collected once the well is properly developed and purged and the SC measured within 15 

minutes of sample collection.

o The SC of the groundwater should be used to define the class of groundwater:

 I: less than 1,000 microSiemens per cm (μS/cm); 

 II: 1,000 to 2,500 μS/cm; 

 II: 2,500 to 15,000 μS/cm; and 

 IV: greater than 15,000 μS/cm (see ARM 17.30.1006). 

 Because CBNG water, after passing through the subsurface, is not anticipated to be of sufficient 

quality to meet the standards for Class I or II groundwater (see ARM 17.30.1006) and because these 

are considered high quality waters, if Class I or II groundwater is encountered, the site should not be 

used unless an authorization to degrade is obtained from MDEQ (see ARM 17.30.706 and MCA 75-5-

303). If the site is not going to be used, the initial boring or well can be plugged and no further 

monitoring will be needed. 

 If a Class III groundwater is encountered, all three borings should be completed as monitoring wells 

are completed in that same aquifer. This will allow for determination of the groundwater gradient and

identification of an appropriate downgradient monitoring well. The designation of the downgradient 

monitoring well should be completed using water level elevations obtained at least 1 week after the 

wells have been installed and developed.

 If a Class IV groundwater is encountered, or no groundwater is encountered, no additional wells will 

be required; however, the other two borings will still need to be installed as described below. In this 

case, the initial boring or well can be plugged and no further bedrock groundwater monitoring will be 

needed.

If the first boring is installed and an aquifer not found, or a Class IV aquifer is encountered, the other two 

borings should still be installed in the same geographic locations as described above and their depth determined 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-8

by the altitude of the lowest land surface found within 500 feet of the impoundment. Information from these 

borings will be used to evaluate the potential for the creation of seeps. 

Detailed stratigraphy would be recorded during the drilling of each boring or well. This information should be 

presented on a boring or well log similar to Attachment 4 of the WDEQ’s Compliance Monitoring and Siting 

Requirements for Unlined Impoundments Receiving Coalbed Methane Produced Water (2008). If groundwater 

is encountered, the SC of the water should be recorded as well. The final status of the boring should be 

indicated clearly (e.g., plugged boring, monitoring well, plugged monitoring well). Particular attention should 

be paid to permeable zones such as coal, clinker, carbonaceous shale, or sand. These logs should be submitted 

to the appropriate permitting agency whether or not the site is selected for an impoundment (i.e., even if Class I 

or II aquifers are encountered). These logs will be forwarded to Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

(MBMG) and made available on the MBMG’s Groundwater Information Center database (available at website

http://mbmggwic.mtech.edu/).

An alluvial monitoring well should be installed topographically downgradient from each proposed 

impoundment located within 500 feet of 24K blue lines on USGS 1:24,000 topographic maps or mapped 

alluvium on MBMG 1:100,000 Geologic Maps. If the alluvium is dry where the borings are installed, they 

should still be completed as monitoring wells screened at the base of the alluvium to detect the introduction of 

water into the alluvium.

An inventory of all springs and seeps within 500 feet of the proposed impoundments (buffer from the toe of the 

bank) will also need to be conducted so that creation of seeps due to the impoundment can be identified. 

ANALYSIS AND MODELING

Based upon the stratigraphy encountered during the installation of the borings, a hydrologic analysis will be 

needed that evaluates the potential for the creation of seeps. This analysis would be submitted to the permitting 

agency along with impoundment plans. Proposed impoundments cannot be approved until this analysis is 

complete. 

MONITORING FREQUENCY AND PARAMETERS

Baseline monitoring data should be collected at least 1 week after the monitoring wells have been installed and 

developed and prior to discharge into the impoundment. 

Quarterly monitoring should occur for each downgradient monitoring well, each alluvial well, and pre-existing 

springs or seeps within 500 feet of the impoundment. If water chemistry is shown to substantially change and 

then begin returning to baseline, monitoring may be modified annually with approval from the permitting 

agency. This would indicate that the flushing of salts along the flow path has run its course. Groundwater levels 

should be recorded prior to sampling wells. Spring flow should be measured when samples are collected. The 

required analytes are (samples should be prepared and analyzed for dissolved constituents):

 specific conductance, 

 total dissolved solids,

 pH,

 calcium (Ca),

 magnesium (Mg),

 sodium (Na),

 sodium adsorption ratio (SAR),

 sulfate (SO4),

 bicarbonate (HCO3),

 chloride (Cl),

 iron (Fe),

 aluminum (Al),

 arsenic (As),

 boron (B),

 copper (Cu),

 manganese (Mn),

 selenium (Se), and

 nitrate (NO3), as N.

Monitoring for the creation of seeps within 500 feet of the impoundment should occur quarterly for the first 

year and annually thereafter. It should occur when surface conditions are dry. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-9

DECISION MAKING BASED ON MONITORING

Bedrock Wells

Water quality trigger points would be identified where monitoring frequency will increase to monthly and 

where discharge into the impoundment will cease. These should be determined based on the quality of water in 

the aquifer and Class of Use criteria. The frequency should increase to monthly when 50 percent of the 

assimilative capacity is used, and the impoundment should no longer be used once 75 percent of the assimilative 

capacity is used. For example, if the existing aquifer is Class III with an SC of 2,500 μS/cm and the Class IV 

limit is 15,000 μS/cm, the assimilative capacity is 12, 500 μS/cm; accordingly, if the SC increases to 8,750 

μS/cm, monitoring frequency should increase to monthly and if SC increases to 11,875 μS/cm, discharge should 

cease. The owner or operator of the impoundment is responsible for ensuring that the groundwater standards 

continue to be met.

Springs and Seeps

If seeps are created, or changes in spring flow or water quality are observed (i.e., the impoundment water is 

surfacing), this constitutes a surface discharge. As such, discharge to the impoundment would need to cease 

until corrective measures are taken to eliminate the seeps. The permitting agency will review the corrective 

action plan in consultation with the MDEQ, and discharge into the impoundment may not resume until the 

permitting agency approves the corrective action plan and it is fully implemented.

Alluvial Wells

These wells will be used similar to the monitoring for springs and seeps. Changes in water level or chemistry 

(increases or decreases) of the alluvium may indicate that the infiltrated water is not recharging deep 

groundwater, but is instead “surfacing” into the subcrop. As such, discharge to the impoundment would need to 

cease until corrective measures are taken to eliminate discharge to the alluvium. The permitting agency will 

review the corrective action plan in consultation with the MDEQ, and discharge into the impoundment may not 

resume until the permitting agency approves the corrective action plan and implements it fully.

ADDITIONAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Trapping would not be allowed on BLM-administered lands where there is concentrated public use (e.g., special 

recreation management areas).

All boats and other aquatic recreation vehicles would be power-washed to remove weed seeds, plant parts, and 

invasive species before entering and leaving waterbodies, including those on BLM-administered lands.

Electrification of drill rigs, well pads, and compressor stations would be encouraged to reduce emissions, 

particularly emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds, and GHGs.

Methane GHG emissions from well completions, recompletions, and workovers would be captured and routed 

to gas sales lines when feasible.

Unpaved roads would be watered during the dry season to reduce dust emissions from vehicle traffic.

Design range improvements to ensure a low level of contrast with characteristic landscapes.

Design range improvements to prevent adverse impacts to recreation experiences and trail conservation, 

including water sources, fencing, stock driveways, and salting areas.

Place range improvements outside the National Trail Management Corridor.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-10

WIND ENERGY

<The following BMPs are from Attachment 1 of BLM WO IM No. 2009-043, December 19, 2008).>

The following BMPs will be adopted as required elements of project-specific PODs and/or as ROW 

authorization stipulations. They are categorized by development activity: site monitoring and testing, 

development of the POD, construction, operation, and decommissioning. The BMPs for development of the 

POD identify required elements of the POD needed to address potential impacts associated with subsequent 

phases of development.

1. Site Monitoring and Testing 

 The area disturbed by installation of meteorological towers (i.e., footprint) shall be kept to a minimum. 

 Existing roads shall be used to the maximum extent feasible. If new roads are necessary, they shall be 

designed and constructed to the appropriate BLM road design standards. 

 Meteorological towers shall be located to avoid sensitive habitats or areas where ecological resources 

known to be sensitive to human activities (e.g., prairie grouse) are present. Installation of towers shall 

be scheduled to avoid disruption of wildlife reproductive activities or other important behaviors, and 

shall be consistent with sage grouse management strategies. 

 Guy wires on permanent meteorological towers shall be avoided, however, may be necessary on 

temporary meteorological towers installed during site monitoring and testing. If guy wires are 

necessary, the meteorological towers shall be periodically inspected to determine whether permanent 

markers (bird flight diverters) attached to the guy wires are necessary to increase visibility. 

 Meteorological towers installed for site monitoring and testing shall be inspected periodically (at least 

every 6 months) for structural integrity. 

 A study design strategy shall be required for any environmental studies initiated or baseline data 

collected during the site testing and monitoring period. The operator shall submit the study design 

strategy to the BLM authorized officer for review. 

2. Plan of Development Preparation 

General 

 The BLM and operators shall contact appropriate agencies, property owners, and other stakeholders 

early in the planning process to identify potentially sensitive land uses and issues, rules that govern 

wind energy development locally, and land use concerns specific to the region. 

 Available information describing the environmental and sociocultural conditions in the vicinity of the 

proposed project shall be collected and reviewed as needed to predict potential impacts of the project. 

 The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-required notice of proposed construction shall be made as 

early as possible to identify any required air safety measures. 

 To plan for efficient use of the land, necessary infrastructure requirements shall be consolidated 

wherever possible, and current transmission and market access shall be evaluated carefully. 

 The project shall be planned to utilize existing roads and utility corridors to the maximum extent 

feasible and to minimize the number and length /size of new roads, lay-down areas, and borrow areas. 

 A monitoring program shall be developed to ensure that environmental conditions are monitored 

during the construction, operation, and decommissioning phases. The monitoring program 

requirements, including adaptive management strategies, shall be established at the project level to 

ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are mitigated. The monitoring 

program shall identify the monitoring requirements for each environmental resource present at the site, 

establish metrics against which monitoring observations can be measured, identify potential mitigation 

measures, and establish protocols for incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation 

measures into standard operating procedures and BMPs. 

 “Good housekeeping” procedures shall be developed to ensure that during operation the site will be 

kept clean of debris, garbage, fugitive trash or waste, and graffiti; to prohibit scrap heaps and dumps; 

and to minimize storage yards. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-11

Wildlife and Other Ecological Resources 

 Operators shall review existing information on species and habitats in the vicinity of the project area to 

identify potential concerns. 

 Operators shall conduct surveys for Federal and/or State-protected species and other species of concern 

(including priority wildlife and special status plant and animal species) within the project area and 

design the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these resources. 

 Operators shall identify important, sensitive, or unique habitats in the vicinity of the project and design 

the project to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts to these habitats (e.g., locate the turbines, roads, 

and ancillary facilities in the least environmentally sensitive areas (i.e., away from riparian habitats, 

streams, wetlands, drainages, or critical wildlife habitats). 

 The BLM will prohibit the disturbance of any population of federally listed plant species under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

 Operators shall evaluate avian and bat use of the project area and design the project to minimize or 

mitigate the potential for bird and bat strikes (e.g., development shall not occur in riparian habitats and 

wetlands). Avian and bat use surveys consistent with current methodologies and standards shall be 

conducted; the amount and extent of ecological baseline data required shall be determined on a project 

basis. 

 Turbines shall be configured to avoid landscape features known to attract raptors if site studies show 

that placing turbines there would pose a significant risk to raptors. 

 Operators shall determine the presence of bat colonies and avoid placing turbines near known bat 

hibernation, breeding, and maternity/nursery colonies; in known migration corridors; or in known 

flight paths between colonies and feeding areas. 

 Operators shall determine the presence of active raptor nests (i.e., raptor nests used during the breeding 

season) and design the project to provide for spatial buffers and timing restrictions for surface 

disturbing activities. Measures to reduce raptor use at a project site (e.g., minimize road cuts, maintain 

either no vegetation or plant species that are unattractive to raptors around the turbines) shall also be 

identified. 

 A habitat restoration plan shall be developed to avoid, minimize, or mitigate negative impacts on 

vulnerable wildlife while maintaining or enhancing habitat values for other species. The plan shall 

identify reclamation, soil stabilization, and erosion reduction measures that shall be implemented to 

ensure that all temporary use areas are restored. The plan shall require that restoration occur as soon as 

possible after completion of activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to 

speed up the recovery to natural habitats. 

 Procedures shall be developed to mitigate potential impacts to special status species and other priority 

wildlife species. Such measures may include avoidance, relocation of project facilities or lay-down 

areas, and/or relocation of biota. 

 Facilities shall be designed to discourage their use as perching or nesting substrates by birds. For 

example, power lines and poles shall be configured to minimize raptor electrocutions and discourage 

raptor and raven nesting and perching. 

Visual Resources 

 The public shall be involved and informed about the visual site design elements of the proposed wind

energy facilities. Possible approaches include conducting public forums for disseminating information, 

offering organized tours of operating wind developments, and using computer and visualization 

simulations in public presentations. 

 Visual resource management (VRM) considerations shall take place early in the project planning phase 

in accordance with BLM VRM manual and handbooks. Operators shall utilize digital terrain mapping 

tools at a landscape/viewshed scale for site planning and design, visual impact analysis, and visual 

impact mitigation planning and design. Visual mitigation planning and design shall be performed 

through field assessments, applied GPS technology, photo documentation, use of computer-aided 

design and development software, and visual simulations to reflect a full range of visual resource best 

management practices. The digital terrain mapping tools shall be at a resolution and contour interval 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-12

suitable for site design and accurate placement of proposed developments into the digital viewshed. 

Visual simulations shall be prepared and evaluated in accordance with BLM Handbook H-8432-1, or 

other agency requirements, to create spatially accurate depictions of the appearance of proposed 

facilities. Simulations shall depict proposed project facilities from Key Observation Points and other 

visual resource sensitive locations. 

 Turbine arrays and turbine design shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Design elements 

to be addressed include visual uniformity, use of tubular towers, proportion and color of turbines, 

nonreflective paints, and prohibition of commercial messages on turbines. 

 Other site design elements shall be integrated with the surrounding landscape. Elements to address 

include minimizing the profile of the ancillary structures, burial of cables, prohibition of commercial 

symbols, and lighting. Regarding lighting, efforts shall be made to minimize the need for and amount 

of lighting on ancillary structures. 

Roads 

 An access road siting and management plan shall be prepared incorporating existing BLM standards 

regarding road design, construction, and maintenance such as those described in the BLM 9113 

Manual and the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (revised 2007). 

Ground Transportation 

 A transportation plan shall be developed, particularly for the transport of turbine components, main 

assembly cranes, and other large pieces of equipment. The plan shall consider specific object sizes, 

weights, origin, destination, and unique handling requirements and shall evaluate alternative 

transportation approaches. In addition, the process to be used to comply with unique state requirements 

and to obtain all necessary permits shall be clearly identified. 

 A traffic management plan shall be prepared for the site access roads to ensure that no hazards would 

result from increased truck traffic and that traffic flow would not be adversely impacted. This plan 

shall incorporate measures such as informational signs, flaggers when equipment may result in blocked 

throughways, and traffic cones to identify any necessary changes in temporary lane configuration. 

Noise

 Proponents of a wind energy development project shall take measurements to assess the existing 

background noise levels at a given site and compare them to the anticipated noise levels associated 

with the proposed project. 

Noxious Weeds and Pesticides 

 Operators shall develop a plan for control of noxious weeds and invasive species, which could occur as 

a result of new surface disturbance activities at the site. The plan shall address monitoring, education 

of personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods for treating 

infestations. The use of certified weed-free mulch and certified weed-free seed shall be required. If 

trucks and construction equipment are arriving from locations with known invasive vegetation 

problems, a controlled inspection and cleaning area shall be established to visually inspect construction 

equipment arriving at the project area and to remove and collect seeds that may be adhering to tires and 

other equipment surfaces. 

 If pesticides are used on the site, an integrated pest management plan shall be developed to ensure that 

applications will be conducted within the framework of BLM and DOI policies and entail only the use 

of EPA-registered pesticides. Pesticide use shall be limited to nonpersistent, immobile pesticides and 

shall only be applied in accordance with label and application permit directions and stipulations for 

terrestrial and aquatic applications. Any applications of herbicides will be subject to BLM herbicide 

treatment standard operating procedures. Only herbicides on the list of approved herbicide 

formulations (updated annually) will be used on public lands. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-13

Cultural/Historic Resources 

 The BLM will consult with Indian tribal governments early in the planning process to identify issues 

regarding the proposed wind energy development, including issues related to the presence of cultural 

properties, access rights, disruption to traditional cultural practices, and impacts to visual resources 

important to the tribe(s). 

 The presence of archaeological sites and historic properties in the area of potential effect shall be 

determined on the basis of a records search of recorded sites and properties in the area and/or, 

depending on the extent and reliability of existing information, an archaeological survey. 

Archaeological sites and historic properties present in the area of potential effect shall be reviewed to 

determine whether they meet the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP).

 When any right-of-way application includes remnants of a National Historic Trail, is located within the 

viewshed of a National Historic Trail’s designated centerline, or includes or is within the viewshed of a 

trail eligible for listing on the NRHP, the operator shall evaluate the potential visual impacts to the trail 

associated with the proposed project and identify appropriate mitigation measures for inclusion as 

stipulations in the POD. 

 If cultural resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain cultural material 

have been identified, a cultural resources management plan (CRMP) shall be developed. This plan 

shall address mitigation activities to be taken for cultural resources found at the site. Avoidance of the 

area is always the preferred mitigation option. Other mitigation options include archaeological survey 

and excavation, and monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential, but no artifacts were observed 

during an archaeological survey, monitoring by a qualified archaeologist may be required during all 

excavation and earthmoving in the high-potential area. A report shall be prepared documenting these 

activities. The CRMP also shall (1) establish a monitoring program, (2) identify measures to prevent 

potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) address the education of workers and the public 

to make them aware of the consequences of unauthorized collection of artifacts and destruction of 

property on public land. 

Paleontological Resources 

 Operators shall determine whether paleontological resources exist in a project area on the basis of the 

sedimentary context of the area, a records search for past paleontological finds in the area, and/or,

depending on the extent of existing information, a paleontological survey. 

 If paleontological resources are present at the site, or if areas with a high potential to contain 

paleontological material have been identified, a paleontological resources management plan shall be 

developed. This plan shall include a mitigation plan for collection of the fossils; mitigation may 

include avoidance, removal of fossils, or monitoring. If an area exhibits a high potential but no fossils 

were observed during survey, monitoring by a qualified paleontologist may be required during all 

excavation and earthmoving in the sensitive area. A report shall be prepared documenting these 

activities. The paleontological resources management plan also shall (1) establish a monitoring

program, (2) identify measures to prevent potential looting/vandalism or erosion impacts, and (3) 

address the education of workers and the public to make them aware of the consequences of 

unauthorized collection of fossils on public land. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Operators shall develop a hazardous materials management plan addressing storage, use, 

transportation, and disposal of each hazardous material anticipated to be used at the site. The plan shall 

identify all hazardous materials that would be used, stored, or transported at the site. It shall establish 

inspection procedures, storage requirements, storage quantity limits, inventory control, nonhazardous 

product substitutes, and disposition of excess materials. The plan shall also identify requirements for 

notices to Federal and local emergency response authorities and include emergency response plans. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-14

 Operators shall develop a waste management plan identifying the waste streams that are expected to be 

generated at the site and addressing hazardous waste determination procedures, waste storage 

locations, waste-specific management and disposal requirements, inspection procedures, and waste 

minimization procedures. This plan shall address all solid and liquid wastes that may be generated at 

the site. 

 Operators shall develop a spill prevention and response plan identifying where hazardous materials and 

wastes are stored on site, spill prevention measures to be implemented, training requirements, 

appropriate spill response actions for each material or waste, the locations of spill response kits on site, 

a procedure for ensuring that the spill response kits are adequately stocked at all times, and procedures 

for making timely notifications to authorities. 

Storm Water 

 Operators shall develop a storm water management plan for the site to ensure compliance with 

applicable regulations and prevent offsite migration of contaminated storm water or increased soil 

erosion.

Human Health and Safety 

 A safety assessment shall be conducted to describe potential safety issues and the means that would be 

taken to mitigate them, including issues such as site access, construction, safe work practices, security, 

heavy equipment transportation, traffic management, emergency procedures, and fire control. 

 A health and safety program shall be developed to protect both workers and the general public during 

construction, operation, and decommissioning of a wind energy project. Regarding occupational health 

and safety, the program shall identify all applicable Federal and State occupational safety standards; 

establish safe work practices for each task (e.g., requirements for personal protective equipment and 

safety harnesses; Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard practices for safe 

use of explosives and blasting agents; and measures for reducing occupational electric and magnetic 

fields (EMF) exposures); establish fire safety evacuation procedures; and define safety performance 

standards (e.g., electrical system standards and lightning protection standards). The program shall 

include a training program to identify hazard training requirements for workers for each task and 

establish procedures for providing required training to all workers. Documentation of training and a 

mechanism for reporting serious accidents to appropriate agencies shall be established. 

 Regarding public health and safety, the health and safety program shall establish a safety zone or 

setback for wind turbine generators from residences and occupied buildings, roads, rights-of-ways, and 

other public access areas that is sufficient to prevent accidents resulting from the operation of wind 

turbine generators. It shall identify requirements for temporary fencing around staging areas, storage 

yards, and excavations during construction or decommissioning activities. It shall also identify 

measures to be taken during the operation phase to limit public access to hazardous facilities (e.g., 

permanent fencing installed only around electrical substations, and turbine tower access doors locked). 

 Operators shall consult with local planning authorities regarding increased traffic during the 

construction phase, including an assessment of the number of vehicles per day, their size, and type. 

Specific issues of concern (e.g., location of school bus routes and stops) shall be identified and 

addressed in the traffic management plan. 

 If operation of the wind turbines is expected to cause significant adverse impacts to nearby residences 

and occupied buildings from shadow flicker, low-frequency sound, or EMF, site-specific 

recommendations for addressing these concerns shall be incorporated into the project design (e.g., 

establishing a sufficient setback from turbines). 

 The project shall be planned to minimize electromagnetic interference (EMI) (e.g., impacts to radar, 

microwave, television, and radio transmissions) and comply with Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) regulations. Signal strength studies shall be conducted when proposed locations 

have the potential to impact transmissions. Potential interference with public safety communication 

systems (e.g., radio traffic related to emergency activities) shall be avoided. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-15

 The project shall be planned to comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, 

including lighting regulations, and to avoid potential safety issues associated with proximity to 

airports, military bases or training areas, or landing strips. 

 Operators shall develop a fire management strategy to implement measures to minimize the potential 

for a human-caused fire and respond to natural fire situations. 

3. Construction 

General 

 All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific 

management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the 

construction phase, as appropriate. 

 The area disturbed by construction and operation of a wind energy development project (i.e., footprint) 

shall be kept to a minimum. 

 The number and size/length of roads, temporary fences, lay-down areas, and borrow areas shall be 

minimized. 

 Topsoil from all excavations and construction activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during 

reclamation. 

 All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native grasses, forbs, and shrubs. 

Reclamation activities shall be undertaken as early as possible on disturbed areas. 

 All electrical collector lines shall be buried in a manner that minimizes additional surface disturbance 

(e.g., along roads or other paths of surface disturbance). Overhead lines may be used in cases where 

burial of lines would result in further habitat disturbance. 

 Operators shall identify unstable slopes and local factors that can induce slope instability (such as 

groundwater conditions, precipitation, earthquake activities, slope angles, and the dip angles of 

geologic strata). Operators also shall avoid creating excessive slopes during excavation and blasting 

operations. Special construction techniques shall be used where applicable in areas of steep slopes, 

erodible soil, and stream channel crossings. 

 Erosion controls that comply with county, State, and Federal standards shall be applied. Practices such 

as jute netting, silt fences, and check dams shall be applied near disturbed areas. 

Wildlife

 Timing restrictions for construction activities may be implemented to minimize impacts to wildlife. 

 In accordance with the habitat restoration plan, restoration shall be undertaken as soon as possible after 

completion of construction activities to reduce the amount of habitat converted at any one time and to 

speed up the recovery to natural habitats. 

 All construction employees shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife, 

especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, pets shall not be 

permitted on site during construction. 

Visual Resources 

 Operators shall reduce visual impacts during construction by clearly delineating construction 

boundaries and minimizing areas of surface disturbance; preserving vegetation to the greatest extent 

possible; utilizing undulating surface disturbance edges; stripping, salvaging and replacing topsoil; 

contoured grading; controlling erosion; using dust suppression techniques; and restoring exposed soils 

as closely as possible to their original contour and vegetation. 

Roads 

 Existing roads shall be used, but only if in safe and environmentally sound locations. If new roads are 

necessary, they shall be designed and constructed to the appropriate BLM road design standards and be 

no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended functions (e.g., traffic volume and weight of 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-16

vehicles). Excessive grades on roads, road embankments, ditches, and drainages shall be avoided, 

especially in areas with erodible soils. Special construction techniques shall be used, where applicable. 

Abandoned roads and roads that are no longer needed shall be recontoured and revegetated. 

 Access roads and on-site roads shall be surfaced with aggregate materials, wherever appropriate. 

 Access roads shall be located to follow natural contours and minimize side hill cuts. 

 Roads shall be located away from drainage bottoms and avoid wetlands, if practicable. 

 Roads shall be designed so that changes to surface water runoff are avoided and erosion is not initiated.

 Access roads shall be located to minimize stream crossings. All structures crossing streams shall be 

located and constructed so that they do not decrease channel stability or increase water velocity. 

Operators shall obtain all applicable Federal and State permits. 

 Existing drainage systems shall not be altered, especially in sensitive areas such as erodible soils or 

steep slopes. Potential soil erosion shall be controlled at culvert outlets with appropriate structures. 

Catch basins, roadway ditches, and culverts shall be cleaned and maintained regularly. 

Ground Transportation 

 Project personnel and contractors shall be instructed and required to adhere to speed limits 

commensurate with road types, traffic volumes, vehicle types, and site-specific conditions, to ensure 

safe and efficient traffic flow and to reduce wildlife collisions and disturbance and airborne dust. 

 Traffic shall be restricted to the roads developed for the project. Use of other unimproved roads shall 

be restricted to emergency situations. 

 Signs shall be placed along construction roads to identify speed limits, travel restrictions, and other 

standard traffic control information. To minimize impacts on local commuters, consideration shall be 

given to limiting construction vehicles traveling on public roadways during the morning and late 

afternoon commute time. Consideration shall also be given to opportunities for busing of construction 

workers to the job site to reduce traffic volumes. 

Air Emissions 

 Dust abatement techniques shall be used on unpaved, unvegetated surfaces to minimize airborne dust. 

 Speed limits (e.g., 25 mph [40 km/h]) shall be posted and enforced to reduce airborne fugitive dust. 

 Construction materials and stockpiled soils shall be covered if they are a source of fugitive dust. 

 Dust abatement techniques shall be used before and during surface clearing, excavation, or blasting 

activities. 

Excavation and Blasting Activities 

 Operators shall gain a clear understanding of the local hydrogeology. Areas of groundwater discharge 

and recharge and their potential relationships with surface water bodies shall be identified. 

 Operators shall avoid creating hydrologic conduits between two aquifers during foundation excavation 

and other activities.

 Foundations and trenches shall be backfilled with originally excavated material as much as possible. 

Excess excavation materials shall be disposed of only in approved areas or, if suitable, stockpiled for 

use in reclamation activities. 

 Borrow material shall be obtained only from authorized and permitted sites. Existing sites shall be used 

in preference to new sites. 

 Explosives shall be used only within specified times and at specified distances from sensitive wildlife 

or streams and lakes, as established by the BLM or other Federal and State agencies. 

Noise 

 Noisy construction activities (including blasting) shall be limited to the least noise-sensitive times of 

day (i.e., daylight hours only or specified times) and weekdays. 

 All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original 

equipment. All construction equipment used shall be adequately muffled and maintained. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-17

 All stationary construction equipment (i.e., compressors and generators) shall be located as far as 

practicable from nearby residences. 

 If blasting or other noisy activities are required during the construction period, nearby residents shall 

be notified in advance. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

 Unexpected discovery of cultural or paleontological resources during construction shall be brought to 

the attention of the responsible BLM authorized officer immediately. Work shall be halted in the 

vicinity of the find to avoid further disturbance to the resources while they are being evaluated and 

appropriate mitigation measures are being developed. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste Management 

 Secondary containment shall be provided for all onsite hazardous materials and waste storage, 

including fuel. In particular, fuel storage (for construction vehicles and equipment) shall be a 

temporary activity occurring only for as long as is needed to support construction activities. 

 Wastes shall be properly containerized and removed periodically for disposal at appropriate offsitepermitted disposal facilities. 

 In the event of an accidental release of hazardous materials to the environment, the operator shall 

document the event, including a root cause analysis, appropriate corrective actions taken, and a 

characterization of the resulting environmental or health and safety impacts. Documentation of the 

event shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer and other Federal and State agencies, as 

required. 

 Any wastewater generated in association with temporary, portable sanitary facilities shall be 

periodically removed by a licensed hauler and introduced into an existing municipal sewage treatment 

facility. Temporary, portable sanitary facilities provided for construction crews shall be adequate to 

support expected onsite personnel and shall be removed at completion of construction activities.

Public Health and Safety 

 Temporary fencing shall be installed around staging areas, storage yards, and excavations during 

construction to limit public access. 

4. Operation 

General 

 All control and mitigation measures established for the project in the POD and the resource-specific 

management plans that are part of the POD shall be maintained and implemented throughout the 

operational phase, as appropriate. These control and mitigation measures shall be reviewed and 

revised, as needed, to address changing conditions or requirements at the site throughout the 

operational phase. This adaptive management approach will help ensure that impacts from operations 

are kept to a minimum. 

 Inoperative turbines shall be repaired, replaced, or removed in a timely manner. Requirements to do so 

shall be incorporated into the due diligence provisions of the rights-of-way authorization. Operators 

will be required to demonstrate due diligence in the repair, replacement, or removal of turbines; failure 

to do so may result in termination of the right-of-way authorization. 

Wildlife 

 Employees, contractors, and site visitors shall be instructed to avoid harassment and disturbance of 

wildlife, especially during reproductive (e.g., courtship and nesting) seasons. In addition, any pets shall 

be controlled to avoid harassment and disturbance of wildlife. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-18

 Observations of potential wildlife impacts, including wildlife mortality, shall be reported to the BLM 

authorized officer immediately. 

Visual Resources 

 Operators shall monitor and maintain visual mitigation measures for the approved project in 

accordance with a visual monitoring and compliance plan. The operator shall maintain revegetated 

surfaces until a self-sustaining stand of vegetation is reestablished and visually adapted to the 

undisturbed surrounding vegetation. No new disturbance shall be created during operations without 

completion of a VRM analysis and approval by the authorized officer.

Ground Transportation 

 Ongoing ground transportation planning shall be conducted to evaluate road use, minimize traffic 

volume, and ensure that roads are maintained adequately to minimize associated impacts. 

Monitoring Program 

 Site monitoring protocols defined in the POD shall be implemented. These will incorporate monitoring 

program observations and additional mitigation measures into standard operating procedures and 

BMPs to minimize future environmental impacts. 

 Results of monitoring program efforts shall be provided to the BLM authorized officer. 

Public Health and Safety 

 Permanent fencing shall be installed and maintained around electrical substations, and turbine tower 

access doors shall be locked to limit public access. 

 In the event an installed wind energy development project results in electromagnetic interference 

(EMI), the operator shall work with the owner of the impacted communications system to resolve the 

problem. Additional warning information may also need to be conveyed to aircraft with onboard radar 

systems so that echoes from wind turbines can be quickly recognized. 

5. Decommissioning 

General 

 Prior to the termination of the right-of-way authorization, a decommissioning plan shall be developed 

and approved by the BLM. The decommissioning plan shall include a site reclamation plan and 

monitoring program. 

 All management plans, BMPs, and stipulations developed for the construction phase shall be applied to 

similar activities during the decommissioning phase. 

 All turbines and ancillary structures shall be removed from the site. 

 Topsoil from all decommissioning activities shall be salvaged and reapplied during final reclamation. 

 All areas of disturbed soil shall be reclaimed using weed-free native shrubs, grasses, and forbs. 

 The vegetation cover, composition, and diversity shall be restored to values commensurate with the 

ecological setting. 

<End of Attachment 1 from BLM IM No. 2009-043>

BMP B - SAGE-GROUSE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

The Montana/Dakotas BLM Greater Sage-Grouse Mitigation Measures and Conservation Actions are a 

compilation of practices employed by the BLM to mitigate impacts from surface disturbance in priority (Sagegrouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas) and general sage-grouse habitat (Sage-grouse

Habitat – General Habitat Areas) in order to meet the goals and objectives set forward in the BLM National 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-19

Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy and in individual land use plans. They apply to activities such as road or 

pipeline construction, range improvements, and permitted land uses or recreation activities. These guidelines are 

presented as an appendix for easy reference as they apply to many resources and were derived from many laws 

and other guidelines such as the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in MontanaFinal (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005), the BLM Report on National Greater Sage‐Grouse 

Conservation Measures (2011a), the Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Conservation Strategy (Stiver et al. 

2006), and others. 

The guidelines are primarily included to provide consistency within the Montana/Dakotas BLM for how 

management practices and requirements are identified and applied to avoid and mitigate environmental impacts 

and resource and land use conflicts in greater sage-grouse habitat. Consistency in this sense does not mean that 

identical requirements would be applied for all similar types of land use activities nor does it mean that the 

requirements or guidelines for a single land use activity would be identical in all areas. 

There are two ways the mitigation guidelines are used in the RMP and environmental impact statement (EIS)

process: 

 as part of the planning criteria in developing the RMP alternatives, and 

 in the analytical processes of both developing the alternatives and analyzing the impacts of the 

alternatives. 

In the first case, an assumption is made that any one or more of the mitigation measures or conservation actions 

will be appropriately included as conditions of relevant actions being proposed or considered in each 

alternative. In the second case, the mitigations are used to:

 develop a baseline for measuring and comparing impacts among the alternatives,

 to identify other actions and alternatives that should be considered, and 

 to help determine whether more stringent or less stringent mitigations should be considered. 

The EIS for the RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these guidelines. Rather, the 

guidelines are used in the RMP and EIS process as a tool to help develop the RMP alternatives and to provide a 

baseline for comparative impact analysis in arriving at RMP decisions. These guidelines will be used in the 

same manner in analyzing activity plans and other site-specific proposals. These guidelines and their wording 

are matters of policy, and as such, specific wording is subject to change primarily through administrative 

review, not through the RMP and EIS process. Any further changes that may be made in the continuing 

refinement of these guidelines and any development of program-specific standard stipulations will be handled in 

another forum, including appropriate public involvement and input.

PURPOSE

The purpose of these mitigation measures and conservation actions are to mitigate impacts from surface 

disturbance in Protection Priority Areas and General Habitat Areas in order to meet the goals and objectives set 

forward in the BLM National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy and in individual land use plans. Application 

of mitigation measures and conservation actions will reserve for the BLM the right to modify the operations of 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities as part of the statutory requirements for environmental protection. 

Those measures selected for implementation will be identified in the record of decision (ROD) or decision

record for those activities and will inform a potential lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must 

be met when using BLM-administered public lands and minerals. 

These measures have been written in a format that will allow for either their direct use as stipulations or 

operating standards or in addition to specific or specialized mitigation following the submission of a detailed 

development plan or other project proposal and an environmental analysis. These operating standards are given 

as acceptable methods for mitigating anticipated effects and achieving the desired plan outcomes but are not 

prescribed as the only method for achieving the outcomes. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-20

Those resource activities or programs currently without a standardized set of permit or operation stipulations

can use the mitigation measures and conservation actions for greater sage-grouse as stipulations or as COAs or 

as a baseline for developing specific stipulations for a given activity or program.

These mitigation measures and conservation actions are primarily written for priority sage-grouse habitats. 

Within Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, the mitigation measures and conservation actions applied 

are determined on a project-by-project level and may be similar in many cases to the priority habitat measures. 

A selection of mitigation measures and conservation measures for general habitat is also included for some 

programs. At the project level, to prioritize certain general habitat areas over marginal or substandard sagegrouse habitat areas, consideration should be given to: 

 the capability of the habitat to provide connectivity among Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas;

 habitats occupied by sage-grouse where enhancing general sage-grouse habitat can offset losses to 

habitat or populations elsewhere within the habitat; and

 the potential to replace lost priority habitat or needed changes in total Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection

Priority and Restoration Areas resulting from perturbations or disturbances, providing connectivity 

between Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas, and restoring historical 

habitat functionality to support meeting objectives to maintain or enhance connectivity. 

MITIGATION GUIDELINES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

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

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

environmental impacts associated with surface-disturbing or disruptive activities. 

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

described below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

activities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

grazing are not considered disruptive activities.

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

Management Practices Appendix. The BLM may add additional mitigation measures as deemed necessary by 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-21

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

regulatory and resource agencies.

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

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

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

below.

 Step 1. Avoid: Adverse impacts to resources are to be avoided and no action shall be permitted if there 

is a practicable alternative with less adverse impacts.

 Step 2. Minimize: If impacts to resources cannot be avoided, appropriate and practicable steps to 

minimize adverse impacts must be taken.

 Step 3. Compensate: Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable 

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

for avoiding and minimizing impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

preservation.

• Restoration: Reestablishment or rehabilitation of a resource with the goal of returning natural 

or historic functions and characteristics to a currently degraded area. Restoration may result in 

a gain in function, acres, or both.

• Establishment (creation): The development of a resource in areas in which that resource did 

not previously exist through manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological 

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

• Enhancement: Activities conducted within existing resource that heighten, intensify, or 

improve one or more functions. Enhancement is often undertaken for a specific purpose such 

as to improve water quality, floodwater retention, or wildlife habitat. Enhancement results in a 

gain in function, but does not result in a net gain in acres.

• Conservation: The permanent protection of ecologically important resources through the 

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

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

resource location as necessary to ensure protection or enhancement of the ecosystem. 

Preservation does not result in a net gain of acres and may only be used in certain 

circumstances, including when the resources to be preserved contribute significantly to 

ecological sustainability.

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

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

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

mitigation is generally appropriate when the authorized officer (AO) determines that impacts cannot be 

mitigated to an acceptable level onsite and it is expected that the land use authorization as submitted would not 

be consistent with the BLM’s resource objectives. The BLM may expressly condition its approval of an action 

on the applicant’s commitment to take actions, and the BLM may, if necessary, seek appropriate enforcement 

action to ensure the terms of the contract are met. 

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

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

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

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

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

anticipated that variations in the mitigation measures and conservation actions will be approved in very limited 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-22

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THREATS TO GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AND THEIR HABITAT 

A number of threats and risks to greater sage-grouse and their habitat have been identified during conservation 

planning efforts and assessments. Range-wide issues were covered in listing decisions made by the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2007 and 2010. In addition, the BLM National Technical Team 

Report (see Instruction Memorandum No. 2012-044: BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning 

Strategy) covered BLM program areas with the potential to impact greater sage-grouse populations. The 2005 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana - Final identified 12 major issues:

 fire management,

 grazing management,

 harvest management,

 noxious weed management ,

 mining and energy development,

 outreach and education,

 power lines and generation facilities,

 predation,

 recreational disturbance,

 roads and motorized vehicles, 

 vegetation, and 

 managing other wildlife in sage-grouse habitats. 

CONSERVATION ACTIONS 

These mitigation measures and conservation actions for greater sage-grouse would be implemented on a 

project-specific basis in sage-grouse priority habitat, depending on the specific characteristics of the project area 

and the types of disturbance being proposed. They may not be appropriate to implement in all cases. The 

mitigation would be requirements, procedures, management practices, or design features that the BLM, through 

issuance of the ROD would adopt as operational requirements. 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. Because mitigation measures change or are 

modified based on new information, the guidelines will be updated periodically.

In the very early stages of the development of siting and design plans, project developers shall coordinate with 

appropriate federal, state, and local agencies that regulate activities affecting sage-grouse and their habitats to 

determine what expected level of mitigation will be needed to ensure that the RMP goals and objectives can be 

met within the proposed action. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis shall demonstrate how the 

mitigation measures and conservation actions applied do not cause impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) 

that would cause the BLM to authorize actions that exceeded habitat level thresholds and prevented attainment 

of goals and objectives for the Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas. At the project 

level, this approach would produce analysis of at least two considerations (described below) to examine the 

functionality of sage-steppe systems and the thresholds under which populations are known to be affected.

 At the landscape scale, Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas should be 

maintained with enough land cover that includes adequate sagebrush habitat to provide sage-grouse 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-23

needs to meet priority habitat objectives. This is measured using broad-scale habitat classification to 

determine the amount of potential habitat based on ecological sites against habitat lost to permanent to 

short-term habitat loss from disturbances such as agricultural tillage, fire, and other activities. At a 

minimum, Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas should contain at least 70

percent of the total as functioning sage-grouse habitat. In many cases, as appropriate with site 

potential, restoring, enhancing, and maintaining habitat so that 90 percent of the Sage-grouse Habitat –

Protection Priority and Restoration Areas is classified as functioning sage-grouse habitat will provide a 

high quality and resilient Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration Areas.

 At the local population scale, discrete anthropogenic disturbances should be minimized to maintain the 

highest quality habitat. Two thresholds have been proposed to maintain populations within priority 

areas: the National Technical Team proposed a 3-percent cap for priority sage-grouse habitat while 

Wyoming issued an executive order utilizing a 5-percent cap. The actual impact to sage-grouse will 

depend on the amount of direct disturbance, the level of activity associated with the disturbance that 

leads to indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts of the disturbance level, habitat loss, and habitat 

degradation. 

In analyzing impacts from a project, consideration should be given to the type of activity, the amount of 

anthropogenic disturbance to seasonal sage-grouse habitat utilized by the local population, and the landscape 

context. In the context of the condition of the larger landscape, as an area moves from direct disturbance 

exceeding 3 percent and then 5 percent, increased mitigation, habitat enhancement, and off-site considerations 

will be important to maintaining goals and objectives for sage-grouse and priority habitats. Specifically, at the 

site level, the BLM will analyze and disclose how permitted actions, including mitigation measures and 

conservation actions, affect the BLM’s ability to meet priority area goals and objectives and to ensure that 

permitted activities are in conformance with the RMP.

GENERAL BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

 Potential changes in climate would be considered when proposing restoration seedings when using 

native plants. Collection from the warmer component of the species current range would be considered 

when selecting native species.

 In fire-prone areas in which sagebrush seed was required for sage‐grouse habitat restoration, the 

establishment of seed harvest areas that were managed for seed production and were a priority for 

protection from outside disturbances would be considered.

The following conservation actions delineated by issue in the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies 

for Sage Grouse in Montana-Final would be used in the watershed assessment process and project-level 

analysis for actions on BLM-administered lands (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).

FIRE MANAGEMENT

Issue: Reduction of sagebrush by prescribed fire.

1. Sites should not be burned unless:

a. biological and physical limitations of the site and impacts on sage-grouse are identified and considered;

b. management objectives for the site, including those for wildlife, are clearly defined;

c. potential for weed invasion and successional trends are well understood; and

d. capability exists to manage the post-burn site properly, including a funded monitoring schedule, to achieve a 

healthy sagebrush community.

2. Develop local or regional guidelines, such as the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge Forest and MFWP guidelines in the 

intermountain valleys, or consider the following guidelines if fire is used as a tool elsewhere:

a. analyze cumulative effects of sagebrush treatment by considering ecological units, evaluate the degree of 

fragmentation, and maintain a good representation of mature sagebrush;
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-24

b. predict effects for the length of time necessary for sagebrush to return to desired condition for determine 

treatment types and intervals;

c. identify suitable patch size based on site-specific characteristics of the natural community and treat patches in 

a mosaic pattern that provides sagebrush cover for snow capture, hiding cover, and a seed source;

d. use available literature to research the effects of fire on sagebrush communities;

e. use caution in reducing sagebrush cover in and following drought periods;

f. work cooperatively with public agencies, academia, and private landowners to establish conservation 

objectives for the project area; and

g. map all burns within 1 year of treatment, monitor vegetative response, and develop a geographic information 

system (GIS) layer of burn history.

3. Develop treatments to improve habitats over the long term if sagebrush stands do not meet objectives for 

sage-grouse, such as confining treatments to small patches.

4. Consider mechanical treatment as the primary method and prescribed fire as a secondary method to remove 

conifers that encroach on sage-grouse habitat, except where forested habitat is limited.

5. Avoid treatments to sage-grouse habitat in areas that are susceptible to invasion by cheatgrass or other 

invasive plant species. Treatment will be accompanied by restoration (and reseeding if necessary) to reestablish native vegetation.

6. Protect sagebrush along riparian zones, meadows, lakebeds, and farmlands that include important sagegrouse habitat:

a. winter habitat,

b. breeding habitat, and

c. nesting habitat.

7. Wash vehicles and heavy equipment for fires prior to arrival at a new location to avoid introduction for 

noxious weeds.

Issue: Reduction of sagebrush by wildfire.

1. Schedule annual coordination meetings with appropriate resource staff including fire specialists, wildlife 

biologists, and range ecologists to incorporate new sage-grouse habitat and other wildlife habitat information 

needed to set wildfire suppression priorities pertaining to resources. Distribute updates to fire dispatchers for 

initial attack planning.

2. Identify the location of known sage-grouse habitat and other wildlife habitats of concern, such as latitude and 

longitude with a polygon and radius, to avoid disturbance or degradation by temporary facilities, such as fire 

camps, staging areas, and helibases.

3. Incorporate known sage-grouse habitat information into each wildfire situation analysis to help determine

appropriate suppression plans and prioritize multiple fires.

4. Retain unburned areas of sage-grouse habitat, such as interior islands and patches between roads and fire 

perimeter, unless compelling safety, resource protection, or control objectives are at risk.

Issue Rehabilitation and restoration of sagebrush grasslands.

1. Ensure that long-term wildfire rehabilitation objectives are consistent with the desired natural plant 

community.

2. Revegetate burned sites in sage-grouse habitat within 1 year unless natural recovery of the native plant 

community is expected. Areas disturbed by heavy equipment will be given priority consideration.

3. Emphasize native plant species adapted to the site that are readily available and economically and 

biologically feasible.

4. Monitor the site and treat for noxious weeds.

5. Allow a minimum of 2 growing seasons of rest from domestic livestock grazing unless there are specific 

restoration objectives using livestock.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-25

Issue: Proactive treatments that could reduce the risk of loss of habitat critical to sage-grouse.

1. Develop criteria for managing fuels and other risks to sage-grouse habitat.

2. Identify critical sage-grouse habitats and prioritize based on risk of loss to wildfire.

3. Develop appropriate actions on a site-by-site basis, such as using existing roads as firebreaks.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING MANAGEMENT

Issue: Conflicting priorities for land uses, species, and habitats.

1. Use scientific data and historic information to establish baseline information when evaluating soil conditions 

and ecological processes and when monitoring seasonal sage-grouse habitats.

2. Set specific habitat objectives and implement appropriate grazing management to achieve those objectives 

and maintain or improve vegetation condition and trends.

3. Offer private landowners incentives when and where appropriate to achieve sage-grouse objectives.

Issue: Some sagebrush communities may have been significantly altered by past grazing management practices.

1. Implement appropriate grazing management strategies and range management practices where soil conditions 

and ecological processes will support sage-grouse and desired commodities and societal values.

2. Establish suitable goals for sagebrush communities that have deteriorated to such an extent that livestock 

management alone may not contribute to habitat objectives.

3. Offer private landowners incentives when and where appropriate to achieve sage-grouse objectives.

Issue: Drought reduces forage production and sage-grouse habitat and may result in the degradation of native 

plant communities.

1. Livestock managers should have drought management strategies or plans (e.g., water facilities or forage 

sources) formulated for implementation during periods of drought.

2. Consider effects of livestock and wildlife distribution on sage-grouse prior to developing additional water 

sources.

3. Offer private landowners incentives when and where appropriate to achieve sage-grouse objectives.

Issue: Improper grazing or lack of grazing can change the composition or structure (or both) of the native plant 

community and subsequently reduce or eliminate food and cover for sage-grouse.

1. Monitor forb response (kinds, vigor, and production) and the compositional diversity of native species with 

respect to livestock grazing, then evaluate the data and make necessary adjustments.

2. Identify reasons for lack of grass and forb cover in sagebrush communities and recommend practices to 

increase the native herbaceous understory.

3. Identify critical sage-grouse areas and adjust grazing to minimize conflict between commodities production 

and protection of societal values.

4. Use monitoring methods that are best suited to the type of grazing management being incorporated at a site.

5. Adjust stocking levels within the carrying capacity of the pasture or range. Adjustments should be based on a 

monitoring program that evaluates plant and soil response with respect to actual livestock use, weather, 

wildlife use, insects, and other environmental factors.

Issue: Riparian areas (wet meadows, seeps, and streams) are important resources for sage-grouse and livestock.

1. Design and implement livestock grazing management practices (including riparian pastures, seasonal grazing, 

development of off-stream water facilities) to achieve riparian management objectives.

2. Modify or adapt pipelines and natural springs, where practical, to create small wet meadows as brood habitat.

3. Ensure the sustainability of desired soil conditions and ecological processes within upland plant communities 

following implementation of strategies to protect riparian areas. This can be achieved by:

a. protecting natural wet meadows and springs from overuse while developing water for livestock, and
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-26

b. planning the location, design, and construction of new fences to minimize impacts on sage-grouse.

Issue: Address the potential for sage-grouse to be disturbed or displaced by concentrations of livestock near leks 

or winter habitat.

1. Discourage concentration of livestock on leks or other key sage-grouse habitats.

a. avoid placement of salt or mineral supplements near leks during the breeding season (March through June); 

and

b. avoid supplemental winter feeding of livestock, where practical, on sage-grouse winter habitat and around 

leks.

Issue: Sage-grouse seasonal ranges often encompass private, tribal, state, and federal land. Habitat values across 

the respective ownership are important to sage-grouse.

1. Encourage land management practices that provide for maintaining or enhancing sage-grouse habitat on 

private, tribal, state, and federal land.

2. Encourage the coordination of management activities on both properties to provide yearlong benefits to sagegrouse. This may require reasonable compromise when establishing management practices to achieve specific 

goals.

3. Offer private landowners incentives when and where appropriate to achieve sage-grouse objectives.

Issue: Existing fences near breeding, brood-rearing, or winter habitats can increase the risk of collision 

mortalities or predation (or both) on sage-grouse by hawks, eagles, and ravens by providing perches.

1. If portions of existing fences are found to pose a significant threat to sage-grouse as strike sites or raptor 

perches, mitigate effects through actions that include moving or modifying fences, increasing the visibility of 

the fences by flagging, or by designing “take-down” fences.

2. Offer private landowners incentives when and where appropriate to achieve sage-grouse objectives.

Issue: Pesticides and herbicides can directly affect chick survival and may adversely impact the kinds and 

number of foods available in the form of insects and forbs.

1. Evaluate ecological consequences of using pesticides to control grasshoppers or other insects.

2. Evaluate ecological consequences of broadcast herbicide use on forbs and other important sage-grouse foods.

3. Minimize use of pesticides and herbicides within 1 mile of known grouse nests, leks, or brood-rearing areas.

4. Develop educational materials that detail the effects of pesticides and herbicides and which can be used to 

evaluate their effects on sage-grouse.

HARVEST MANAGEMENT

Issue: Although there is a single harvest structure for the entire state, sage-grouse may have different population 

characteristics and status across a region.

1. Divide sage-grouse habitat into ecoregions based on clearly defined differences in ecological or population 

characteristics (or both), which would allow for differing seasonal structures.

2. Develop an adaptive harvest management strategy, which would include closed, conservative, and standard 

season structures. Clearly define “triggers” for each season structure based on population trend.

3. Establish sage-grouse seasons on an annual basis using the current year’s lek data and other appropriate 

survey data. This would include the development of a statistically reliable trend-monitoring protocol for 

inventorying lek attendance of male sage-grouse.

Issue: There are strongly opposed viewpoints on the influences of hunting on sage-grouse populations.

1. Develop graduate-level studies to evaluate the influence of hunting on Montana sage-grouse and the values 

for a maximum harvest rate.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-27

2. Establish standardized wing collection protocol to evaluate the influence of environmental conditions on 

sage-grouse productivity and population trends.

3. Identify small populations of sage-grouse that are genetically isolated from other populations that could be at 

risk of overharvest.

4. Expand public information efforts designed to increase public awareness of the role of sage-grouse hunting.

MANAGING OTHER WILDLIFE IN SAGE-GROUSE HABITATS

Issue: High concentrations of wild herbivores in localized areas may reduce habitat effectiveness for sagegrouse.

1. Identify and map key sage-grouse habitats where other wild herbivores are exerting significant impacts on 

habitat.

2. Establish an inventory and vegetative monitoring schedule to quantitatively determine the extent of the 

effects in key areas.

3. Determine seasons of expected use and assess the potential impact to sage-grouse habitat.

4. Develop plans that keep ungulate population levels consistent with the site’s capability to support them.

Issue: Wetlands and other riparian habitats may be vulnerable to overuse by wild herbivores on some sites. This 

can sometimes be exacerbated seasonally (during droughts), by other land use practices, or both.

1. Identify levels of use by wild herbivores in affected riparian areas.

2. Identify other land use practices occurring in riparian habitats.

3. Assess current management practices in respect to findings.

4. Determine whether management changes are needed.

5. Have drought management plans in place to allow for the rapid implementation of alternate management 

strategies.

MINING AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT

Issue: Energy development may adversely affect sage-grouse.

1. Work cooperatively (agencies, utilities, and landowners) to identify and map important seasonal ranges for 

sage-grouse.

2. Complete a broad-scale assessment during land use planning and leasing of energy reserves to identify 

important areas that require additional protection or conservation.

3. Prioritize areas relative to their need for protection (ranging from complete protection to availability for 

moderate to high levels of energy development).

4. Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger disturbance, and design schedules that include longterm strategies to localize disturbance and recovery within established zones over a staggered time frame.

5. Provide technical assistance to private landowners who lease privately owned fee minerals.

6. Use off-site mitigation, such as the creation of sagebrush habitat, or purchase conservation easements with 

industry dollars to offset habitat losses.

7. Remove facilities and infrastructure when use is completed.

8. Enhance agency understanding of the effects of energy development through:

a. pre-activity inventory,

b. monitoring over the life of the development, and

c. annual evaluations.

Issue: Increased human disturbance.

1. Use the best available information for siting structures near important breeding, brood-rearing, and winter 

habitats while considering the following:

a. size of the structure or structures,
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-28

b. life of the operation,

c. extent to which impacts would be minimized by topography, and

d. disturbance by noise and maintenance.

2. Restrict maintenance and related activities in sage-grouse breeding and nesting complexes (March 1 to June 

15) between the hours of 4:00 to 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 to 10:00 p.m.

3. Remove structures and associated infrastructure when project is completed.

Issue: Increased roads, pipelines, and power lines can fragment sagebrush habitats.

1. Develop a comprehensive infrastructure plan prior to energy development activities to minimize road 

densities.

2. Avoid locating roads and power lines in crucial sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and wintering areas.

3. See conservation actions for siting and constructing power lines.

4. Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines and reclaim sites of abandoned wells to natural 

communities.

Issue: Energy-related facilities located within 2 miles of a sage-grouse lek can degrade habitat quality within 

existing leases.

1. Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound of important 

breeding habitat.

2. Minimize ground disturbance in sagebrush stands with documented use by sage-grouse including:

a. breeding habitat, which would include the lek and associated stands of sagebrush;

b. nesting habitat, which would include stands of sagebrush within 2 miles of a lek; and

c. wintering habitat, which would include sagebrush stands with documented winter use by sage-grouse with 

portions that would remain above the snow even during years of conditions with deep snow.

3. Concentrate energy-related facilities when practicable.

Issue: Energy-related activities can cause invasion of noxious weeds and other nonnative plants.

1. See conservation actions related to preventing the spread of weeds and controlling infestations of noxious 

weeds.

2. Engage industry as a partner to develop and establish new sources of seed of native plant species for 

restoration of sites disturbed by development.

Issue: Noise can disrupt breeding rituals and cause abandonment of leks.

1. Restrict noise levels from production facilities to 49 decibels (10 dBA above background noise at the lek).

2. Restrict use of any heavy equipment that exceeds 49 decibels within 2 miles of a lek to hours from 8:00 a.m. 

to 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. between March 15 and June 15.

Issue: Water discharge and impoundments can degrade or inundate breeding, nesting, and winter habitat.

1. Design impoundments and manage discharge to prevent degradation or inundation of leks, nesting sites, and 

wintering sites.

2. Protect natural springs from any source of disturbance or degradation caused by energy-related activities.

Issue: Siting requirements need to be re-examined as technological advances make development more 

compatible with sage-grouse needs.

1. Provide for long-term monitoring of siting requirements to examine effects of current and future development 

on sage-grouse.

2. Set up a schedule for reviewing and revising siting and use criteria with industry.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-29

Noxious Weed Management

Issue: Current information on existing weed infestations is insufficient for successful weed management.

Inventory and map existing noxious weed populations within and adjacent to the occupied sage-grouse habitat 

(or suspected habitat) range.

Issue: Appropriate weed management cannot be performed without habitat-specific information.

Develop habitat-specific weed management plans for known sage-grouse ranges, using the inventory and map 

information developed in the action described above.

Issue: Weed infestations result in loss of native grass, forb, and sagebrush abundance and diversity.

Promote measures that prevent the introduction and spread of weed seeds and other reproducing plant parts.

Issue: Noxious weeds spread quickly and without regard to ownership or management boundaries. Without 

immediate treatment, noxious weeds become a problem to all surrounding landowners. Effective weed 

management cannot occur in isolation or to the of any land managers within an area.

1. Develop and implement management techniques that minimize infestation risks.

2. Use weed-seed-free livestock forage and mulch.

3. Thoroughly clean personal clothing, pets, and all vehicles and machinery before moving into non-infested 

areas.

4. Where feasible, isolate livestock from known infestations and avoid vehicle movement through infested 

areas.

5. Delay movement of livestock for a necessary period in order to prevent viable weed seeds from passing 

through animals’ digestive tracts or remaining physically attached when moving from infested to non-infested 

areas.

6. Use weed-free seed for reestablishment of vegetation.

7. Eliminate unnecessary soil disturbance and vehicle access or movement into occupied sage-grouse habitat. 

Limit vehicle use to established roads only.

8. Regularly monitor access points and roads for weed establishment.

Issue: Cooperative integrated weed management efforts are essential in order to have successful sage-grouse 

habitat.

1. Develop partnerships with regional public and private land management units. Solicit involvement of local 

weed management specialists, private landowners, wildlife biologists, and range ecologists to share 

knowledge and responsibilities on noxious weed issues.

2. Establish goals and set priorities that encompass the needs of both livestock and wildlife managers in order to 

keep all parties operating under a similar plan.

3. Provide training to appropriate staff on the proper selection and use of herbicides and include effects of 

climatic conditions and soil types on herbicide applications.

4. Maintain proper operating herbicide application equipment as well as proper herbicide application records, 

according to Montana pesticide laws.

5. Conduct monitoring and develop follow-up procedures for treated areas.

6. Participate in integrated weed management training conducted by state and federal agencies, local experiment 

stations, and local (county) weed districts.

7. Educate all field personnel on weed identification, the manner in which weeds spread, and methods of 

treating weed infestations.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-30

Issue: It is important to maintain viable sagebrush habitat and populations of sage-grouse while eradicating 

infestations of noxious weeds.

1. Employ integrated weed management treatment methods, such as a combination of biological and cultural 

(including grazing, mowing, or seeding) treatments, in conjunction with herbicides to manage weeds in sagegrouse habitat.

2. To minimize loss of non-target plant species, the most selective herbicides (where chemical treatment is 

appropriate) would be used.

3. Where biologically feasible, restore plant communities with desired species adapted to the site using proven 

management techniques. A restoration program may be necessary if conditions prevent natural plant species.

Issue: New weed infestations are often undetected.

Establish a monitoring protocol to detect new infestations.

Issue: Weed management may not be identified as a budget item in sage-grouse management plans.

Weed management costs should be an identified budget item in sage-grouse management plans. Money should 

be dedicated for monitoring and education as well as direct treatment expenses.

Issue: Funding or human resources (or both) may not be available when new infestations are discovered.

Establish partnerships or formal agreements with local (county) weed districts, if appropriate, to utilize their 

equipment, personnel, or both.

Outreach, Education, and Implementation

Issue: The general public and agency staffs have not been exposed to current information on ecological needs 

and methods for conserving sage-grouse and sagebrush habitats. Materials are needed to present this 

information.

1. Develop educational materials (including brochures, PowerPoint presentations, camera-ready ads, press 

releases, public service announcements, event invitations and surveys, websites, newsletters, and research 

information).

2. Present materials in a series of community meetings that bring statewide technical group participants and 

regional agency staff together with local people.

3. Consider Resource Advisory Committees and other regional and local opportunities for education and 

outreach.

4. Encourage public participation when censusing leks and implementing other volunteer projects and include 

the general public on public lands and private landowners on their own properties.

Issue: The general public and agency staff may not initially understand, and therefore support, the plan.

1. Distribute the plan via hard copy and website.

2. Develop and implement a communications plan that identifies the audience and the message.

3. Prepare an executive summary of the plan.

4. Review and reconcile public concerns.

Issue: Implementing a statewide plan in light of diverse geographical, cultural, and socioeconomic challenges 

poses a challenge.

1. Implement the local work group concept.

2. Coordinate efforts among work groups.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-31

Issue: Educational materials are needed for the sage-grouse conservation effort in Montana.

1. Develop a list of incentive programs presently offered that could be used to prevent the loss of sage-grouse 

habitat.

2. Develop and distribute information on BMPs and incentives.

3. Request counties and agencies to designate a sage-grouse contact person to interface with county planning 

authorities.

4. Provide sage-grouse habitat maps and recommendations to county planners, public land agencies, and other 

interest groups and land managers.

5. Encourage county governments to offer incentives to developers who protect and enhance sage-grouse 

habitat.

POWER LINES AND GENERATION FACILITIES

Issue: Existing power lines near a lek, brood-rearing habitat, or winter habitat increases the risk of predation on 

sage-grouse by raptors.

1. Document the segment or segments of line causing problems.

2. Determine through cooperative action with agencies, utilities, and landowners whether modification of poles 

to limit perching will prevent electrocution of raptors and decrease predation on sage-grouse.

3. Emphasize the following if perch prevention modifications do not work to protect sage-grouse and sagebrush 

habitat:

a. reroute the line using distance, topography, or vegetative cover; or

b. bury the line.

4. Explore opportunities for technical assistance and funding.

5. Remove power line when use is completed.

Issue: New power lines proposed in areas that provide sage-grouse habitat can pose threats to sage-grouse.

1. Minimize the number of new lines in sage-grouse habitat.

2. Site new lines in existing corridors where feasible.

3. Encourage the use of off-grid systems such as solar, natural gas micro-turbines, and wind power where 

feasible in sage-grouse habitats.

4. Use the best available information for siting power lines on important breeding, brood-rearing, and winter 

habitat in an appropriate vicinity of the proposed line.

5. Develop a route in cooperation with agencies, utilities, and landowners that uses topography, vegetative 

cover, site distance, or other factors to effectively protect identified sage-grouse habitat in a cost-efficient 

manner.

6. Restrict timing for construction to prevent disturbance during critical periods:

a. breeding (March 15 to May 15), and

b. winter (December 1 to March 5).

7. Take appropriate measures to prevent introduction or dispersal of noxious weeds during construction and 

planned maintenance.

8. Remove power line when use is completed.

Issue: Existing power line is causing consistent or significant collision mortality on sage-grouse.

1. Document the segment or segments of line causing consistent or biologically significant mortality in 

cooperation with agencies, utilities, and landowners.

2. Initiate collision prevention measures using the most recent guidance from the Avian Power Line Interaction 

Committee, currently 2006 (APLIC 2006), on identified segments. Measures are subject to restriction or 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-32

modification for wind and ice loading or other engineering concerns or updated collision prevention 

information.

3. Remove power lines that traverse important sage-grouse habitats when facilities being serviced are no longer 

in use or when projects are completed.

Issue: Fossil fuel generation may impact sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

1. Use the best available information to:

a. identify important sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat in an appropriate vicinity of a 

proposed facility and associated infrastructure; and

b. site fossil fuel generation facilities and associated infrastructure in cooperation with developers, agencies, 

utilities, and landowners using topography, vegetative cover, site distance or other factors to effectively 

protect identified sage-grouse habitat.

Issue: Wind generation may impact sage-grouse and sage-grouse habitat.

1. Consult with USFWS Ecological Services for site selection evaluation information.

2. Use the best available information to:

a. identify important sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat in an appropriate vicinity of a 

proposed facility and associated infrastructure; and

b. site wind generation facilities in cooperation with agencies, utilities, and landowners using topography, 

vegetative cover, site distance or other factors to effectively protect identified sage-grouse habitat.

3. Identify and avoid both local (daily) and seasonal migration routes.

4. Restrict timing of construction to minimize disturbance during critical periods:

a. breeding (March 15 to May 15), and

b. winter (December 1 to March 15).

5. Take appropriate measures to prevent introduction or dispersal of noxious weeds during construction, 

maintenance, and operation as required by federal and state laws.

6. Develop off-site mitigation strategies in situations in which fragmentation or degradation of sage-grouse 

habitat is unavoidable.

PREDATION

Issue: Predator numbers and species composition have changed, and the predator-prey relationship for sagegrouse in Montana needs further investigation.

1. Initiate studies to better understand sage-grouse mortality rates, the factors that influence these rates, and the 

effectiveness of management actions to change them.

2. Assess population status and trends of important predator species (both native and invasive).

3. Expand public information efforts designed to increase public awareness of the role of habitat, predation, and 

weather on sage-grouse population trends.

Issue: Habitat fragmentation and poor quality habitat may be affecting mortality rates by allowing increased 

predation.

1. Initiate studies to determine the relationships between predation, habitat fragmentation, and habitat condition.

2. Implement actions to improve the structure and com position of sagebrush communities to meet desired 

conditions for sage-grouse seasonal habitats.

3. Maintain and restore sagebrush communities where appropriate for sage-grouse populations.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-33

4. Protect existing habitats through conservation easements, incentives, or other practices such as long-term 

leases. 

Issue: Human-caused alterations on the landscape have modified conditions and may directly facilitate 

increased predation.

1. Reduce human-made perches and conifer encroachment in sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and wintering 

habitats.

a. Placement of power poles should follow prescription detailed in the discussion transmission lines.

b. Placement of fences should follow prescriptions detailed in the discussion of grazing management, and

c. Treatment of conifer encroachment should be implemented in ways to minimize loss of sagebrush habitats.

2. Reduce the availability of predator “subsidies” such as human-made den sites (nonfunctioning culverts, old 

foundations, wood piles) and supplemental food sources (garbage dumps, spilled grains) that contribute to 

increased predator numbers.

3. If predation is shown to be depressing sage-grouse populations, consider predator management actions 

specific to the predator species, site, and situation.

4. Consider expanded opportunities to take non-protected, invasive species where appropriate.

RECREATIONAL DISTURBANCE OF SAGE-GROUSE

Issue: Citizens should be able to view and photograph sage-grouse breeding displays, however, viewing may 

disturb breeding activities, displace leks, and reduce reproductive success.

1. Establish viewing guidelines such as distance, timing, approach methods, signage, parking areas, and area 

closures.

2. Consider sage-grouse needs when developing roads and off-highway vehicle (OHV) management plans.

3. Develop and provide educational materials to the public that describe effects of concentrated recreational 

activities and the importance of seasonal ranges to sage-grouse.

4. Encourage recreationists to avoid continuous or concentrated use within 1.5 miles of leks from March 15 to 

May 15.

5. Issue special use permits for certain activities with distance and timing restrictions to maintain the integrity of 

habitat.

ROADS AND MOTORIZED VEHICLES

Issue: Roads may increase sage-grouse mortality through collisions with vehicles, displacement due to human 

disturbance, or other factors.

1. Identify, map, quantify, and evaluate impacts of existing roads, including two-track roads, in relation to 

known lek locations and sage-grouse winter ranges.

2. Consider impacts to sage-grouse when designing new roads and modifying existing roads.

3. Consider seasonal use restrictions or signing to avoid disturbance of critical times, such as winter and nesting 

periods.

4. Consider the use of speed bumps where appropriate to reduce vehicle speeds near leks, such as during oil and 

gas development.

5. Manage on-road travel and OHV use in key grouse areas to avoid disturbance during critical times such as 

winter, breeding, and nesting periods.

6. Plan or permit organized events to avoid increased traffic and impacts to sage-grouse.

7. Manage motorized and mechanized travel to minimize impacts to sage-grouse and their habitat by developing 

standards for future roads to give to the BLM, United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

state, county, and private parties.

8. Manage motorized and mechanized travel to minimize impacts to sage-grouse by increasing enforcement of 

existing OHV and travel management plans.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-34

9. Provide educational opportunities for OHV users that explain the possible effects they may have on sagegrouse.

Issue: Roads and their associated disturbances and cumulative effects contribute to the loss of habitat and 

declining sage-grouse populations.

1. Develop a transportation management plan across ownership boundaries in critical sage-grouse habitats.

2. Participate in travel planning efforts and educate the general public about the impacts of roads on sage-grouse 

and critical habitat.

3. Consider buffers, removal, realignment, or seasonal closures where appropriate to avoid degradation of 

habitat.

4. Revegetate and reclaim closed roads with plant species beneficial to sage-grouse.

5. Close and revegetate travel ways in sage-grouse habitats where appropriate.

6. Provide sage-grouse habitat information during the planning phases of transportation development in 

cooperation with the Montana Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, industry, 

counties, and other parties.

VEGETATION

Issue: Conifer encroachment reduces sagebrush habitat.

1. Map and inventory areas believed to be impacted by conifer expansion.

2. If conifer encroachment is a concern, options for treatment include:

a. prescribed fires when and where feasible;

b. remove trees mechanically when feasible; and

c. apply herbicides when and where feasible.

3. Reclaim or reseed areas disturbed by treatments when necessary. Include native forbs and grasses in all 

reclamation and seeding activities.

Issue: Information regarding sagebrush distribution is incomplete.

1. Identify the remaining breeding and winter areas for sage-grouse.

2. Improve the classification of sagebrush cover to distinguish density and species.

3. Complete a mid to broad-scale assessment to identify conservation priorities across the state.

Issue: Management may have altered the age distribution of sagebrush, such as a young stand recovering from 

disturbance or a mature stand with poor regeneration.

1. Map and inventory areas believed to be deficient in quality of habitat or exhibiting poor health.

2. Evaluate the site potential and desired condition and develop specific objectives accordingly within specific 

landscapes.

3. If sagebrush is lacking:

a. develop and implement grazing practices that influence sagebrush growth;

b. interseed historical breeding and winter habitats with the appropriate sagebrush species;

c. identify and promote seed sources for habitat restoration efforts;

d. encourage the voluntary use of sagebrush in habitat incentive programs, such as the Conservation Reserve 

Program (CRP), and work to develop additional funding sources for such programs;

e. reclaim or reseed areas disturbed by treatments when necessary; and

f. promote sage plantings, where appropriate, on project areas occurring within sage-grouse habitats.

4. If mature sagebrush dominates with suppressed herbaceous understory:
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-35

a. identify areas of dense mature cover that do not appear to be serving as quality habitat and analyze these 

areas within the context of a larger landscape;

b. design sagebrush treatments to be compatible with sage-grouse needs;

c. develop specific objectives for sage-grouse in breeding or winter habitats; and

d. if treatment is deemed appropriate, interrupt seral stages within the appropriate patch size using the 

appropriate method, including brush beating, chaining, chemical means, or prescribed fire, that are 

compatible with local conditions.

Issue: The plant community has been altered and lacks a diverse herbaceous understory.

1. Map and inventory areas believed to be important sage-grouse breeding habitats.

2. Evaluate the site potential and desired condition within the context of a larger landscape.

3. Develop and implement techniques to increase herbaceous diversity and density in sagebrush-steppe within 

ecological limits.

4. Ensure that grazing practices allow plants to grow to seed-ripe on a rotational basis.

5. Adjust livestock grazing management when necessary (e.g., season of use or projects) to promote forb 

establishment and recruitment.

6. Identify large areas of introduced plant species, such as crested wheat, and determine if restoration efforts are 

deemed appropriate.

7. Interseed appropriate breeding habitats with forbs as identified by the specialists and affected interests.

8. If mature sagebrush dominates with suppressed herbaceous understory:

a. identify areas of dense mature cover that do not appear to be serving as quality habitat and analyze these 

areas within the context of a larger landscape;

b. design sagebrush treatments to be compatible with sage-grouse need;

c. develop specific objectives for sage-grouse in breeding or winter habitats; and

d. if treatment is deemed appropriate, interrupt seral stages within the appropriate patch size using the 

appropriate method, including brush beating, chaining, chemical means, or prescribed fire.

9. Identify and promote seed sources for habitat restoration efforts.

10. Identify landowner incentives and additional funding sources to enhance existing programs, such as the CRP.

Issue: Residual understory is lacking in sagebrush stands, mainly in breeding habitats.

1. Develop incentives to promote desired habitat conditions on private lands.

2. Manage grazing by domestic livestock and wild herbivores to retain and promote adequate residual cover in 

all breeding habitats with an emphasis on nesting areas.

3. Ensure that grazing allotment plans include objectives for sage-grouse in sage-grouse habitats.

4. Monitor USFS, BLM, and state allotment plans and regulations, and make changes where necessary.

5. Include native grasses in all reclamation and restoration activities.

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – GENERAL HABITAT AREAS

Within Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas, mitigation measures and conservation actions will mirror 

management actions in the selected alternative. Mitigation measures would be applied during activity-level 

planning if an evaluation of the project area indicated the presence of important wildlife species, seasonal

wildlife habitat, or other resource concern. Exceptions may be granted by the authorized officer (AO) if an 

environmental review demonstrated that effects could be mitigated to an acceptable level, habitat for the species 

is not present, or portions of the area could be occupied without affecting a particular species. Exceptions may 

also be granted where the short-term effects are mitigated by the long-term benefits (e.g., prescribed fire or 

forest health treatments).

In addition to actions below and in Chapter 2, BMPs for all resources may be found in this appendix, and will 

help form the COAs applied to specific projects. These practices would be implemented at the discretion of the 

Miles City Field Office on a project-specific basis in general habitat, depending on the specific characteristics 

of the project area and the types of disturbance being proposed. They may not be appropriate to implement in all 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-36

cases and in many cases may mirror those for priority habitat. Mitigation of surface-disturbing or disruptive 

activities would be applied where needed to minimize impacts and could be applied consistent with the oil and 

gas stipulations outlined in Chapter 2 and the Minerals Appendix. The mitigation would be requirements, 

procedures, management practices, or design features that the BLM would adopt as operational requirements 

through issuance of the ROD. The BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary by 

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

regulatory and resource agencies. 

NESTING HABITAT

 A 1-day notice prior to any planned activity during March 1 through June 15 would be required so that 

the impacted areas and any undeveloped areas can be nest-dragged to determine the presence or 

absence of active nests. A second nest-drag survey would be required if activity begins more than 2

days after completion of pad construction.

 Activities would be prioritized based on suitability of habitat; projects in less suitable habitat (i.e., 

along existing roadways or within degraded habitats) would be constructed during the breeding season, 

and projects located in more suitable habitat would be constructed prior to or after the critical breeding 

season.

 Prioritize suppression in areas in which wildfires threaten priority sage-grouse habitat.

 Sagebrush would be avoided, but if disturbance were necessary, interim reclamation should include 

sage plantings or seedings or the use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well pads,

pipelines, and other disturbances.

 Produced water would be managed to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat 

areas. 

 Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided if possible within 1 mile of greater sagegrouse leks.

 Surface-disturbing and disruptive activities would be avoided, if possible, from March 1 through June 

15 within 1 mile of greater sage-grouse nesting habitat.

ROADS 

 Roads would be designed to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate 

their intended purpose.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a temporary use 

consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Establish speed limits to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring original landform and establishing desired 

vegetation.

OPERATIONS 

 Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, and other operations), and 

facilities.

 Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

 Clean up refuse.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed. 

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and 

tanks regardless of size to reduce sage-grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other aboveground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of 

raptors and corvids.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-37

 Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the frequency 

of vehicle use.

 Control the spread and effects from nonnative plant species (e.g., by washing vehicles and equipment).

 Restrict construction of new pits and impoundments to reduce or eliminate augmenting threats from 

West Nile virus.

 Include restoration objectives to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices and sites. 

Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan with goals and objectives to enhance or 

restore sage-grouse habitat.

 Habitats would be assessed to determine the potential to replace lost priority habitat caused by 

perturbations or disturbances and provide connectivity between Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection 

Priority and Restoration Areas.

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AND RESTORATION 

AREAS

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AREAS

 Subject to valid existing rights: where new rights-of-way (ROWs) associated with valid existing rights 

are required, new ROWs would be co-located within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes sagegrouse impacts. Existing roads or realignments would be used as previously described to access valid 

existing rights that were not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, then any new road would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary, and the 

surface disturbance would be added to the total disturbance in the Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection 

Priority and Restoration Areas. If that disturbance exceeded 3 percent for that area, then additional, 

effective mitigation necessary would be completed to offset the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat.

 The removal, burial, or modification of existing power lines would be evaluated.

 Sites would be reclaimed by removing features and restoring habitat where existing leases or ROWs 

have had some level of development (road, fence, well, or other features) and are no longer in use.

 Diverting water from a spring or seep source may be considered only when priority sage‐grouse habitat 

would benefit from the development. This includes developing new water sources for livestock as part 

of an allotment management plan (AMP)/conservation plan to improve sage‐grouse habitat.

 Only treatments that conserved, enhanced, or restored sage‐grouse habitat would be considered 

(including treatments that benefited livestock as part of an AMP/conservation plan to improve sage‐

grouse habitat).

 The role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in 

and adjacent to sage‐grouse habitats would be evaluated to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage‐grouse. If these seedings are part of an 

AMP/conservation plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority 

habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. The compatibility of these seedings would be 

assessed for sage‐grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health 

assessments.

 Existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) would be 

evaluated to make sure that they conserved, enhanced, or restored sage‐grouse habitat.

 Any new associated facilities for subsurface mining would be placed outside of Sage-grouse Habitat –

Protection Priority and Restoration Areas. Where new associated facilities associated with the existing 

lease cannot be located outside the priority sage‐grouse habitat area, new facilities would be co-located 

within existing disturbed areas. If this is not possible, then any new associated facilities would be built 

to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

 Saleable mineral pits no longer in use would be restored to meet sage‐grouse habitat conservation 

objectives.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-38

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AND RESTORATION AREAS

 Diverting water from a spring or seep source may be considered only when priority sage‐grouse habitat

would benefit from the development. This includes developing new water sources for livestock as part 

of an AMP/conservation plan to improve sage‐grouse habitat.

 The role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced perennial grasses in 

and adjacent to sage‐grouse habitats would be evaluated to determine if they should be restored to 

sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage‐grouse. If these seedings are part of an 

AMP/conservation plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest of the priority 

habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. The compatibility of these seedings would be 

assessed for sage‐grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land health 

assessments.

 Any new associated facilities for subsurface mining would be placed outside of Sage-grouse Habitat –

Protection Priority and Restoration Areas. Where new associated facilities associated with the existing 

lease cannot be located outside the priority sage‐grouse habitat area, new facilities would be co-located 

within existing disturbed areas. If this is not possible, then any new associated facilities would be built 

to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

 Upgrading of existing routes that would change route category (road, primitive road, or trail) or 

capacity would not be considered unless the upgrading would have minimal impact on sage‐grouse 

habitat, was necessary for motorist safety, or eliminated the need to construct a new road.

 Route construction would be limited to realignments of existing designated routes if that realignment 

had a minimal impact on sage‐grouse habitat, eliminated the need to construct a new road, or was

necessary for motorist safety. Existing roads or realignments would be used in this manner to access 

valid existing rights that were not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing 

roads, then any new roads would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

 Conduct restoration of roads, primitive roads and trails not designated in travel management plans. 

This would also include primitive routes or roads that were not designated in wilderness study areas 

(WSAs) and within lands with wilderness characteristics that have been selected for protection.

 When reseeding roads, primitive roads and trails, appropriate seed mixes would be used and the use of 

transplanted sagebrush considered.

 Travel management should evaluate the need for permanent or seasonal road or area closures to protect 

greater sage-grouse priority habitat areas, during site-specific travel planning.

 Document leks where recreational viewing is occurring.

 Subject to valid existing rights: where new ROWs associated with valid existing rights are required, 

new ROWs would be co-located within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes sage-grouse 

impacts. Existing roads or realignments would be used as previously described to access valid existing 

rights that were not yet developed. If valid existing rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then 

any new road would be constructed to the absolute minimum standard necessary.

 Upon project completion, roads used for commercial access on public lands would be reclaimed

unless, based on site-specific analysis, the route provided specific benefits for public access and did

not contribute to resource conflicts.

 Discourage concentration of hunters on critical seasonal habitats, such as during late big game seasons, 

when sage-grouse are present. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND LANDS AND REALTY

NEPA analysis would disclose the impact of the addition to the surface disturbance total for the local population 

within the priority sage-grouse habitat. If that analysis shows anthropogenic disturbance crossing or above 3 

percent for that area, then the analysis will include expected level of activity, types of use, and, if there are 

expected population impacts , the analysis will make additional, effective mitigation necessary to offset the 

resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat and population.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-39

LANDS AND REALTY

Within designated ROW corridors encumbered by existing ROW authorizations: new ROWs should be colocated to the extent practical and feasible with the entire footprint of the proposed project within the existing 

disturbance associated with the authorized ROWs. 

Subject to valid existing rights, where new ROWs associated with valid existing rights are required, co-locate 

new ROWs within existing ROWs or where it best minimizes sage-grouse impacts. Use existing roads, or 

realignments as described above, to access valid existing rights that were not yet developed. If valid existing 

rights cannot be accessed via existing roads, then build any new road constructed to the absolute minimum 

standard necessary.

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

LIVESTOCK GRAZING: CONDUCTING LAND HEALTH ASSESSMENTS AND PERMIT 

RENEWALS IN PRIORITY SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT LAND HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

1. When conducting land health assessments:

o Prioritize allotments that have the best opportunities for conserving, enhancing, or restoring 

habitat for sage‐grouse.

o Include (at a minimum) indicators and measurements of structure, condition, or composition 

of vegetation specific to achieving sage‐grouse habitat objectives (Doherty, Naugle, 

Copeland, Pocewicz, and Kiesecker 2011). If local or state seasonal habitat objectives are not 

available, use sage‐grouse habitat recommendations from Connelly, Schroeder, Sands, and 

Braun 2000 and Hagen, Connelly, and Schroeder 2007.

2. When conducting permit renewal:

o If an effective grazing system that meets sage‐grouse habitat requirements is not already in 

place, analyze at least one alternative that conserves, restores, or enhances sage‐grouse habitat 

in the NEPA document prepared for the permit renewal if the size of the allotment or 

cooperative opportunities warrant it.

o Work cooperatively on integrated ranch planning within sage-grouse habitat so ranch 

operations with deeded BLM-administered allotments can be planned as single units.

o Analyze springs, seeps, and associated pipelines to determine if modifications are necessary 

to maintain the continuity of the predevelopment riparian area within priority sage‐grouse 

habitats. Make modifications where necessary, considering impacts to other water uses when 

such considerations are neutral or beneficial to sage‐grouse. Only authorize new spring or 

seep developments where the impacts to sage-grouse would be beneficial.

o Evaluate the role of existing seedings that are currently composed of primarily introduced 

perennial grasses in and adjacent to priority sage‐grouse habitats to determine if they should 

be restored to sagebrush or habitat of higher quality for sage‐grouse. If these seedings are part 

of an AMP or conservation plan or if they provide value in conserving or enhancing the rest 

of the priority habitats, then no restoration would be necessary. Assess the compatibility of 

these seedings for sage‐grouse habitat or as a component of a grazing system during the land 

health assessments (Davies, Byde, Beck, Bates, Svejcar, and Gregg 2011).

o Evaluate existing structural range improvements and location of supplements (salt or protein 

blocks) to make sure they conserve, enhance, or restore sage‐grouse habitat. This includes 

evaluating methods to reduce outright sage‐grouse strikes and mortality, through removing, 

modifying or marking fences in high risk areas within priority sage‐grouse habitat based on 

proximity to lek, lek size, and topography (Christiansen 2009; Stevens 2011).

o Monitor for, and treat invasive species associated with existing range improvements (Gelbard 

and Belnap 2003; Bergquist, Evangelista, Stohlgren, and Alley 2007).
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-40

3. Include terms and conditions on grazing permits and leases that ensure that plant growth requirement are met, 

and residual forage remains available for sage-grouse hiding cover. Utilize techniques appropriate for uplands 

versus riparian/meadow areas and enhancement versus reclamation or restoration. Across all these types of 

projects consider singly, or in combination, changes as necessary:

o season or timing of use,

o numbers of livestock (includes temporary non‐use or livestock removal),

o distribution of livestock use,

o intensity of use (utilization or stubble height objectives),

o kind of livestock (e.g., cattle, sheep, horses, llamas, alpacas, and goats), and

o class of livestock (e.g., yearlings versus cow-calf pairs).

Within riparian areas specifically, consider practices such as those described below.

a. Mange hot-season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes to promote recovery or 

maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Utilize fencing or herding techniques or 

seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian or wet meadow 

vegetation used by sage‐grouse in the hot season (summer).

b. Within priority sage‐grouse habitat, reduce hot-season grazing on riparian and meadow complexes 

to promote recovery or maintenance of appropriate vegetation and water quality. Utilize fencing or 

herding techniques or seasonal use or livestock distribution changes to reduce pressure on riparian 

or wet meadow vegetation used by sage‐grouse in the hot season.

c. Ensure the sustainability of desired soil conditions and ecological processes within upland plant 

communities following implementation of strategies to protect riparian areas. This can be achieved 

by: 

o protecting natural wet meadows and springs from overuse while developing water for 

livestock, and 

o plan the location, design, and construction of new fences to minimize impacts on sagegrouse.

RANGE MANAGEMENT MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONSERVATION 

ACTIONS

Design any new structural range improvement and location of supplements (salt or protein blocks) to conserve 

or enhance sage-grouse habitat through an improved grazing management system relative to sage-grouse 

objectives. Structural range improvements in this context include, but are not limited to: cattleguards, fences, 

exclosures, corrals, or other livestock handling structures; pipelines; troughs; storage tanks (including moveable 

tanks used in livestock water hauling); windmills; ponds or reservoirs; solar panels; and spring developments.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR FLUID MINERAL DEVELOPMENT

The BLM would include mitigation measures and conservation actions as permit COAs when approving 

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

3162.5), including appropriate documentation of compliance with NEPA. Prior to completing the environmental 

record of review, the BLM should closely examine the applicability of categorical exclusion in priority habitat. 

If extraordinary circumstances review is applicable, the BLM should determine whether those circumstances 

exist. 

General or typical COAs are mitigation measures that may be considered when processing applications for 

permits to drill (APDs), sundry notice drilling plans, and surface use plans when they are: 1) not specifically 

addressed in those plans or existing lease stipulations; and 2) needed to mitigate impacts to resource values 

identified at the onsite inspection or during review of the plans. The use of COAs is intended to reduce, 

mitigate, or minimize impacts from development but they do not necessarily avoid or preclude resulting 

significant impacts from the project.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-41

The COAs also allow the BLM to prescribe resource protection measures for lands that were previously leased 

with varying sets of lease stipulations. However, for lands that are already leased, BLM restrictions on 

development, not required to comply with existing laws, must be reasonable and consistent with existing lease 

rights. The COAs must not constrain or restrict development beyond the measures anticipated or authorized by 

the lease terms or regulations or interfere with the lessee’s opportunity to economically recover the oil and gas 

resources, considering the lease as a whole.

Evaluation of these COAs will consider during the NEPA process:

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

with valid existing rights,

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

 the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation practices.

When incorporated into BLM’s program in the ROD, mitigation approaches and conservation practices detailed 

in the surface use plan of operations (see 43 CFR 3162-1(f)) shall address, at a minimum the proposed project’s 

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

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

Following larger scale considerations for minimizing impacts to sage-grouse, this section contains BMPs that 

will be included, as applicable, as COAs to address to categories of concern. Because of site-specific 

circumstances, some categories may not apply to some projects and/or may require slight variations from the 

approach described. It is anticipated the applicability or variation in approach will be limited to project siting 

and configuration. Additional mitigation measures may be identified and required during individual planning. 

Applicants will be required to discuss any proposed variations with BLM staff. All variations will require 

appropriate analysis and disclosure as part of future project authorizations. Those design features that do not 

apply to a given project will need to be described as part of the project file along with an appropriate rationale.

The hierarchical approach and guidelines described below should be followed during project development to 

address these and other areas of concern for sage-grouse.

 Density and Amount of Disturbance

o Do not allow new surface occupancy on federal leases within priority habitat areas, including 

winter concentration areas during any time of the year (Doherty, Naugle, Walker, and Graham 

2008; Carpenter, Aldridge, and Boyce 2010). Where this is not possible because of valid 

existing rights and development requirements for the specific geologic and fluid mineral 

resources, consider the following disturbance and surface occupancy limits to the extent 

practicable:

 If the lease is partially or entirely within priority habitat areas:

 Subject to topographic and other environmental constraints, require any 

development within priority habitat to be placed in the area least harmful to 

sage-grouse based on vegetation, topography, or other habitat features.

 To the extent possible and consistent with valid existing rights, limit 

disturbances to an average of one site per 640 acres on average, with no 

more than 3 percent direct surface disturbance in the analysis area. 

 NEPA analysis would disclose the impact of the addition to the surface 

disturbance total for the local population within the priority sage-grouse 

habitat. If that analysis shows anthropogenic disturbance crossing or above 

3 percent for that area, then the analysis will include expected level of 

activity, types of use, and if there are expected population impacts will 

make demonstrate how additional, effective mitigation necessary will offset 

the resulting loss of sage-grouse habitat and population impacts. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-42

 When additional mitigation is necessary, conduct it in the impacted priority 

sage‐grouse habitat areas when possible or, if that is not possible, in general 

sage‐grouse habitat with the ability to increase sage‐grouse populations tied 

to the impacted Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority or Restoration

Area. 

 Breeding and Nesting Habitat

o To limit impacts to breeding and nesting habitat, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities 

shall be prohibited or restricted within 4 miles of a lek to the extent possible and consistent 

with valid existing rights. If the entire lease is entirely within the 4‐mile perimeter of a lek, 

require any development to be placed at the part of the lease farthest from the lek, or, based 

depending on topography and other habitat features, in an area demonstrably the least harmful 

to sage‐grouse.

o To ensure comprehensive planning relative to sage-grouse conflicts, complete master 

development plans or plans of development (PODs) during planning and review of projects 

involving multiple proposed disturbances within a logical geographic area, with an exception 

for individual wildcat (exploratory) wells.

o Encourage unitization when deemed necessary for proper development and operation of an 

area or to facilitate more orderly (e.g., phased or clustered) development as a means of 

minimizing adverse impacts to sage‐grouse (see Federal Lease Form, 3100‐11, Sections 4 and 

6).

 Brood-rearing Habitat

o Apply a seasonal timing restriction on exploratory drilling that prohibits construction, drilling, 

completion, and reclamation surface‐disturbing activities during the nesting and early brood‐

rearing seasons in all priority sage‐grouse habitats areas for this period.

 Best Management Practices for Fluid Mineral Development

o Require a 1-day notice prior to any planned activity from March 1 through June 15 so that the 

pad site and any undeveloped access route or pipeline can be nest-dragged to determine the 

presence or absence of active nests. Require a second nest-drag survey if drilling activity 

begins more than 2 days after completion of pad construction.

o Prioritize pad development based on suitability of habitat; construct pads that are in less 

suitable habitat (i.e., along existing roadways or within degraded habitats) during the breeding 

season, and construct pads located in more suitable habitat prior to or after the critical 

breeding season.

o Avoid sagebrush, but if disturbance is necessary, interim reclamation should include sage 

plantings or seedings or the use of minimum disturbance practices to protect sage on well 

pads and pipelines.

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AND RESTORATION AREAS

 Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be 

directed towards priority habitat.

Roads

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended 

purpose.

 Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-43

 Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions or design roads to be 

driven at slower speeds.

 Establish trip restrictions or minimization through use of telemetry and remote well control (e.g., 

supervisory control and data acquisition).

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on newly constructed energy development roads, unless for a 

temporary use consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (use signing, gates, and 

other methods).

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and rehabilitate duplicate roads.

Operations

 Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, and other disturbances), and 

facilities.

 Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

 Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

 Consider using oak (or other material) mats for drilling activities to reduce vegetation disturbance and 

for roads between closely spaced wells to reduce soil compaction and maintain soil structure to 

increase likelihood of vegetation reestablishment following drilling.

 Apply a phased development approach with concurrent reclamation.

 Place liquid-gathering facilities outside of Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and Restoration 

Areas. Have no tanks at well locations within Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority and 

Restoration Areas (minimizes perching and nesting opportunities for ravens and raptors and truck 

traffic). Pipelines must be under or immediately adjacent to the road.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

 Site or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

 Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, and other developments) and transportation 

routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

 Bury distribution power lines.

 Corridor power, flow, and small pipelines under or immediately adjacent to roads.

 Design or site permanent structures which create movement (e.g., a pump jack) to minimize impacts to 

sage‐grouse.

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and 

tanks regardless of size to reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other aboveground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of 

raptors and corvids.

 Control the spread and effects of nonnative plant species (e.g., by washing vehicles and equipment.)

 Use only closed‐loop systems for drilling operations and no reserve pits.

 Mitigate pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus.

 Limit noise to less than 10 decibels above ambient measures (20 to 24 dBA) at sunrise at the perimeter 

of a lek during active lek season.

 Require noise shields when drilling during the lek, nesting, brood-rearing, or wintering season.

 Fit transmission towers with anti‐perch devices.

 Require sage‐grouse‐safe fences.

 Locate new compressor stations outside priority habitats and design them to reduce noise that may be 

directed towards priority habitat.

 Clean up refuse.

 Locate man camps outside of priority habitats.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-44

Reclamation

 Include objectives for ensuring habitat restoration to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in reclamation 

practices or sites. Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan with goals and objectives 

to protect and improve sage‐grouse habitat needs.

 Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

 Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to the pre‐disturbance landforms and desired plant 

community.

 Irrigate interim reclamation if necessary for establishing seedlings more quickly.

 Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation and to protect soils.

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AREAS

BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become available and therefore are subject to 

change. Include from the following BMPs those that are appropriate to mitigate effects from the approved 

action.

Operations

 Remove or reinject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If 

surface disposal of produced water continues, use the steps described below for reservoir design to 

limit favorable mosquito habitat:

o Overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shorelines.

o Build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions.

o Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

o Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow.

o Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock.

o Construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock.

o Treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface.

o Locate man camps associated with any large-scale development area (e.g., railroad, pipelines, 

utilities) outside of priority habitats.

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – GENERAL HABITAT AREAS

Make applicable BMPs mandatory as COAs within Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas. BMPs are 

continuously improving as new science and technology become available and therefore are subject to change.

At a minimum, include the BMPs described below.

Roads

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended 

purpose.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on energy development roads, unless for a temporary use consistent 

with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Establish speed limits to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions or design roads to be driven at slower 

speeds.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-45

Operations

 Cluster disturbances, operations (fracture stimulation, liquids gathering, and other methods), and 

facilities.

 Use directional and horizontal drilling to reduce surface disturbance.

 Clean up refuse.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all drilling and production pits and 

tanks regardless of size to reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other aboveground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of 

raptors and corvids.

 Use remote monitoring techniques for production facilities and develop a plan to reduce the frequency 

of vehicle use.

 Control the spread and effects from nonnative plant species (e.g., by washing vehicles and equipment).

 Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate augmenting threats from West Nile 

virus.

Reclamation

 Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices or sites. 

 Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan with goals and objectives to enhance or

restore sage‐grouse habitat.

COAL BED NATURAL GAS

The seven distinct site modifications described below, if adhered to, would minimize exploitation of CBNG

ponds by Culex tarsalis M.K. Doherty 2007).

 Increase the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will 

result in un‐vegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding Cx. tarsalis avoid. This modification may 

reduce Cx. tarsalis habitat but could create larval habitat for Culicoides sonorensis, a vector of blue 

tongue disease, and should be used sparingly. Steep shorelines should be used in combination with this 

technique whenever possible.

 Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water (greater than 60 centimeter) and aquatic vegetation 

around the perimeter of impoundments. Construction of steep shorelines also will create more 

permanent ponds that are a deterrent to colonizing mosquito species like Cx. Tarsalis, which prefer 

newly flooded sites with high primary productivity.

 Maintain the water level below that of rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable

habitat for mosquito larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. 

Avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas. Aquatic habitats with a 

vegetated inflow and outflow separated by open water produce 5- to 10-fold fewer Culex mosquitoes 

than completely vegetated wetlands. Wetlands with open water also had significantly fewer stage III 

and IV instars (developmental stage), which may be attributed to increased predator abundances in 

open water habitats.

 Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow by digging ponds in flat 

areas rather than damming natural draws for effluent water storage or lining constructed ponds in areas 

where seepage is anticipated.

 Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock or use a horizontal pipe 

to discharge inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and 

accumulation of sediment that promotes aquatic vegetation.

 Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude 

the accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.

 Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb 

shorelines, enrich sediments with manure, and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to 

breeding mosquitoes.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-46

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR LOCATABLE MINERAL 

DEVELOPMENT

BMPs are continuously improving as new science and technology become available and therefore are subject to 

change. Include from the following BMPs those that are appropriate to mitigate effects from the approved 

action.

ROADS

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended 

purpose.

 Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions or design roads to be 

driven at slower speeds.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads unless for a temporary use consistent 

with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (e. g., use signing, gates, 

and other methods)

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired vegetation.

OPERATIONS

 Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible.

 Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

 Site or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

 Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, and other structures) and transportation routes 

in existing utility or transportation corridors.

 Bury power lines.

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all pits and tanks regardless of size to 

reduce sage‐grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other above ground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of 

raptors and corvids.

 Control the spread and effects of nonnative plant species.

 Restrict pit and impoundment construction to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile virus.

 Remove or re‐inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. If 

surface disposal of produced water continues, use the following steps for reservoir design to limit 

favorable mosquito habitat:

o overbuild size of ponds for muddy and non‐vegetated shoreline,

o build steep shorelines to decrease vegetation and increase wave actions,

o avoid flooding terrestrial vegetation in flat terrain or low-lying areas,

o construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow,

o line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock,

o construct spillway with steep sides and line it with crushed rock,

o treat waters with larvicides to reduce mosquito production where water occurs on the surface,

o require sage‐grouse‐safe fences around sumps,

o clean up refuse, and

o locate man camps associated with any large-scale development area (e.g., railroad, pipelines, 

utilities) outside of priority habitats.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-47

RECLAMATION

 Include restoration objectives to meet sage‐grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices and sites.

 Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan with goals and objectives to protect and 

improve sage‐grouse habitat needs.

 Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long‐term access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

 Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre‐disturbance landform and desired plant community.

 Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

 Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND 

ECOLOGY

FUELS MANAGEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

 Where applicable, design fuels treatment objective to protect existing sagebrush ecosystems, modify 

fire behavior, restore native plants, and create landscape patterns that most benefit sage‐grouse habitat.

 Provide training to fuels treatment personnel on sage‐grouse biology, habitat requirements, and 

identification of areas utilized locally.

 Use fire prescriptions that minimize undesirable effects on vegetation or soils (e.g., minimize mortality 

of desirable perennial plant species and reduce risk of hydrophobicity).

 Ensure proposed sagebrush treatments are planned with interdisciplinary input from BLM or state 

wildlife agency biologist and that treatment acreage is conservative in the context of surrounding sagegrouse seasonal habitats and landscape.

 Where appropriate, ensure that treatments are configured in a manner (e.g., strips) that promotes use by 

sage‐grouse (see Connelly et al. 2000).

 Where applicable, incorporate roads and natural fuel breaks into fuel break design.

 Power‐wash all vehicles and equipment involved in fuels management activities prior to entering the 

area to minimize the introduction of undesirable or invasive plant species.

 Design vegetation treatment in areas of high frequency to facilitate firefighting safety, reduce the risk 

of extreme fire behavior; and to reduce the risk and rate of fire spread to key and restoration habitats.

 Give priority for implementing specific sage‐grouse habitat restoration projects in annual grasslands 

first to sites which are adjacent to or surrounded by sage‐grouse key habitats. Annual grasslands are 

second priority for restoration when the sites not adjacent to key habitat, but within 2 miles of key 

habitat. The third priority for annual grasslands habitat restoration projects are sites beyond 2 miles of 

key habitat. The intent is to focus restoration outward from existing, intact habitat.

 As funding and logistics permit, restore annual grasslands to a species composition characterized by 

perennial grasses, forbs, and shrubs.

 Emphasize the use of native plant species, recognizing that nonnative species may be necessary 

depending on the availability of native seed and prevailing site conditions.

 Remove standing and encroaching trees within at least 100 meters of occupied sage‐grouse leks and 

other habitats (e.g., nesting, wintering, and brood-rearing) to reduce the availability of perch sites for 

avian predators, as appropriate, and resources permit.

 Protect wildland areas from wildfire originating on private lands, infrastructure corridors, and 

recreational areas.

 Reduce the risk of vehicle or human‐caused wildfires and the spread of invasive species by planting 

perennial vegetation (e.g., green‐strips) paralleling road ROWs.

 Strategically place and maintain pre‐treated strips or areas (e.g., mowing, herbicide application, and 

strictly managed grazed strips) to ail in controlling wildfire should wildfire occur near key habitats or 

important restoration areas (such as where investments in restoration have already been made).

 Design and implement fuels treatments with an emphasis on protecting existing sagebrush ecosystems. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-48

 Do not reduce sagebrush canopy cover to less than 15 percent (Connelly et al. 2000; Hagen et al. 2007) 

unless a fuels management objective requires additional reduction in sagebrush cover to meet strategic 

protection of priority sage-grouse habitat and conserve habitat quality for the species. Closely evaluate 

the benefits of the fuel break against the additional loss of sagebrush cover in the environmental 

analysis process. 

 Apply appropriate seasonal restrictions for implementing fuels management treatments according to 

the type of seasonal habitats present in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas or Restoration 

Areas.

 Design fuels treatments that maintain habitat quality to strategically reduce wildfire risk or enhance 

habitat around or in the winter range. 

 Do not use fire to treat sagebrush in less than 12-inch precipitation zones (e.g., Wyoming big 

sagebrush or other xeric sagebrush species). However, if as a last resort and after all other treatment 

opportunities have been explored and site-specific variables allow, the use of prescribed fire for fuel 

breaks that would disrupt the fuel continuity across the landscape could be considered, in stands where 

cheatgrass is a very minor component in the understory.

 Monitor and control invasive vegetation post treatment.

 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 sage-grouse habitat objectives.

 Design post-fuels management projects to ensure long term persistence of seeded or pre-treatment 

native plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock grazing management, wild 

horse and burro management, travel management, or other activities to achieve and maintain the 

desired condition of the fuels management project. 

 Design fuels management projects in priority sage-grouse habitat to strategically and effectively reduce 

wildfire threats in the greatest area. This may require fuels treatments implemented in a more linear 

versus block design. 

 For the project to be approved the authorizing official should consider: 

o biological and physical limitations of the site and the impact on sage-grouse;

o if management objectives for the site, including those for wildlife, are clearly defined;

o if the potential for weed invasion and successional trends are well understood; and

o if the capability exists to manage the post-burn site properly, including a funded monitoring 

schedule, to achieve a healthy sagebrush community. 

FIRE MANAGEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

 Develop state‐specific sage‐grouse toolboxes containing maps, a list of resource advisors, contact 

information, local guidance, and other relevant information.

 Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in 

prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics.

 Assign a sage‐grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near key sage‐grouse habitat 

areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to sage‐grouse resource advisors on wildfire 

suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified 

individuals.

 On critical fire weather days, pre‐position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and 

efficient response in sage‐grouse habitat areas.

 During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities.

 To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, 

staging areas, and helibases) in areas where physical disturbance to sage‐grouse habitat can be 

minimized.

 These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is existing 

disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover.

 Power‐wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel

 vehicles, and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) prior to deploying in or near sage‐grouse habitat areas to 

minimize noxious weed spread.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-49

 Minimize unnecessary cross‐country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage‐grouse habitat.

 Minimize burnout operations in key sage‐grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline whenever 

safe and practical to do so.

 Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack.

 As safety allows, conduct mop‐up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other habitat 

features to minimize sagebrush loss.

Develop local or regional guidelines or consider the following guidelines if fire is used as a tool: 

 Analyze cumulative effects of sagebrush treatment by considering ecological units, evaluate the 

degree of fragmentation, and maintain a good representation of mature sagebrush;

 Predict effects for the length of time necessary for sagebrush to return to desired condition for 

determine treatment types and intervals;

 Identify suitable patch size based on site-specific characteristics of the natural community and 

treat patches in a mosaic pattern that provides sagebrush cover for snow capture, hiding cover, and 

a seed source;

 Use available literature to research the effects of fire on sagebrush communities; and

 Use caution in reducing sagebrush cover in and following drought periods.

 During fuels management project design, consider the utility of using livestock to strategically 

reduce fine fuels, and implement grazing management that will accomplish this objective. 

 Consult with ecologists to minimize impacts to native perennial grasses.

 Develop criteria for managing fuels and other risks to sage-grouse habitat. 

 Identify critical sage-grouse habitats and prioritize on the basis of risk of loss to wildfire. 

 Develop appropriate actions on a site-by-site basis, such as using existing roads as fire breaks. 

 Develop treatments to improve habitats over the long term if sagebrush stands do not meet 

objectives for sage-grouse, such as confining treatments to small patches. 

 Consider mechanical treatment as the primary method and prescribed fire as a secondary method 

to remove conifers that encroach on sage-grouse habitat, except where forested habitat is limited. 

 Avoid treatments to sage-grouse habitat in areas that are susceptible to invasion by cheatgrass or 

other invasive plant species. Treatment will be accompanied by restoration, and reseeding if 

necessary, to re-establish native vegetation. 

 Protect sagebrush along riparian zones, meadows, lakebeds, and farmlands that include important 

sage-grouse habitat.

 Wash vehicles and heavy equipment for fires prior to arrival at a new location to avoid 

introduction of invasive vegetation species. 

FIRE OPERATIONS

In priority sage-grouse habitat areas, prioritize suppression immediately after firefighter and public safety to 

conserve the habitat.

Best Management Practices

 Develop state-specific sage-grouse toolboxes containing maps, a list of resource advisors, contact 

information, local guidance, and other relevant information. 

 Provide localized maps to dispatch offices and extended attack incident commanders for use in 

prioritizing wildfire suppression resources and designing suppression tactics. 

 Assign a sage-grouse resource advisor to all extended attack fires in or near key sage-grouse habitat 

areas. Prior to the fire season, provide training to sage-grouse resource advisors on wildfire 

suppression organization, objectives, tactics, and procedures to develop a cadre of qualified 

individuals. 

 On critical fire weather days, pre-position additional fire suppression resources to optimize a quick and 

efficient response in sage-grouse habitat areas. 

 During periods of multiple fires, ensure line officers are involved in setting priorities. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-50

 To the extent possible, locate wildfire suppression facilities (i.e., base camps, spike camps, drop points, 

staging areas, and helibases) in areas where physical disturbance to sage-grouse habitat can be 

minimized. These include disturbed areas, grasslands, near roads/trails or in other areas where there is 

existing disturbance or minimal sagebrush cover. 

 Power-wash all firefighting vehicles, to the extent possible, including engines, water tenders, personnel 

vehicles, and ATVs prior to deploying in or near sage-grouse habitat areas to minimize noxious weed 

spread. 

 Minimize unnecessary cross-country vehicle travel during fire operations in sage-grouse habitat.

 Minimize burnout operations in key sage-grouse habitat areas by constructing direct fireline whenever 

safe and practical to do so. 

 Utilize retardant and mechanized equipment to minimize burned acreage during initial attack. 

 As safety allows, conduct mop-up where the black adjoins unburned islands, dog legs, or other habitat 

features to minimize sagebrush loss.

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

 Prioritize native seed allocation for use in sage-grouse habitat in years when preferred native seed is in 

short supply. This may require reallocation of native seed from emergency stabilization and 

rehabilitation projects outside of priority sage-grouse habitat to those inside it. Use of native plant 

seeds for emergency stabilization and rehabilitation 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 sage-grouse habitat conservation 

objectives. Reestablishment of appropriate sagebrush species or subspecies and important understory 

plants, relative to site potential, shall be the highest priority for rehabilitation efforts. 

 Design post-emergency stabilization and rehabilitation management to ensure long-term persistence of 

seeded or pre-burn native plants. This may require temporary or long-term changes in livestock 

grazing, wild horse and burro, and travel management, etc., to achieve and maintain the desired 

condition of emergency stabilization and rehabilitation projects to benefit sage-grouse.

 Consider potential changes in climate when proposing post-fire seedings using native plants. Consider 

seed collections from the warmer component within a species’ current range for selection of native 

seed.

 Ensure that long-term wildfire rehabilitation objectives are consistent with the desired natural plant 

community. 

 Revegetate burned sites in sage-grouse habitat within 1 year unless natural recovery of the native plant 

community is expected. Areas disturbed by heavy equipment will be given priority consideration.

 Emphasize native plant species adapted to the site that are readily available and economically and 

biologically feasible. 

 Monitor the site and treat for invasive vegetation species. 

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SOLID MINERALS

SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT – PROTECTION PRIORITY AND RESTORATION AREAS

Recommend minimization of surface-disturbing or disruptive activities (including operations and maintenance) 

where needed to reduce the impacts of human activities on important seasonal sage-grouse habitats. Apply these 

measures during activity-level planning. 

Allow no surface use in nesting habitat within 2 miles of an active lek during a period of breeding and nesting 

(March 1 through June 15).

Allow no surface use activities within sage-grouse wintering acres from December 1 to March 15.

Roads

 Design roads to an appropriate standard no higher than necessary to accommodate their intended 

purpose.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-51

 Locate roads to avoid important areas and habitats.

 Coordinate road construction and use among ROW holders.

 Construct road crossing at right angles to ephemeral drainages and stream crossings.

 Establish speed limits on BLM system roads to reduce vehicle-wildlife collisions or design roads 

to be driven at slower speeds.

 Do not issue ROWs to counties on mining development roads, unless for a temporary use 

consistent with all other terms and conditions included in this document.

 Restrict vehicle traffic to only authorized users on newly constructed routes (e. g., use signing, 

gates, and other methods)

 Use dust abatement practices on roads and pads.

 Close and reclaim duplicate roads, by restoring original landform and establishing desired 

vegetation.

Operations 

 Cluster disturbances associated with operations and facilities as close as possible.

 Place infrastructure in already disturbed locations where the habitat has not been restored.

 Restrict the construction of tall facilities and fences to the minimum number and amount needed.

 Site or minimize linear ROWs to reduce disturbance to sagebrush habitats.

 Place new utility developments (power lines, pipelines, and other developments) and 

transportation routes in existing utility or transportation corridors.

 Bury power lines.

 Cover (e.g., fine mesh netting or use other effective techniques) all pits and tanks regardless of 

size to reduce sage-grouse mortality.

 Equip tanks and other aboveground facilities with structures or devices that discourage nesting of 

raptors and corvids.

 Control the spread and effects of nonnative plant species.

 Reduce construction of new pits and impoundments to reduce or eliminate threats from West Nile 

virus.

 Remove or re-inject produced water to reduce habitat for mosquitoes that vector West Nile virus. 

If surface disposal of produced water continues, limit favorable mosquito habitat through reservoir 

design.

 Require sage-grouse-safe fences around sumps.

 Clean up refuse.

 Locate man camps outside of priority sage-grouse habitats.

Reclamation

 Include restoration objectives to meet sage-grouse habitat needs in reclamation practices and sites. 

Address post-reclamation management in reclamation plan with goals and objectives to protect 

and improve sage-grouse habitat needs.

 Maximize the area of interim reclamation on long-term access roads and well pads including 

reshaping, topsoiling, and revegetating cut and fill slopes.

 Restore disturbed areas at final reclamation to pre-disturbance landform and desired plant 

community.

 Irrigate interim reclamation as necessary during dry periods.

 Utilize mulching techniques to expedite reclamation.

Restoration

 Prioritize implementation of restoration projects based on environmental variables that improve 

chances for project success in areas most likely to benefit sage-grouse.

 Prioritize restoration in seasonal habitats that are thought to be limiting sage-grouse distribution or 

abundance.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-52

 Include sage-grouse habitat parameters as defined by Connelly et al. 2000 and Hagen et al. 2007; or, if 

available, state sage-grouse conservation plans and appropriate local information in habitat restoration 

objectives. 

 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 sage-grouse habitat objectives.

 Design post-restoration management to ensure long-term persistence. This could include changes in 

livestock grazing management, wild horse and burro management, travel management, and other 

management to achieve and maintain the desired condition of the restoration effort that benefits sagegrouse.

 Consider potential changes in climate when proposing restoration seedings when using native plants. 

Consider collection from the warmer component of the species current range when selecting native 

species.

 Restore native plants and create landscape patterns that most benefit sage-grouse.

 Make reestablishment of sagebrush cover and desirable understory plants (relative to ecological site 

potential) the highest priority for restoration efforts.

 In fire-prone areas in which sagebrush seed is required for sage-grouse habitat restoration, consider 

establishing seed harvest areas that are managed for seed production and are a priority for protection 

from outside disturbances.

Map and inventory areas believed to be impacted by conifer expansion. If conifer encroachment is a concern, 

options for treatment include:

o prescribed fires when and where feasible, 

o remove trees mechanically when feasible, and 

o apply herbicides when and where feasible. 

 Evaluate the site potential and desired condition, and develop specific objectives accordingly 

within specific landscapes. 

 If sagebrush is lacking: 

o develop and implement grazing practices that influence sagebrush growth, 

o inter-seed historical breeding and winter habitats with the appropriate sagebrush species, 

o identify and promote seed sources for habitat restoration efforts, 

o reclaim or reseed areas disturbed by treatments when necessary, and 

o promote sage plantings, where appropriate, on project areas occurring within sage-grouse 

habitats. 

 If mature sagebrush dominates with suppressed herbaceous understory: 

o identify areas of dense mature cover that do not appear to be serving as quality habitat and 

analyze these areas within the context of a larger landscape, 

o design sagebrush treatments to be compatible with sage-grouse needs, 

o develop specific objectives for sage-grouse in breeding or winter habitats, and 

o if treatment is deemed appropriate, interrupt seral stages within the appropriate patch size 

using the appropriate method, such as brush beating, chaining, chemical means, prescribed 

fire, and other methods that are compatible with local conditions. 

 If residual understory is lacking in sagebrush stands: 

o manage grazing by domestic livestock and wild herbivores to retain and promote adequate,

residual cover in all breeding habitats with an emphasis on nesting areas,

o ensure that grazing allotment plans include objectives for sage-grouse in sage-grouse habitats,

o monitor allotment plans and regulations, and make changes where necessary, and 

o include native grasses in all reclamation and restoration activities. 
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES APPENDIX

BMP-53

Other Wildlife

 Initiate studies to better understand sage-grouse mortality rates, the factors that influence these rates 

and the effectiveness of management actions to change them. These studies should determine the 

relationships between predation, habitat fragmentation, and habitat condition.

 Assess population status and trends of important predator species (both native and invasive). 

 Implement actions to improve the structure and composition of sagebrush communities to meet desired 

conditions for sage-grouse seasonal habitats. 

 Maintain and restore sagebrush communities where appropriate for sage-grouse populations. 

 Reduce human-made issues and conifer encroachment in sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and wintering 

habitats. 

 Reduce the availability of predator ‘subsidies” such as human-made den sites (nonfunctioning culverts, 

old foundations, wood piles) and supplemental food sources (garbage dumps, spilled grains, and other 

sources) that contribute to increased predator numbers.

 Placement of power poles should follow prescription detailed in the discussion transmission lines. 

 Placement of fences should follow prescriptions detailed in the discussion of grazing management, and 

 Treatment of conifer encroachment should be implemented in ways to minimize loss of sagebrush 

habitats. 
This page intentionally left blank.
CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

CUL-1

CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for cultural resources and management in the planning area. 

Information includes sites in the planning area; cultural resource categories; and applicable laws, regulations, and 

policies specific to cultural resource management on public lands.

ANALYSIS FOR PROJECTED POTENTIAL ELIGIBLE SITES IN 

THE PLANNING AREA

The following information has been extrapolated from the 2006 Miles City Resource Management Plan (RMP) and 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Class I Overview of Paleontological & Cultural Resources in Eastern 

Montana (Aaberg, Hanna, Crofutt, Green, and Vischer). While 4.8 percent of historic sites have been recommended 

(consensus varies) as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP), about 11.5 percent 

have been recommended and accepted as ineligible by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. About 4 

percent of prehistoric sites have been recommended as eligible (consensus varies) for listing in the NRHP while 6.2 

percent have been recommended and accepted as ineligible. Significance or NRHP status of about 90 percent of 

prehistoric sites has either not been resolved or is not presented on the state database. 

Number of sites in planning area (all ownerships): 

9,934 historic and prehistoric sites:

 7,065 prehistoric sites x 4 percent = 282.6 eligible sites

 2,869 historic sites x 4.8 percent = 137.7 eligible sites

(4.4 percent average)

Of the total cultural properties in the project area, 2,135 (28.5 percent) occur either entirely or partially on Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM)-administered lands. 

 2,135 x 4.4 percent = 93.9 eligible sites on BLM-administered lands

 + 13.7 eligible sites recorded or year = 274 additional eligible sites recorded over 20 years 

Over 20 year span 282.6 (existing eligible prehistoric sites)

+ 137.7 (existing eligible prehistoric sites)

+ 274 (projected eligible sites over 20 years)

= 694.3 potential eligible sites in area (overall, all ownerships, over 20 years)

CULTURAL RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION

In general, cultural resources are identified through field inventories conducted by qualified professionals in order to 

comply with Section 106 of NHPA. Informant information and historical records are also used to identify 

archeological, historical, and traditional lifeway values and traditional cultural properties (TCPs). Three types of 

inventories (Class I, Class II, and Class III) are conducted to identify and assess these values on BLM-administered 

lands and are defined below.

 Class I, existing information inventory: a Class I inventory is most useful for gaining a comprehensive view 

of all the known archeological, historic, cultural, and traditional places within a large area, such as the area 

to be covered by a land-use plan or an EIS. A Class I inventory is a professionally prepared study that 

includes a compilation and analysis of all reasonably available cultural resource data and literature and a 

management-focused, interpretive, narrative overview and synthesis of the data. The overview also defines 
CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

CUL-2

regional research questions and treatment options. Existing cultural resource data are obtained from 

published and unpublished documents, BLM cultural resource inventory records, institutional site files, 

state and national registers, interviews, and other information sources. Class I inventories, which should 

have prehistoric, historic, and ethnological elements, are in large part chronicles of past land uses, and as 

such they should be relevant to current land use decisions. General information about sacred sites and other 

places of traditional cultural or religious importance to American Indians or other cultural groups 

(including TCPs as discussed in the 1998 National Register Bulletin No. 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and 

Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties) should be included as much as possible in the inventory. 

Class I inventories are periodically updated, in both the compilation and the synthesis, to incorporate new 

data from Class II and Class III inventories, histories, oral testimony, and other sources. They can be used 

to develop regional research designs for resource evaluation. Maintaining current Class I inventories in 

GIS-compatible format is of critical importance for making cultural resources information readily available 

for research, planning, management, and compliance activities.

 Class II, probabilistic field survey: a Class II survey is most useful for improving cultural resource 

information in a large area, such as for planning or EIS purposes, in which insufficient systematic 

identification work has been done in the past. A Class II probabilistic field survey is a statistically based 

sample survey designed to aid in characterizing the probable density, diversity, and distribution of cultural 

properties in an area, to develop and test predictive models, and to answer certain kinds of research 

questions. Within individual sample units, survey aims, methods, and intensity are the same as those 

applied in a Class III survey. Class II surveys may be conducted in several phases using different sample 

designs to improve statistical reliability.

o Class II surveys may be appropriate when comparing alternative locations for proposed 

undertakings. Class II surveys are generally not appropriate for determining specific effects of a 

proposed land use, except when the sample distribution and sample rate have proven to be 

sufficient to demonstrate that the specific environmental situations in the area sampled did not 

support human occupation or use to a degree that would make further field survey information 

useful or meaningful. Class II surveys may be appropriate when existing information about the 

project area or similar environments indicates that a properly designed sample survey would 

adequately address the relevant research questions about past human use of the area. Class II 

surveys are generally not appropriate where designing a sample and executing a discontinuous 

survey may prove more demanding and time-consuming than a continuous Class III survey.

o Class II surveys may be appropriate for testing hypotheses about presence or absence of 

significant prehistoric and historic archeological and architectural properties, such as: 

 when the regional inventory suggests a significant correlation between certain 

environmental variables and particular significant property types, which can be tested 

through sampling the study area;

 when comparative effects or cumulative effects assessments are needed for 

environmental documentation;

 when Class I data are found to be biased or otherwise insufficient to allow for reasoned 

judgments during general land use planning or activity planning; and

 when generating statistical data needed for developing and testing predictive models.

 Class III, intensive field survey: an intensive survey is most useful when it is necessary to know precisely 

what historic properties exist in a given area or when information sufficient for later evaluation and 

treatment decisions is needed on individual historic properties. Intensive survey describes the distribution 

of properties in an area; determines the number, location, and condition of properties; determines the types 

of properties actually present within the area; permits classification of individual properties; and records the 

physical extent of specific properties.
CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

CUL-3

CULTURAL RESOURCE USE CATEGORIES 

The following is from BLM Manual Guidance-8110.4. See also Information Bulletin No. 2002-101, Cultural 

Resource Considerations in Resource Management Plans (BLM 2002b).

Categorizing According to Uses

Categorizing cultural resources according to their potential uses is the culmination of the identification process 

and the bridge to protection and utilization decisions. Use categories establish what needs to be protected, and 

when or how use should be authorized. All cultural resources have uses, but not all should be used in the same 

way. Cultural resources can be allocated to the various recognized use categories even before they are 

individually identified. The clear advantage in doing this is that it allows field office managers to know in 

advance how to respond to conflicts that arise between specific cultural resources and other land uses. Relative 

to the national programmatic agreement, categorizing resources to uses provides a mechanism for the field 

office manager and the SHPO [State Historic Preservation Office] to confer and concur on how to handle most 

routine cases of conflict in advance, enabling the field office manager to put decisions into effect in the most 

appropriate and most timely manner. 

Allocations to Use Categories

A. Field office managers shall allocate to appropriate use categories all cultural properties known and 

projected to occur in a plan area. Allocations are made in regional plans, local interdisciplinary plans, or 

project plans (as relevant and timely) and may be applied either to individual properties or to classes of similar 

properties. Appropriately qualified staff professionals recommend suitable uses for each cultural property or 

class of properties, considering the properties’ characteristics, condition, setting, location, and accessibility, 

and especially their perceived values and potential uses. A cultural property may be allocated to more than one 

use category. When allocations have not been made in other planning decisions they should be made during 

the compliance process for land use authorizations, to allow Field Office managers to analyze needs and 

develop appropriate mitigation and treatment options. 

B. Allocations should be reevaluated and revised, as needed, when circumstances change or new data become 

available. Allocations should be consistent with historic context documents and State Historic Preservation 

Plans.

The following is from BLM Manual 8110.42, Use Categories:

A. Scientific Use: This category applies to any cultural property determined to be available for consideration 

as the subject of scientific or historical study at the present time, using currently available research techniques. 

Study includes methods that would result in the property’s physical alteration or destruction. This category 

applies almost entirely to prehistoric and historic archeological properties, where the method of use is 

generally archeological excavation, controlled surface collection, and/or controlled recordation (data 

recovery). Recommendations to allocate individual properties to this use must be based on documentation of 

the kinds of data the property is thought to contain and the data’s importance for pursuing specified research 

topics. Properties in this category need not be conserved in the face of a research or data recovery (mitigation) 

proposal that would make adequate and appropriate use of the property’s research importance. 

B. Conservation for Future Use: This category is reserved for any unusual cultural property which, because of 

scarcity, a research potential that surpasses the current state of the art, singular historic importance, cultural 

importance, architectural interest, or comparable reasons, is not currently available for consideration as the 

subject of scientific or historical study that would result in its physical alteration. A cultural property included 

in this category is deemed worthy of segregation from all other land or resource uses, including cultural 

resource uses, that would threaten the maintenance of its present condition or setting, as pertinent, and will 

remain in this use category until specified provisions are met in the future. 
CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

CUL-4

C. Traditional Use: This category is to be applied to any cultural resource known to be perceived by a 

specified social and/or cultural group as important in maintaining the cultural identity, heritage, or well-being 

of the group. Cultural properties assigned to this category are to be managed in ways that recognize the 

importance ascribed to them and seek to accommodate their continuing traditional use. 

D. Public Use: This category may be applied to any cultural property found to be appropriate for use as an 

interpretive exhibit in place, or for related educational and recreational uses by members of the public. The 

category may also be applied to buildings suitable for continued use or adaptive use, for example as staff 

housing or administrative facilities at a visitor contact or interpretive site, or as shelter along a cross-country 

ski trail. 

E. Experimental Use: This category may be applied to a cultural property judged well suited for controlled 

experimental study, to be conducted by BLM or others concerned with the techniques of managing cultural 

properties, which would result in the property’s alteration, possibly including loss of integrity and destruction 

of physical elements. Committing cultural properties or the data they contain to loss must be justified in terms 

of specific information that would be gained and how it would aid in the management of other cultural 

properties. Experimental study should aim toward understanding the kinds and rates of natural or humancaused deterioration, testing the effectiveness of protection measures, or developing new research or 

interpretation methods and similar kinds of practical management information. It should not be applied to 

cultural properties with strong research potential, traditional cultural importance, or good public use potential, 

if it would significantly diminish those uses. 

F. Discharged from Management: This category is assigned to cultural properties that have no remaining 

identifiable use. Most often, these are prehistoric and historic archeological properties, such as small surface 

scatters of artifacts or debris, whose limited research potential is effectively exhausted as soon as they have 

been documented. Also, more complex archeological properties that have had their salient information 

collected and preserved through mitigation or research may be discharged from management, as should 

cultural properties destroyed by any natural event or human activity. Properties discharged from management 

remain in the inventory, but they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain other 

land uses. Particular classes of unrecorded cultural properties may be named and described in advance as 

dischargeable upon documentation, but specific cultural properties must be inspected in the field and recorded 

before they may be discharged from management. 

Relationship between Evaluation and Allocation

Cultural properties are evaluated with reference to National Register criteria for the purpose of assessing their 

historical values and their public significance. Such evaluations should be carefully considered when cultural 

properties are allocated to use categories and decisions are made regarding the appropriateness of National 

Register nomination and/or long-term preservation. Although preservation and nomination priorities must be 

weighed on a case-by-case basis, the following table can serve as a general guide to illustrate the relationship 

between National Register evaluation and allocation to use categories.

LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES SPECIFIC TO CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Important legislation and other mandates and direction governing cultural resource management on public lands 

include the following:

 Antiquities Act of 1906 (P.L. 59-209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433);

 Historic Sites Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-292; 49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C. 461);

 Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960, as amended by Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (P.L. 

86-523; 74 Stat. 220, 221; 16 U.S.C. 469; P.L. 93-291; 88 Stat. 174; 16 U.S.C. 469);

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (P.L. 89-665; 80 Stat. 915; 16 U.S.C. 470);

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190; 83 Stat. 852; 42 U.S.C. 4321, 4331-4335);
CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

CUL-5

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579; 90 Stat. 2743; 43 U.S.C. 1701; 

“FLPMA”);

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-431; 92 Stat. 469; 42 U.S.C. 1996);

 Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-95; 93 Stat. 721; 16 U.S.C. 47Oaa et seq.), as 

amended (P.L. 100-555; P.L. 100-588);

 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-601; 104 Stat. 3048; 25 U.S.C. 

3001 et seq.);

 Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment;

 Executive Order 13007, Providing for American Indian and Alaska Native Religious Freedom and Sacred 

Land Protections;

 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;

 Executive Order 13195, Trails for America in the 21st Century;

 Executive Order 13287, Preserve America;

 36 CFR Part 60 (National Register of Historic Places);

 36 CFR Part 61 (Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs);

 36 CFR Part 63 (Determinations of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places);

 36 CFR Part 65 (National Historic Landmarks Program);

 36 CFR Part 78 (Waiver of Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act);

 36 CFR Part 79 (Curation of Federally-Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections);

 36 CFR Part 800 (Protection of Historic Properties);

 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 (Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act);

 43 CFR Part 3 (Preservation of American Antiquities);

 43 CFR Part 7 (Protection of Archaeological Resources);

 43 CFR Part 10 (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Regulations);

 BLM policy and program guidance for the management of cultural resources outlined in Manual Sections 

8100, 8110, 8120, 8130, 8150, 8160, and 8170;

 BLM Handbooks H-8120-1 and H-8160-1; and

 Programmatic Agreement Among the Bureau of Land Management, the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation, and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Regarding the Manner in 

which Bureau of Land Management will meet its Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation 

Act.
This page intentionally left blank.
ECONOMICS APPENDIX

ECO-1

ECONOMICS APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for economics and economic analysis in the planning area. Information 

includes detailed methodology and supplementary information for Chapter 4 analysis.

CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY, ASSUMPTIONS, AND 

INCOMPLETE INFORMATION

• The analysis area for the economic analysis consists of the 17 Montana counties that include lands

managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office (MCFO), which include Big 

Horn, Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, 

Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, Valley, and Wibaux counties.

• The planning area population trends will continue as described in Chapter 3, Affected Environment.

• The number of permanent, other-than-permanent BLM employees, and annual expenditures for resource 

management would not vary by alternative.

• Regional economic impacts are estimated based on the assumption of full implementation of each 

alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on individuals taking advantage of the 

resource-related opportunities that would be supported by each alternative. If market conditions or trends in 

resource use were not conducive to developing some opportunities, the impact on the economy would be 

different from that estimated in this document. 

• Resource specialists’ projected annual resource outputs are based on the best available information and 

professional judgment. The purpose of this economic analysis is to compare the relative impacts of the 

resource management alternatives and should not be viewed as the actual change in value.

• Potential economic impacts are assessed using the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool developed 

by the United States Forest Service (USFS) Inventory and Monitoring Institute in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

This model uses a Microsoft Excel workbook as the interface between user inputs and data generated using 

the IMPLAN input-output modeling system. 

o The Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool analysis assesses the economic impacts of the 

resource outputs projected under each alternative. Resource outputs in this context are the amount 

of a resource (e.g., timber volume, animal unit months, recreation visits) that would be available 

for use under each alternative. Resource specialists projected annual average resource outputs for 

each alternative for the 20-year planning period based on the best available information and 

professional judgment. Impacts to economic well-being are measured in terms of employment and 

labor income. 

• Employment and labor income estimates developed for this analysis include direct, indirect, and induced 

economic effects. For example, direct employment would be generated in the oil and gas sectors. 

Additional employment would be generated as the affected oil and gas operations purchase services and 

materials as inputs (indirect effects) and employees spend their earnings within the local economy (induced 

effects). 

• Wildland fire suppression costs are not provided by alternative because it is not possible to predict the level 

of non-prescribed wildland fire that would occur under any of the alternatives.

• All sawtimber harvested within the analysis area would be logged by logging contractors, not households. 

The logs would be processed at mills outside the planning area.

• Oil and gas drilling and production estimates are based on Table 24, Disturbance Associated with New 

Producing Wells for the Baseline Scenario, of the Revised MCFO Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

(RFD) Scenario (2011) for fluid minerals in the Minerals Appendix. The RFD predicts the total number of 

oil and gas wells that will be drilled by development potential, producing areas, and ownerships over the 

next 20 years. The economic impacts, for each alternative, are based on annual average changes in federal 

leasing, production, and revenues.
ECONOMICS APPENDIX

ECO-2

• The benefit transfer method was used to estimate non-market economic values related to recreation 

opportunities by transferring available information from studies already completed in other locations, 

context, or both. Loomis (2005) summarizes more than 30 years of literature on net economic value of 

outdoor recreation on public lands, and provides average expenditures per day for 30 recreation activities at 

the national level. 

• Recreation visits are assigned to different user groups based on primary use but this does not account for 

the fact that recreation visitors may engage in one or more activities during the same visit. Overnight 

visitors camping on MCFO-administered lands, for example, are placed in the camping category only, even 

though they may also be pursuing a number of other different recreation activities. 

• Projected recreation visits and expenditures are distributed among different types of visitors based on the 

results of National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys conducted for the Custer National Forest and the Dakota 

Prairie Grasslands (USFS 2009b and 2009c).

• The ratios of recreation visits to jobs and the income used to assess the impacts of the alternatives are based 

on national ratios developed through the USFS National Visitor Use Monitoring program. 

TABLE 1.

RESPONSE COEFFICIENTS ASSOCIATED WITH BLM PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Program Units Employment 

(Jobs/M units)

Labor Income 

($/M units)

Grazing

Cattle and Horses Head months 0.21 $4,554

Sheep and Goats Head months 0.06 $1,005

Minerals

Natural Gas mmcf 0.01 $534

Oil Barrels 0.20 $13,182

Coal Short tons 0.01 $454

Recreation

Day Visits 0.15 $3,804

Non-Local-Overnight Visits 0.60 $14,069

Local-Overnight Visits 0.11 $3,042

Forestry

Forest Products mmcf 27 $670,000

BLM Expenditures

Salaries Dollars 0.03 $1,186

Non salary Dollars <0.01 $180

MMCF: million cubic feet
ECONOMICS APPENDIX

ECO-3

TABLE 2.

ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND ANNUAL TREATMENTS BY 

ALTERNATIVE

Treatment Current

(2009) Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E Cost per unit

Mechanical 

treatments (acres) 540 540 1,080 1,620 540 1,620

Cost mechanical 

treatments ($1,000)

$216

(100% 

BLM)

$216 $432 $648 $216 $648

Average

$400 

per acre

Cost mechanical 

treatments, nonBLM-administered 

lands ($1,000)

0

Prescribed burning 

(forest acres) 1,500 1,500 3,000 4,500 1,500 4,500

Cost prescribed 

burning-forest 

($1,000)

$90

(100% 

BLM)

$90 $180 $270 $90 $270

Average 

$90 per 

acre

Prescribed 

burning/mechanical 

(grassland acres)

0

Cost prescribed 

burning/mechanicalgrasslands ($1,000)0 (100% BLM)

Weed spraying 

(acres) 2,179 2,179 2,179 2,179 2,179 2,179 $119 per acre

TABLE 3.

BLM EMPLOYMENT AND EXPENDITURES BY ALTERNATIVE

Employees Current 

(2009) Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Permanent 105 105 105 105 105 105

Other than 

Permanent 56 56 56 56 56 56

Expenditures

Salary ($1,000) $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200 $7,200

Non Salary

($1,000) $5,900 $5,900 $5,900 $5,900 $5,900 $5,900
ECONOMICS APPENDIX

ECO-4

TABLE 5.

LABOR INCOME BY BLM PROGRAM BY ALTERNATIVE1

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Current Percentage Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Recreation,

Non Local $669 1 $697 $736 $707 $683 $707

Fish and 

Wildlife,

Non local

1,419 2 1,478 1,561 1,499 1,449 1,499

Grazing 1,777 2 1,777 1,571 1.,736 1,741 1,737

Forestry 74 <1 74 0 76 134 134

Minerals 64,415 76 105,113 66,285 92,668 96,254 87,891

Payments to

states and 

counties

7,220 8 7,467 6,974 7,398 7,419 7,281

BLM 

Expenditure 9,558 11 9,558 9,558 9,558 9,558 9,558

Total BLM

contributed 154,395 350,608 154,498 213,294 260,555 242,898

Percent Change from Current 48.2% 1.8% 33.5% 37.7% 27.8%

1Thousands of dollars

TABLE 4.

EMPLOYMENT BY BLM PROGRAM BY ALTERNATIVE

Resource or 

Resource 

Use

Current Percentage Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Recreation,

Non-Local 31 2 32 34 32 31 32

Fish and 

Wildlife,

Non local

59 4 61 64 62 60 62

Grazing 82 5 82 72 80 80 80

Forestry 3 <1 3 0 3 5 5

Minerals 977 62 1,673 1,011 1,478 1,532 1,384

Payments to

states and 

counties

195 12 202 188 200 200 196

BLM 

Expenditures 227 14 227 227 227 227 227

Total BLM

contributed 1,572 2,278 1,596 2,081 2,135 1,986

Percent Change from Current 45.0% 1.5% 32.4% 35.8% 26.4%
ECONOMICS APPENDIX

ECO-5

TABLE 6.

RECREATION, FEAST1 RESOURCE DATA ENTRY

Description Fiscal Year 

2009 Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

General Recreation, Total 44,634 46,500 49,098 47,149 45,571 47,149

Non-Local-Day Trips 8,034 8,370 8,838 8,487 8,203 8,487

Non-Local-Overnight-BLM 4,017 4,185 4,419 4,243 4,101 4,243

Non-Local-Overnight 7,141 7,440 7,856 7,544 7,291 7,544

Local-Day trips 20,532 21,390 22,585 21,689 20,963 21,689

Local-Overnight-BLM 893 930 982 943 911 943

Local-Overnight 4,017 4,185 4,419 4,243 4,101 4,243

Fish-and-Wildlife-Related 

Recreation, Total 90,621 94,409 99,683 95,727 92,524 95,727

Non-Local-Day Trips 16,312 16,994 17,943 17,231 16,654 17,231

Non-Local-Overnight-BLM 8,156 8,497 8,971 8,615 8,327 8,615

Non-Local-Overnight 14,499 15,105 15,949 15,316 14,804 15,316

Local Day Trips 41,686 43,428 45,854 44,034 42,561 44,034

Local-Overnight-BLM 1,812 1,888 1,994 1,915 1,850 1,915

Local-Overnight 8,156 8,497 8,971 8,615 8,327 8,615

Total Net Expenditure ($1,000) $8,814 $9,183 $9,696 $9,311 $9,000 $9,311

Percent change 4.2% 10% 5.6% 2.1% 5.6%

1Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool

TABLE 7.

PUBLIC REVENUES FROM RECREATION-RELATED ACTIVITIES

Description

Fiscal 

Year 

2009

Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D Alt E

Special Recreation Permits $39,378 $41,875 $37,688 $39,781 $41,875 $39,781

Recreation Use Permits (602) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Recreation Revenues $39,378 $41,875 $37,688 $39,781 $41,875 $39,781

Note: Recreation revenues are not distributed to the state or counties.

TABLE 8.

EXPENDITURES AND PERCENTAGE OF USE ON NATIONAL FORESTLANDS1

Forest 

Administrative 

Unit

Non-Local Segments Local Segments 2010 Dollars

Day

OVN

National 

Forest

OVN Day

OVN

National 

Forest

OVN Day OVN

Custer National 

Forest 31 11 17 39 2 0 $24.89 $106.68

Dakota Prairie 

Grasslands 4 6 14 57 1 18 $36.75 $145.80

Average218 9 16 46 2 9 $30.82 $126.24

1Nonprimary use added to local day use. 2Planning area expenditures, net expenditure, and use by segments, day or 

overnight (OVN), are the average of the two forests.
This page intentionally left blank.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-1

FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information and specific conservation plans, actions, and guidelines to guide 

wildlife management in the resource management plan (RMP) planning area. 

 A complete list of aquatic species occurring in the planning area is included in this appendix.

 Guidance for terrestrial wildlife in this appendix includes the following.

o Bighorn sheep management, which includes detailed information for specialized design 

features to minimize or prevent contact between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep or goats.

o Sage-grouse management, which includes the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies (WAFWA) sage-grouse guidelines and guidance for monitoring of sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitat.

o Migratory bird conservation guidelines, which includes guidance and conservation strategies 

under applicable plans.

o Special status wildlife species information, which includes a list of relevant plans and detailed 

information regarding consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS).

 The Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan (WMPP) contains information for wildlife management 

and monitoring of coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development in the Decker area. For management and 

monitoring of CBNG leasing and oil and gas leasing and development (other than CBNG), see the rest 

of this document and the Monitoring Appendix.

AQUATIC WILDLIFE

AMPHIBIANS

The planning area supports six species of amphibians in the planning area (and possibly the nonnative American 

bullfrog) (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

NATIVE AND NONNATIVE AMPHIBIAN SPECIES OCCURRING IN 

THE PLANNING AREA

Native Nonnative

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris maculata

American 

bullfrog1

Rana 

catesbeiana

Great plains toad Bufo cognatus

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Plains spadefoot Spea bombifrons

Tiger salamander Ambystomia tigrinum

Woodhouse’s toad Bufo woodhousii

1

Although the American bullfrog has not been officially documented in the planning area, it 

is likely present in low abundance. 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-2

REPTILES

The planning area supports 14 species of reptiles in the planning area (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

NATIVE AND NONNATIVE REPTILE SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE PLANNING AREA

Native Nonnative

Common gartersnake Thamnophis radix

There are no known introduced 

reptiles in the planning area.

Common sagebrush lizard Sceloporus gracious

Eastern racer Coluber constrictor

Greater short-horned lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi

Gophersnake Pituophis catenifer

Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta

Plains gartersnake Thamnophis radix

Western rattlesnake Crotalus viridis

Smooth greensnake Opheodrys vernalis

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentine

Spiny softshell turtle Apalone spinifera

Terrestrial gartersnake Thamnophis elegans

Western hog-nosed snake Heterdon nasicus

FISH 

The planning area supports 63 species of fish, including 35 native and 28 nonnative (introduced) species 

(Holton and Johnson 2003; MFWP 2010b) (Table 3).

TABLE 3. 

NATIVE AND NONNATIVE FISH SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE PLANNING AREA

Native Nonnative

Bigmouth buffalo (Ictiobus cyprinellus)

Black bullhead (Ameiurus melas)

Black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus)

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

Brown trout (Salmo trutta)

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) Cisco (Coregonus artedi)

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Golden shiner (Notemigonus 

crysoleucas) Green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus)

Goldfish (Carassius auratus)

Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka)

Lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

Largemouth bass (Micropterus 

salmoides) Northern pike (Esox lucius)

Plains killifish (Fundulus kansae)

Blue sucker (Cycleptus elongatus)3

Brassy minnow (Hybognathus hankinsoni)

Brook stickleback (Culaea inconstans)

Burbot (Lota lota)

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus)

Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus)

Emerald shiner (Notropis atherinoides)

Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)

Flathead chub (Hybopsis gracilis)

Freshwater drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)

Goldeye (Hiodon alosoides)

Iowa darter (Etheostoma exile)

Lake chub (Couesius plumbeus)

Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae)

Longnose sucker (Catostomus catostomus)

Northern redbelly dace (Phoxinus eos)

Northern red-belly x finescale dace hybrid

(Phoxinus eos x phoxinus eogaeus)3

Paddlefish (Polyodon spathula)3

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus)1
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-3

TABLE 3. 

NATIVE AND NONNATIVE FISH SPECIES OCCURRING IN THE PLANNING AREA

Native Nonnative

Pearl dace (Margariscus margarita)3

Pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus)

Rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax)

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Rock bass (Ambloplites rupestris)

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu)

Spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius)

Walleye (Sander vitreus)

Western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)

White bass (Morone chrysops)

White crappie (Pomoxis annularis)

Yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis) 

Yellow perch (Perca flavescens)

Plains minnow (Hybognathus placitus)

River carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio)

Sand shiner (Notropis stramineus)

Sauger (Stizostedion canadense)3

Shorthead redhorse (Moxostoma macrolepidotum)

Shortnose gar (Lepisosteus platostomus)1

Shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus 

platorynchus)

Sicklefin chub (Macrohybopsis meeki)1

Smallmouth buffalo (Ictiobus bubalus)

Stonecat (Noturus flavus)

Sturgeon chub (Macrohybopsis gelida)3

Western silvery minnow (Hybognathus argyritis)

White sucker (Catostomus commersoni)

1MFWP species of special concern

2An endangered species and BLM special status species

3A Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) species of special concern and BLM sensitive species

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE

BIGHORN SHEEP

The following are additional guidelines for implementation of specialized design features to reduce contact 

between bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and goats: 

 instructions to address management, retrieval, and disposition of any stray domestic sheep and goats 

used for invasive weed control left on public lands;

 use of herders, dogs, or other guarding animals trained to repel animals foreign to domestic sheep 

bands or goat flocks; 

 confinement of domestic sheep and goats at night to minimize strays and the use of adequate fencing 

configurations designed to achieve the most effective separation possible; and 

 evaluation of timing of permitted domestic sheep and goat trailing or grazing activities to reduce 

disease transmission risk. 

SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

Conservation measures delineated in the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in 

Montana-Final, which was developed by a joint working group, will be considered and used as the basis for 

conserving sage-grouse populations through implementation of this RMP (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 

2005). Conservation measures would guide habitat management recommendations, along with the WAFWA 

guidelines, which are summarized in this appendix. Only habitat-related conservation measures from the plan 

and guidelines are utilized in the RMP alternatives. The Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for 

Sage Grouse in Montana-Final (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005) is in conformance with the National 

BLM Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004i).
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-4

RISKS TO SAGE-GROUSE AND THEIR HABITAT

The Montana Sage Grouse Work Group identified risks to sage-grouse and their habitat during the conservation 

planning effort. Conservation actions proposed in the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage 

Grouse in Montana-Final would address the 12 major issues presented in the plan and reduce the identified 

risks (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005). The conservation actions are related to:

 fire management;

 livestock grazing management;

 harvest management;

 noxious weed management;

 managing other wildlife in sage-grouse habitats;

 mining and energy development;

 outreach and education;

 power lines and generation facilities;

 predation;

 recreational disturbance;

 roads and motorized vehicles; and

 vegetation.

See the Best Management Practices Appendix for the conservation actions identified in this RMP.

WESTERN ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES SAGE-GROUSE GUIDELINES

<The following is from Guidelines to Manage Sage Grouse Populations and Their Habitats (Connelly, 

Schroeder, Sands, and Braun 2000).>

Sage-grouse populations occupy relatively large areas on a year-round basis (Berry and Eng 1985; Connelly et 

al. 1988; Wakkinen 1990; Leonard et al. 2000), invariably involving a mix of ownerships and jurisdictions. 

Thus, state and federal natural resource agencies and private landowners must coordinate efforts over at least an 

entire seasonal range to successfully implement these guidelines. Based on current knowledge of sage-grouse 

population and habitat trends, these guidelines have been developed to help agencies and landowners effectively 

assess and manage populations, protect and manage remaining habitats, and restore damaged habitat. Because 

of gaps in knowledge and regional variation in habitat characteristics (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981), the 

judgment of local biologists and quantitative data from population and habitat monitoring are necessary to 

implement the guidelines correctly. Further, agencies are urged to use an adaptive management approach 

(Macnab 1983; Gratson et al. 1993), using monitoring and evaluation to assess the success of implementing 

these guidelines to manage sage-grouse populations. 

Activities responsible for the loss or degradation of sagebrush habitats also may be used to restore habitat. 

These activities include prescribed fire, grazing, herbicides, and mechanical treatments. Decisions on land 

treatments using these tools should be based on quantitative knowledge of vegetative conditions over an entire 

population’s seasonal range.

Generally, the treatment selected should be that which is least disruptive to the vegetation community and has 

the most rapid recovery time. This selection should not solely be based on economic cost.

Definitions

For the purpose of these guidelines, an occupied lek is defined as a traditional display area in or adjacent to 

sagebrush-dominated habitats that has been attended by >2 male sage-grouse in >2 of the previous 5 years. A 

breeding population is defined as a group of birds associated with one or more occupied leks in the same 

geographic area separated from other leks by >20 km. This definition is somewhat arbitrary but generally based 

on maximum distances females move to nest.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-5

General Habitat Management

The following guidelines pertain to all seasonal habitats used by sage-grouse.

1. Monitor habitat conditions and only propose treatments if warranted by range condition (i.e., the area 

no longer supports habitat conditions described in the following guidelines under habitat protection). 

Do not base land treatments on schedules, targets, or quotas.

2. Use appropriate vegetation treatment techniques (e.g., mechanical methods, fire. to remove junipers 

and other conifers that have invaded sage-grouse habitat (Commons et al. 1999). Whenever possible, 

use vegetation control techniques that are least disruptive to the stand of sagebrush, if this stand meets 

the needs of sage-grouse (Table 3).

3. Increase the visibility of fences and other structures occurring within one km of seasonal ranges by 

flagging or similar means if these structures appear hazardous to flying grouse (e.g., birds have been 

observed hitting or narrowly missing these structures or grouse remains have been found next to these 

structures).

4. Avoid building powerlines and other tall structures pro viding perch sites for raptors within 3 km of 

seasonal habitats. If these structures must be built, or presently exist, the lines should be buried or 

poles modified to prevent their use as raptor perch sites.

Breeding Habitat Management

For both migratory and non-migratory populations, lek attendance, nesting, and early brood rearing occur in 

breeding habitats. These habitats are sagebrush-dominated range-lands with a healthy herbaceous understory 

and are critical for survival of sage-grouse populations. Mechanical disturbance, prescribed fire, and herbicides 

can be used to restore sage-grouse habitats to those conditions identified as appropriate in the following sections 

on habitat protection. Local biologists and range ecologists should select the appropriate technique on a caseby-case basis. Generally, fire should not be used in breeding habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush if 

these areas support sage-grouse. Fire can be difficult to control and tends to burn the best remaining nesting and 

early brood rearing habitats (i.e., those areas with the best remaining understory), while leaving areas with poor 

understory. Further, using fire in habitats dominated by xeric mountain big sagebrush (A. t. xericensis) is not 

recommended because annual grasses commonly invade these habitats and much of the original habitat has 

been altered by fire (Bunting et al. 1987).

Although mining and energy development are common activities throughout the range of sage-grouse, 

quantitative data on the long-term effects of these activities on sage-grouse are limited. However, some negative 

impacts have been documented (Braun 1998, Lyon 2000). Thus, these activities should be discouraged in 

breeding habitats, but, when unavoidable, restoration efforts should follow procedures outlined in these 

guidelines.

Habitat Protection

1. Manage breeding habitats to support 15-25 percent canopy cover of sagebrush, perennial herbaceous 

cover averaging >18 cm in height with >15 percent canopy cover for grasses and >10 percent for forbs 

and a diversity of forbs (Barnett and Crawford 1994, Drut et al. 1994a, Apa 1998) during spring (Table 

3). Habitats meeting these conditions should have a high priority for wildfire suppression and should 

not be considered for sagebrush control programs. Sagebrush and herbaceous cover should provide 

overhead and lateral concealment from predators. If average sagebrush height is >75 cm, herbaceous 

cover may need to be substantially greater than 18 cm to provide this protection. There is much 

variability among sagebrush-dominated habitats (Tisdale and Hironaka 1981; Hironaka et al. 1983) 

and some Wyoming sagebrush and low sagebrush breeding habitats may not support 25 percent 

herbaceous cover. In these areas, total herbaceous cover should be >15 percent. Further, the 

herbaceous height requirement may not be possible in habitats dominated by grasses that are relatively 

short when mature. In all of these cases, local biologists and range ecologists should develop height 

and cover requirements that are reasonable and eco logically defensible. Leks tend to be relatively 

open, thus cover on leks should not meet these requirements.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-6

2. For non-migratory grouse occupying habitats that are distributed uniformly (i.e., habitats have the 

characteristics described in guideline 1 and are generally distributed around the leks), protect (i.e., do 

not manipulate. sagebrush and herbaceous understory within 3.2 km of all occupied leks. For nonmigratory populations, consider leks the center of year-round activity and use them as focal points for 

management efforts (Braun et al. 1977).

3. For non-migratory populations where sagebrush is not distributed uniformly (i.e., habitats have the 

characteristics described in guideline 1 but distributed irregularly with respect to leks), protect suitable 

habitats for <5 km from all occupied leks. Use radio-telemetry, repeated surveys for grouse use, or 

habitat mapping to identify nesting and early brood rearing habitats.

4. For migratory populations, identify and protect breeding habitats within 18 km of leks in a manner 

similar to that described for non-migratory sage-grouse. For migratory sage-grouse, leks generally are 

associated with nesting habitats but migratory birds may move >18 km from leks to nest sites. Thus, 

protection of habitat within 3.2 km of leks may not protect most of the important nesting areas 

(Wakkinen et al. 1992, Lyon 2000).

5. In areas of large-scale habitat loss (>40 percent of original breeding habitat), protect all remaining 

habitats from additional loss or degradation. If remaining habitats are degraded, follow guidelines for 

habitat restoration listed below.

6. During drought periods (>2 consecutive years), reduce stocking rates or change management practices 

for livestock, wild horses and wild ungulates if cover requirements during the nesting and brood 

rearing periods are not met. Grazing pressure from domestic livestock and wild ungulates should be 

managed in a manner that, at all times, addresses the possibility of drought.

7. Suppress wildfires in all breeding habitats. In the event of multiple fires, land management agencies 

should have all breeding habitats identified and prioritized for suppression, giving the greatest priority 

to breeding habitats that have become fragmented or reduced by >40 percent in the last 30 years.

8. Adjust timing of energy exploration, development, and construction activity to minimize disturbance 

of sage-grouse breeding activities. Energy-related facilities should be located >3.2 km from active leks 

whenever possible. Human activities within view of or <0.5 km from leks should be minimized during 

the early morning and late evening when birds are near or on leks.

Habitat Restoration

1. Before initiating vegetation treatments, quantitatively evaluate the area proposed for treatment to 

ensure that it does not have sagebrush and herbaceous cover suitable for breeding habitat. Treatments 

should not be undertaken within sage-grouse habitats until the limiting vegetation factor(s) has been 

identified, the proposed treatment is known to provide the desired vegetation response, and land use 

activities can be managed after treatment to ensure that vegetation objectives are met.

2. Restore degraded rangelands to a condition that again provides suitable breeding habitat for sagegrouse by including sagebrush, native forbs (especially legumes), and native grasses in reseeding 

efforts (Apa 1998). If native forbs and grasses are unavailable, use species that are functional 

equivalents and provide habitat characteristics similar to those of native species.

3. Where the sagebrush overstory is intact but the understory has been degraded severely and quality of 

nesting habitat has declined, use appropriate techniques (e.g., brush beating in strips or patches and 

interseed with native grasses and forbs) that retain some sagebrush but open shrub canopy to 

encourage forb and grass growth.

4. Do not use fire in sage-grouse habitats prone to invasion by cheatgrass and other invasive weed species 

unless adequate measures are included in restoration plans to replace the cheatgrass understory with 

perennial species using approved reseeding strategies. These strategies could include, but are not 

limited to, use of pre-emergent herbicides (e.g., Oust®, Plateau®) to retard cheatgrass germination 

until perennial herbaceous species become established.

5. When restoring habitats dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush, regardless of the techniques used (e.g., 

prescribed fire, herbicides), do not treat >20 percent of the breeding habitat (including areas burned by 

wildfire. within a 30-year period (Bunting et al. 1987). The 30-year period represents the approximate 

recovery time for a stand of Wyoming big sagebrush. Additional treatments should be deferred until 

the previously treated area again provides suitable breeding habitat. In some cases, this may take <30 

years and in other cases >30 years. If 2,4-D or similar herbicides are used, they should be applied in 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-7

strips such that their effect on forbs is minimized. Because fire generally burns the best remaining 

sage-grouse habitats (i.e., those with the best understory) and leaves areas with sparse understory, use 

fire for habitat restoration only when it can be convincingly demonstrated to be in the best interest of 

sage-grouse.

6. When restoring habitats dominated by mountain big sagebrush, regardless of the techniques used (e.g., 

fire, herbicides), treat <20 percent of the breeding habitat (including areas burned by wildfire. within a 

20-year period (Bunting et al. 1987). The 20-year period represents the approximate recovery time for 

a stand of mountain big sagebrush. Additional treatments should be deferred until the previously 

treated area again provides suitable breeding habitat. In some cases, this may take <20 years and in 

other cases >20 years. If 2,4-D or similar herbicides are used, they should be applied in strips such that 

their effect on forbs is minimized.

7. All wildfires and prescribed burns should be evaluated as soon as possible to determine if reseeding is 

necessary to achieve habitat management objectives. If needed, reseed with sagebrush, native 

bunchgrasses, and forbs whenever possible.

8. Until research unequivocally demonstrates that using tebuthiuron and similar acting herbicides to 

control sagebrush have no long-lasting negative impacts on sage-grouse habitat, use these herbicides 

only on an experimental basis and over a sufficiently small area that any long-term negative impacts 

are negligible. Because these herbicides have the potential of reducing but not eliminating sagebrush 

cover within grouse breeding habitats, thus stimulating herbaceous development, their use as sagegrouse habitat management tools should be examined closely.

Summer-Late Brood Rearing Habitat Management

Sage-grouse may use a variety of habitats, including meadows, farmland, dry lakebeds, sagebrush, and riparian 

zones from late June to early November (Patterson 1952; Wallestad 1975; Connelly 1982; Hanf et al. 1994).

Generally, these habitats are characterized by relatively moist conditions and many succulent forbs in or 

adjacent to sagebrush cover.

Habitat Protection

1. Avoid land use practices that reduce soil moisture effectiveness, increase erosion, cause invasion of 

exotic plants, and reduce abundance and diversity of forbs.

2. Avoid removing sagebrush within 300 m of sage-grouse foraging areas along riparian zones, meadows, 

lakebeds, and farmland, unless such removal is necessary to achieve habitat management objectives 

(e.g., meadow restoration, treatment of conifer encroachment).

3. Discourage use of very toxic organophosphorus and carbamate insecticides in sage-grouse brood 

rearing habitats. Sage-grouse using agricultural areas may be affected adversely by pesticide 

applications (Blus et al. 1989). Less toxic agri-chemicals or biological control may provide suitable 

alternatives in these areas.

4. Avoid developing springs for livestock water, but if water from a spring will be used in a pipeline or 

trough, design the project to maintain free water and wet meadows at the spring. Capturing water from 

springs using pipelines and troughs may affect adversely wet meadows used by grouse for foraging.

Habitat Restoration

1. Use brush beating or other mechanical treatments in strips 4 to 8 m wide in areas with relatively high 

shrub canopy cover (>35 percent total shrub cover) to improve late brood rearing habitats. Brush 

beating can be used to effectively create different age classes of sagebrush in large areas with little age 

diversity.

2. If brush beating is impractical, use fire or herbicides to create a mosaic of openings in mountain big 

sagebrush and mixed shrub communities used as late brood rearing habitats where total shrub cover is 

>35 percent. Generally, 10 to 20 percent canopy cover of sagebrush and <25 percent total shrub cover 

will provide adequate habitat for sage-grouse during summer.

3. Only construct water developments for sage-grouse in or adjacent to known summer use areas and 

provide escape ramps suitable for all avian species and other small animals. Water developments and

“guzzlers” may improve sage-grouse summer habitats (Autenrieth et al. 1982; Hanf et al. 1994). 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-8

However, sage-grouse used these developments infrequently in southeastern Idaho because most were 

constructed in sage-grouse winter and breeding habitat, rather than summer range (Connelly and 

Doughty 1989).

4. Whenever possible, modify developed springs and other water sources to restore natural free-flowing 

water and wet meadow habitats.

Winter Habitat Management

Sagebrush is the essential component of winter habitat. Sage-grouse select winter use sites based on snow depth 

and topography and snowfall can affect the amount and height of sagebrush available to grouse (Connelly 1982; 

Hupp and Braun 1989; Robertson 1991). Thus, on a landscape scale, sage-grouse winter habitats should allow 

grouse access to sagebrush under all snow conditions.

Habitat Protection

1. Maintain sagebrush communities on a landscape scale, allowing sage-grouse access to sagebrush 

stands with canopy cover of 10-30 percent and heights of at least 25-35 cm regardless of snow cover. 

These areas should be high priority for wildfire suppression and sagebrush control should be avoided.

2. Protect patches of sagebrush within burned areas from disturbance and manipulation. These areas may 

provide the only winter habitat for sage-grouse and their loss could result in the extirpation of the 

grouse population. They also are important seed sources for sagebrush reestablishment in the burned 

areas. During fire suppression activities do not remove or bum any remaining patches of sagebrush 

within the fire perimeter.

3. In areas of large-scale habitat loss (>40 percent of original winter habitat), protect all remaining 

sagebrush habitats.

Habitat Restoration

1. Reseed former winter range with the appropriate subspecies of sagebrush and herbaceous species 

unless the species are re-colonizing the area in a density that would allow recovery within 15 years.

2. Discourage prescribed burns >50 ha and do not burn >20 percent of an area used by sage-grouse 

during winter within any 20 to 30 year interval (depending on estimated recovery time for the 

sagebrush habitat).

<End of Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Guidelines>

SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT AREA ALTERNATIVES

Factors Considered

As directed by BLM Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. MT-2010-017, development of Sage-grouse HabitatGeneral Habitat Areas, Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas, and Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration

Areas were developed utilizing an interdisciplinary planning team (BLM 2009c). Criteria for the Protection 

Priority Areas and Restoration Areas included BLM-administered lands, sage-grouse lek locations, existing and 

potential surface-disturbing activities, digital elevation models, various datasets, and other factors. It should be 

noted that, although nonnative habitats exist within these areas and not all habitats within the designated areas 

are sagebrush habitat, these designations provide a landscape-level approach needed to maintain sustainable 

sage-grouse populations.

 Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas: Areas with or without ongoing or imminent impacts and 

containing sage-grouse habitat outside of the Restoration or Priority Areas. Management actions would 

maintain habitat for sustainable sage-grouse populations to promote movement and genetic diversity. 

The General Habitat Areas were derived primarily from the Schroeder et al (2004) current distribution 

map but also include additional buffered lek areas. 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-9

 Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas: Areas with limited impacts and containing substantial 

and high-quality sage-grouse habitat that support sustainable sage-grouse populations. Management 

actions would emphasize the protection and enhancement of sustainable sage-grouse populations. 

Areas are delineated by using “key” “MFWP core” and connectivity data or maps and other resource 

information.

 Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas: Areas with ongoing or imminent impacts and containing 

substantial and high quality sage-grouse habitat that historically supported sustainable sage-grouse 

populations. Management actions would emphasize restoration for the purpose of establishing or 

restoring sustainable sage-grouse populations. Areas are delineated by using “key” “MFWP core” and 

connectivity data, maps, and other resource information. 

 Core Areas: The term “core” is associated with the state-designated areas. MFWP-identified and 

mapped areas considered most important for sage-grouse. These MFWP core areas are embedded 

within the Protection Priority Areas and the Restoration Areas. 

 MFWP core area: Sage-grouse core areas are habitats associated with Montana’s highest densities of 

sage-grouse (25 percent quartile, based on male counts, or sage-grouse lek complexes and associated 

habitat important to sage-grouse distribution (refer to Appendix 1, Greater Sage-grouse Core Areas 

Designation for Montana Version 1.0, January 13, 2009 in the 2009 Natural Resources Conservation 

Service’s document Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy).

In addition, an identified source population area within a Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Area (in the Cedar 

Creek anticline portion of the planning area) that contains a small population of sage-grouse and low existing 

energy development has been proposed in this RMP. The objective is to maintain remnant populations to enable 

future translocations and maintain connectivity between habitat areas.

MONITORING OF SAGE‐GROUSE AND SAGEBRUSH HABITATS

Background

On March 23, 2010, the 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus 

urophasianus) as Threatened or Endangered were posted as a Federal Register notice (USFWS 2010a). This 

notice stated:

...the information collected by BLM could not be used to make broad generalizations about 

the status of rangelands and management actions. There was a lack of consistency across the 

range in how questions were interpreted and answered for the data call, which limited our 

ability to use the results to understand habitat conditions for sage-grouse on BLM lands. For 

example, one question asked about the number of acres of land within sage-grouse habitat that 

was meeting rangeland health standards. Field offices in more than three States conducted the 

rangeland health assessments, and reported landscape conditions at different scales (Sell 2009, 

pers. comm.). In addition, the BLM data call reported information at a different scale than was 

used for their landscape mapping (District or project level versus national scale) (Buckner 

2009b, pers. comm.) (USFWS 2010a, p. 13976).

Given the degree of uncertainty associated with managing natural resources, adaptive management approaches 

that include rigorous monitoring protocols to support them are essential if conservation goals are to be realized 

(Walters 1986; Burgman, Lindenmayer, and Elith 2005; Stankey, Clark, Bormann 2005; Turner 2005; and

Lyons, Runge, Laskowski, and Kendall 2008). Recent efforts to develop range‐wide policy and conservation 

measures for sage‐grouse have emphasized the importance of improving monitoring efforts on both sage‐grouse 

distribution and population trends, as well as the habitat they depend on (Wambolt et al. 2002; Connelly, Reese, 

and Schroeder 2003; Stiver et al. 2006; Reese and Bowyer 2007; and Connelly et al. 2011). Connelly et al. 2003 

and Stiver, Rinkes, and Naugle 2010 identified the need to assess and monitor sage-grouse habitats based on 

habitat characterization that should follow habitat selection processes identified by Johnson 1980. These 

processes identify four selection orders: 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-10

 range-wide, 

 physical and geographic range of populations, 

 physical and geographic range within home ranges, and 

 physical and geographic areas within seasonal ranges to meet the life requisites of sage-grouse. 

These four habitat selection orders each have unique habitat indicators that should be assessed and monitored to 

properly evaluate sage-grouse habitats and relate those habitat indicators back to sage-grouse populations.

Monitoring tied to RMP decisions has two parts: implementation monitoring (implementation of decisions, 

waivers, modifications, and other actions), and effectiveness monitoring. Through effectiveness monitoring, the 

BLM can answer questions about how BLM decisions and actions impact habitat. Understanding the 

effectiveness and validating results of RMPs and management decisions is an important part of the BLM’s 

measurement of its performance under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Public Law 103-

62, 107 Stat. 285, codified as amended in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C., 31 U.S.C., and 39 U.S.C.). Monitoring 

that is applicable for evaluating management effectiveness can also be used to address a number of other critical 

habitat variables (e.g., location, condition, habitat conversion, size of patches, number of patches, species 

composition, connectivity, linkage, and other variables). Ideally, monitoring attributes of sage‐grouse habitat 

and sage‐grouse populations will allow linking real or potential habitat changes (from both natural events and 

management actions) to vital rates of sage‐grouse populations (Stiver et al. 2006; Naugle and Walker 2007). 

These conclusions will enable managers to identify indicators associated with population change across large 

landscapes and to ameliorate negative effects with appropriate conservation actions (Burgman et al. 2005;

Turner 2005).

Sage‐grouse Habitat Assessment Framework

In August 2010, the Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework: Multi‐scale Habitat Assessment Tool was 

completed (Stiver et al. 2010). The Habitat Assessment Framework provides policy makers, resource managers, 

and natural resource specialists a comprehensive framework for sage-grouse-specific habitat assessments within 

sagebrush ecosystems. Assessment and monitoring of sage-grouse habitat is scale dependent. The Habitat 

Assessment Framework provides consistent indicators, metric descriptions, and habitat suitability characteristics 

for each of these scales specific to sage-grouse. It also provides consistent terminology so that biologists, other 

resource specialists, and managers from a wide range of agencies can address sage-grouse habitats. Monitoring 

inappropriate indicators for various scales can result in monitoring results that cannot correctly evaluate sagegrouse habitats and can misinform management of the effectiveness of land use plan decisions and activity-level 

management actions. 

BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy

The BLM Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy was completed in 2011 (BLM 2012a) and describes 

a vision for integrated, cross-program assessment, inventory, and monitoring of resources at multiple scales of 

management. Following the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy, the BLM is modernizing its 

resource monitoring approach to more efficiently and effectively meet local, regional, and national resource 

information needs. The Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy provides a process for the BLM to 

collect quantitative information on the condition, trend, amount, location, and spatial pattern of natural 

resources on the public lands. Each Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy-Monitoring survey, at any 

scale of inquiry (from the plot level to West-wide deployments), uses a set of core indicators, standardized field 

methods, remote sensing, and a statistically valid study design to provide nationally consistent and scientifically 

defensible information to determine condition (e.g., rangeland health) and trend on public lands.

The national-scale deployment of Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy (i.e., Landscape Monitoring 

Framework) commenced in 2011 with the collection of 1,000 plots of field-collected monitoring data across the 

Western United States. The Landscape Monitoring Framework will add approximately 1,000 new plots per year 

on non-forested public rangeland across the West, plus an additional 1,000 plots per year in greater sage-grouse 

priority habitats. These national core data sets will be integrated with locally collected, project level, core data,

and remote sensing data to determine the condition and trend of sage-grouse habitats and the effectiveness of 

BLM management actions. This will be used to address threats and stressors, restore priority habitats, and 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-11

maintain spatial connectivity at multiple scales of inquiry (from plots to landscapes and regions). Further, these 

multi-scale data will provide information to determine long-term achievement of planning goals and objectives, 

analyze cumulative effects, and serve as the basis for adaptive management actions. A critical element of 

greater sage-grouse monitoring will be the production of an annual public report summarizing the broad-scale 

condition and trend of priority habitats. Analysis of condition and trend reports will adaptively feed back into 

the monitoring process and will be refined as necessary. Additional site- or population-scale monitoring or 

habitat assessments, specific to greater sage-grouse needs, may be implemented when necessary through the 

Sage‐Grouse Habitat Assessment Framework to answer specific local management questions or refine adaptive 

management needs that are not addressed by the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring Strategy-Monitoring 

core indicators.

Implementation

The standardization of monitoring methods and implementation of a defensible monitoring approach (within 

and across jurisdictions) is vital if BLM and other conservation partners are to use the resulting information to 

guide implementation of conservation activities. Monitoring strategies for sage‐grouse habitat and populations 

must be collaborative, as habitat occurs across jurisdictional boundaries (52 percent BLM, 31 percent private, 8

percent USFS, 5 percent state, 3 percent tribal. and 1 percent other federal; USFWS 2010a), and because state

fish and wildlife agencies have primary responsibility for population level management of wildlife, including 

population monitoring. Population efforts therefore will continue to be conducted in partnership with state fish 

and wildlife agencies. The BLM will coordinate its multiple internal, habitat-based protocols among 

jurisdictions, as feasible, to provide large scale data sets to understand trends in sagebrush ecosystems.

Implementation policy directing use of the Habitat Assessment Framework, and the Habitat Assessment 

Framework in conjunction with AIM-Monitoring in addition to other guidance in the BLM’s 2011 National 

Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy will be necessary to provide a framework for consistent 

approaches to sage-grouse habitat condition and trend monitoring across planning units and jurisdictions. This 

implementation policy will be developed by the BLM in cooperation with its conservation partners.

MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION

The Miles City Field Office (MCFO) will use the following considerations, conservation strategies, and priority 

species lists to implement migratory bird conservation in southeastern Montana. Management actions should 

focus on providing a variety of habitat characteristics that support successful breeding by migratory birds. This 

generally requires providing properly functioning habitats with the appropriate vegetation diversity, density, and 

structure based on site potential to support nesting, security and foraging. Vegetation modification actions that 

reduce the capability of habitats to support these needs, such as prescribed fire, timber harvest, and livestock 

grazing, need to be evaluated for potential adverse impacts, particularly if they occur during the spring or early 

summer. The timing and intensity of these actions, as well as the type of habitat and bird species present, may 

substantially influence the level of impact to migratory birds. Such impacts have been considered to represent 

“take” under USFWS regulations and have management implications.

BLM MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION STRATEGY

Non-game migratory birds are the primary species of concern under migratory bird conservation. Whereas 

waterfowl and migratory game birds are cooperatively managed by individual states and the USFWS with 

flyway-specific population and habitat goals and objectives, there has been less emphasis on developing and 

implementing management strategies to protect populations and habitat for other migratory birds, particularly 

neotropical migrants. These are species of songbirds, shorebirds, and raptors that typically breed in North 

America but winter in Latin America. Because of these long-range migrations, it is important that quality 

habitats are adequately distributed along their migration routes to successfully reach their breeding and nesting 

grounds. It is also essential to provide sufficient quantities of suitable breeding habitat to maintain viable 

populations.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-12

The BLM’s Nongame Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Plan (McClure et al. 1992) provides the foundation 

for proactive habitat management on behalf of non-game birds that migrate to the tropics or use neotropical 

habitats. The overall intent is to reverse the decline in some bird populations and to implement this proactive 

program for other migratory species. The plan addresses goals for inventory and monitoring, habitat 

management, research and studies, training, education, outreach and communication, domestic partnerships, and 

international partnerships. Habitat management goals, management opportunities, and recommended strategies 

from the plan include those described below.

Goal: Restore, maintain, and enhance populations of non-game bird species through habitat management.

RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES:

1. Prioritize breeding and migratory habitat for all non-game bird species so that management focus is on 

habitats of highest importance.

a. Prioritize the importance of each habitat type based upon bird use and total acreage present. This 

requires that each state possess a habitat and species inventory that will allow such ranking. The 

detail and resolution of the detail of the inventories will vary among states depending on what data 

is available. Coordination within the BLM and with its partners will be important in this process. 

A given habitat type may be rare on public land in one state, yet common in an adjacent state or on 

a nearby area; subsequently, specifying priorities will require not only good resource data but also 

good communication with other partners.

b. Complete a “gap analysis” to determine areas having high non-game bird habitat values that need 

increased management emphasis. The resolution of this analysis may be at different levels 

depending on the resource and management objectives and executed at the level of the continent 

when identifying stopover habitats for long-distance migrants. The analysis may also be employed 

at the resource area level to identify needed breeding habitat ensuring a minimum, viable 

population of a particular species.

2. Consolidate areas under BLM administration with high non-game bird habitat values or potential.

a. When inventory and monitoring efforts have identified habitat with high bird values, attempt to 

combine such land as identified in RMPs via exchange or other suitable means. If voluntary 

exchange or acquisition is not possible, use easements, memoranda of understanding, or other 

methods to consolidate habitats into units of greater ecological value. This is especially important 

where such actions could provide landscape linkages supplying a bridge between large blocks 

already under management for non-game birds.

3. Restore degraded habitats to a condition consistent with non-game bird habitat objectives, emphasizing 

maintenance and enhancement of natural biological diversity. 

a. Promote viable non-game bird populations and natural biological diversity by implementing or 

continuing habitat restoration programs such as improved livestock management, prescribed 

burning, clearing of exotic vegetation, tree and shrub planting, seeding, fencing, and erosioncontrol structures.

b. Develop and implement management practices for riparian wetland and other areas that take into 

consideration impacts on non-game bird habitats. It is important for biologists and managers to 

pay close attention to how various management actions affect these species and their habitats. 

Research and experience will contribute to the future definition of BMPs for those species and 

their habitats.

4. Incorporate non-game bird management goals in RMPs and activity plans as they are developed or 

amended.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-13

a. Demonstrate that the BLM is a major player in species recovery by taking a prominent role in 

implementing specific recovery plans for federally listed non-game birds that occur on public 

lands.

b. Develop and implement habitat management plans for all federally listed and candidate species of 

non-game birds that are not covered by recovery plans.

5. Use the NEPA process to identify possible mitigation measures to avoid adverse impacts on non-game 

bird species and habitats. 

a. Continue to apply the NEPA process in all management plans and decisions as a standard 

operating procedure. In many cases, several species will be involved and each species may have 

rather different behavior and biological requirements.

OTHER CONSERVATION PLAN OBJECTIVES

In addition to the BLM’s Nongame Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Plan (McClure et al. 1992), several 

other national strategy plans for bird conservation were developed in the 1990s for shorebirds, raptors, and 

waterfowl. The North American Wetland Conservation Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4401 et seq.) 

provides the primary funding source for joint venture projects that can now be implemented for all bird species 

and their habitats, based on national priorities. The objectives for all of these plans are similar:

1. determine population status and trends and identify their habitats on the public lands,

2. restore, maintain, and enhance populations through habitat management,

3. conduct research and studies to obtain knowledge needed for informed decision making for on-theground management of the importance of birds and their value to our natural heritage,

4. develop a broad awareness and understanding of the importance of birds and their value to our natural 

heritage,

5. build on existing relationships and create new partnerships to foster conservation programs, and

6. establish international relationships to enhance hemispheric conservation programs for migratory 

species.

PRIORITY SPECIES OF CONCERN

Many of the high priority bird species identified in bird conservation plans are not currently included on BLM 

special status species lists. It is the intent of the BLM to work with the bird conservation initiatives and the 

Partners in Flight prioritization process to identify where special status species recognition is warranted (see 

BLM Manual Supplement 6840, Special Status Species Management). BLM sensitive species lists are reviewed 

periodically at the state level and should ensure coordination with USFWS and Partners in Flight priority bird 

lists (USFWS 2008).

The USFWS provides a list of Birds of Conservation Concern for specific geographic areas (USFWS 2008). 

The MCFO is included in the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (also known as BCR10), which 

recognizes the following priority species (USFWS 2008):

 Swainson’s hawk,

 golden eagle,

 peregrine falcon,

 American golden-plover,

 mountain plover,

 upland sandpiper,

 yellow-billed cuckoo,

 black swift,

 Lewis’ woodpecker,

 red-naped sapsucker,

 loggerhead shrike,

 Virginia’s warbler,

 McCown’s longspur,

 ferruginous hawk,

 prairie falcon,

 Brewer’s sparrow,

 snowy plover,

 solitary sandpiper,

 whimbrel,

 long-billed curlew,

 sanderling,
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-14

 Wilson’s phalarope,

 marbled godwit,

 flammulated owl,

 Williamson’s sapsucker,

 white-headed woodpecker,

 pygmy nuthatch, and

 yellow rail.

Partners in Flight lists are developed nationally, regionally, and by individual states through specific plans. The 

Montana Bird Conservation Plan identifies numerous priority species for grassland, shrubland, forest, riparian 

and wetland habitats with reasons for concern, management issues and recommendations, and population and 

habitat objectives (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). The following are considered Priority 1 species in the 

plan:

 common loon,

 trumpeter swan,

 piping plover,

 mountain plover,

 flammulated owl,

 black-backed woodpecker,

 brown creeper,

 Sprague’s pipit,

 Baird’s sparrow,

 olive-sided flycatcher,

 burrowing owl,

 harlequin duck 

 sage-grouse, and

 interior least tern.
FWI-15

FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES

See Table 4 for plans and regulations for special status species management in the planning area.

TABLE 4.

RELEVANT PLANS AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

Document Title Year Relevance

BLM Documents

BLM National Greater Sage-grouse Land 

Use Planning Strategy, IM No. 2012-044 2011

Provides land-use plan direction for sage-grouse conservation and consideration 

of measures identified in the BLM’s 2011 A Report on National Greater Sagegrouse Conservation Measures in accordance with the 2011 National Greater 

Sage-grouse Land Use Planning Strategy.

WAFWA Conservation Assessment of 

Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush 

Habitats (Connelly et al. 2004)

2004 Establishes a comprehensive approach to management of sage-grouse habitat on 

public lands.

Miles City District Black-tailed Prairie 

Dog Management Plan 1986 Provides guidelines on prairie dog control or management activities.

BLM Manual 6840 2008 Provides guidelines for the management of special status species.

BLM Use Planning Handbook H-1601 2005 This manual provides guidance for the BLM to manage species of special concern 

in a manner that will not cause these species to become threatened or endangered.

Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management for Montana, North Dakota, 

and South Dakota 

1997

Guideline 13 states that grazing management practices should maintain or 

improve habitat for federal listed threatened, endangered, and special status plants 

and animals.

Other Federal and Tribal Regulations and Plans

Endangered Species Act 1973 Provides guidelines in the protection of federally listed species (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.).

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act 1940/1962 Provides guidelines for the protection of bald eagles (16 U.S.C. 668–668d).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1918/1972

Prohibits the take, capture, or kill any migratory bird, any part, nest, or eggs of 

any such bird (16 U.S.C. 703(a)), this includes all special status avian species (16 

U.S.C. 703–712).

Multi-State Conservation Plan for the 

Black-tailed Prairie Dog in the United 

States

2002 Guidelines to develop management plans for individual states and their respective 

working groups. The plan for state of Montana has been developed.

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan 1988

Outlines steps for recovery of the black-footed ferret throughout its historic range, 

including Montana. Includes captive rearing with establishment of at least ten 

populations in the wild.

Conservation Assessment and 1997 Provides objectives, strategies, and activities designed to achieve the goal of 
FWI-16

FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Document Title Year Relevance

Conservation Strategy for Swift Fox in 

the United States

maintaining and restoring swift fox populations in ten states, including Montana.

Recovery Plan for the Interior Population 

of the Least Tern 1990 Provides recovery objectives, and the actions needed to achieve those objectives, for the interior least tern population.

Draft International Recovery Plan for the 

Whooping Crane 2005 Plan provides a recovery strategy to achieve the goal of establishing multiple selfsustaining whooping crane populations in North America.

Revised Recovery Plan for Piping 

Plovers 1994 Provides piping plover recovery objectives, and the actions needed to achieve those objectives, in the Northern Great Plains and Great Lakes.

State Plans

Conservation Plan for Black-Tailed and 

White-Tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana 2002

Plan establishes workgroups to identify opportunities to manage prairie dogs so 

that the distribution and abundance objectives from the state plan are met. 

Workgroups are to identify specific prairie dog complexes and priority areas for 

maintaining and enhancing their numbers.

Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 

and the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines: An Addendum 

to Montana Bald Eagle Management 

Plan

1994/2010 Provides specific direction to use nest site management zones to eliminate 

potential threats to nesting bald eagles.

Management Plan and Conservation 

Strategies for Sage-grouse in MontanaFinal2004

Plan establishes a process to achieve sage-grouse management objectives and 

provide framework to guide local management efforts. Overall goal of the plan is 

to provide for the long-term conservation and enhancement of the sagebrush 

steppe/mixed-grass prairie complex within Montana in a manner that supports 

sage-grouse, other wildlife, and human uses.

Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Strategy-Draft 2005 Provides priorities for management to preserve wildlife and habitat for those species in greatest need.

Montana Interior Least Tern 

Management Plan 2006 Recommends specific management and research activities believed necessary to sustain the population and aid long-term recovery efforts.

Montana Piping Plover Management 

Plan 2006 Provides recommendations as a multifaceted approach to managing piping plover breeding habitat and increasing levels of productivity.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-17

<The following was sent to the USFWS Field Supervisor, Helena, MT, on March 17, 2011.>

United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Miles City Field Office

111 Garryowen Road

Miles City, Montana 59301-0940

http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/

Memorandum

To: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Ecological Services Field Office, 

Helena, Montana

From: Deborah K. Johnson, Field Manager 

Subject: Preparation of Resource Management Plan for the Miles City Field Office Planning Area

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office (MCFO) is preparing a new resource 

management plan (RMP) for the MCFO planning area. The new RMP would replace the existing Big Dry RMP 

and the Powder River RMP. The new Miles City Field Office RMP would guide management actions for the 

BLM on federal surface and federal mineral estate within the MCFO planning area.

The MCFO staff is preparing a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. The EIS will 

address effects of the new RMP on public lands and mineral estate within the MCFO planning area. The EIS 

will also evaluate potential effects of management actions approved through the new RMP on federally listed 

species listed and critical habitat.

Therefore, we request that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specify what federally listed, proposed, or 

candidate species, as well as critical habitat or proposed critical habitat, may be in or immediately adjacent to 

the MCFO planning area (see attached map). The planning area includes the following counties: Carter, 

Powder River, Fallon, Custer, Rosebud, Wibaux, Prairie, Garfield, McCone, Dawson Richland, Roosevelt, 

Sheridan, Daniels, Treasure, and the eastern one-third of Valley County, and the southeast corner of Bighorn 

County.

If you have any questions on this request or require additional information, please contact Kent Undlin, Wildlife 

Biologist, at 406-233-2845.

Attachment: MCFO planning area map
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-18

<End of letter.>
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-19

<Letter from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service>
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-20
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-21
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

FWI-22
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-1

FISH AND WILDLIFE MONITORING AND PROTECTION PLAN 

FOR THE DECKER AREA

A variety of planning issues related to wildlife were identified during preparation of the DEIS and this RMP. 

The goal of the WMPP is to avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife and serve as a communication tool to foster 

cooperative relationships among the CBNG and conventional oil and gas industry (i.e., operators), resource 

management agencies, landowners, and adjacent tribal governments. Because this plan addresses a large 

geographic area composed of diverse wildlife habitats and unique situations, it must be programmatic in nature. 

However, the need to provide management recommendations and guidance to conserve species and habitats 

remains. Regional or site-specific monitoring and protection plans that follow the guidance provided in this 

programmatic document will be required as part of each CBNG project plan. Implementation of this plan during 

the course of project development and operations should promote wildlife conservation and allow land 

managers and project personnel to maintain wildlife populations and productivity levels simultaneously with the 

development of natural oil and gas resources.

PLAN PURPOSE

Oil and gas leasing decisions and lease stipulations were previously analyzed in the BLM’s 1992 Final Oil and 

Gas RMP/EIS Amendment, Billings-Powder River-South Dakota Resource Management Plans/Environmental 

Impact Statements. Wildlife stipulations attached to leases offer protective measures for certain species during a 

particular time period or within a specific area. These stipulations may not address other concerns related to 

special status species or water- or habitat-related issues caused by direct and indirect impacts from CBNG 

exploration and development. 

Because it is purely speculative to predict how all wildlife will react or how development will proceed, it is 

difficult to develop prescriptive mitigation standards across the entire planning area. Although the BLM has 

some adaptive management strategies in place (e.g., COAs) and compliance inspections), these mechanisms do 

not provide the information necessary to understand cause and effect relationships across a landscape. 

Therefore, the purpose of this plan is to acquire baseline wildlife information, monitor populations, and assess 

stipulations for effectiveness. The WMPP will facilitate the BLM’s ability to pinpoint problems (including the 

evaluation of other contributing factors), design project plans that include conservation for declining species, 

monitor the effectiveness of decisions, and make recommendations to adjust management to address specific 

situations.

AREA AND OBJECTIVES

The WMPP document is the framework for wildlife monitoring (Table 5) and protection across the Decker area 

and provides a template for regional or project-specific WMPP development. The BLM, MFWP, and USFWS 

will work cooperatively to implement portions of the WMPP over the planning area. There are two basic layers 

of analysis: the plan of development (POD) and the Powder River Basin in Montana. 
WMPP-2

Wildlife Monitoring and FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Protection Plan

TABLE 5.

MONITORING TABLE FOR THE DECKER AREA

Element Item Location Technique Unit of 

Measure

Frequency 

and 

Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management Options

Aquatic 

Biological 

Diversity 

(flora/fauna)

Population 

diversity

Intermittent/perennial 

streams associated 

with produced water 

discharge

Stream 

sampling

Diversity 

index Every 3 years

Downward 

trend overall 

stream 

biological 

diversity

Reduction or 

elimination of untreated 

produced water into 

drainage or watershed

Big Game Seasonal 

habitat use

Project area and 1-

mile buffer

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Occupancy Annually

Downward 

trend in habitat 

occupancy 

caused by oil 

and gas activity

Extension of timing 

stipulations or 

conditions of approval 

(COAs), off-site habitat 

management or 

enhancement

Blackfooted 

Ferret 

Occupancy

Prairie dog towns 

larger than 80 acres 

located within 0.5 

miles of proposed 

activity

Ground 

inspection Occupancy

Determined 

on a sitespecific basis 

in 

coordination 

with the 

USFWS

Habitat decline 

or prairie dog 

fatalities 

caused by oil 

and gas 

activitiesoccupancy of 

black-footed

ferrets would 

be managed in 

a black-footed 

ferret 

management 

plan

No incidental take; 

reinitiate consultation if 

new information shows 

black-footed ferrets 

may be effected

Burrowing 

Owl

Active nest 

locations

Specific project area 

plus 0.5-mile buffer 

(within active prairie 

dog town)

Ground 

inspection Occupancy

Twice yearly 

(June to 

August)

Human-caused 

disturbance to 

owls related to 

oil and gas 

activities such 

as vandalism 

and harassment

Extension of timing or 

increase of distance 

from nest; stipulations 

or COAs
WMPP-3

FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

Element Item Location Technique Unit of 

Measure

Frequency 

and 

Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management Options

Migratory 

Non-game 

Birds

Occupancy Project area plus 

0.25-mile buffer

Ground 

observations Occupancy Periodically

Documented 

fatalities 

caused by oil 

and gas 

activities

Refinements in 

infrastructure planning 

(project plans), 

implementation of 

travel corridors, 

enhanced reclamation 

standards, and off-site 

habitat management or 

enhancement

Mountain 

Plover

Active nest 

locations

Specific project area 

plus 0.5-mile buffer 

(within areas less 

than 4-inch average 

vegetation height and 

prairie dog towns)

Ground 

inspection Occupancy

Twice yearly 

(April 15 to 

June 30)

Human-caused 

disturbance to 

mountain 

plovers related 

to oil and gas 

activities such 

as vandalism 

and harassment

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from nest; stipulations 

or COAs

Prairie Dog

Active 

prairie dog 

colony

Specific project area 

plus 0.5-mile buffer

Air or 

ground 

inspection

Occupancy Annually

Documented 

prairie dog 

fatalities 

caused by oil 

and gas 

activities

Establishment of NSO 

zones or establishment 

of timing restrictions 

within prairie dog 

towns

Raptors

Active nest 

locations 

(excluding 

burrowing 

owls)

Project area plus 1-

mile buffer

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Number of 

nests Every 3 years

Downward 

trend in 

occupancy

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from nest; stipulations 

or COAs
WMPP-4

Wildlife Monitoring and FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Protection Plan

Element Item Location Technique Unit of 

Measure

Frequency 

and 

Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management Options

Raptors

Raptor 

productivity 

(including 

burrowing 

owl)

Active nests within 1 

mile of project 

disturbance plus 1-

mile buffer

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Nest success 

or failure 

species 

productivity

Annually

Downward 

trend in nest 

success, overall 

productivity

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from nest; stipulations 

or COAs

Raptor 

productivityselected 

undeveloped 

comparison 

area

Project area

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Nest success 

or failure 

species 

productivity

Every 5 years

Information 

used as support 

to determine 

downward 

trend

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from nest; stipulations 

or COAs

Sage-grouse

Sage-grouse 

lek location

CBNG overall 

project area

Aerial field 

inspection

Number, 

location of 

leks

Every 5 years

Downward 

trend in habitat 

occupancy

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from lek; stipulations 

or COAs; off-site 

habitat management or 

mitigation

Sage-grouse 

lek 

attendance

Specific project 

development areas 

plus 2-mile buffer

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Number of 

males per lek Annually

Downward 

trend in lek 

attendance 

(compared to 

control lek)

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from lek; stipulations 

or COAs; off-site 

habitat management or 

mitigation

Sage-grouse 

winter 

habitat

Project area plus 2-

mile buffer

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Occupancy Annually

Downward 

trend in habitat 

occupancy or 

quality caused 

by oil and gas 

activities

Extension of timing or 

increase in distance 

from lek; stipulations 

or COAs; off-site 

habitat management or 

mitigation

Special 

Status 

Species 

(BLM and 

MNHP 

lists) 

Occupancy Specific project area 

plus 1-mile buffer

Ground field 

inspection Occupancy

Annually, at a 

minimum via 

species 

habitat 

requirements

Downward 

trend in habitat 

occupancy or 

quality caused 

by oil and gas 

activities

Establishment of timing 

or distance from 

breeding area through 

stipulations or COAs
WMPP-5

FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

Element Item Location Technique Unit of 

Measure

Frequency 

and 

Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management Options

Threatened, 

Endangered 

and 

Proposed 

Species 

other than 

previously 

described 

Occupancy, 

productivity

CBNG overall 

project area

Air or 

ground field 

inspection

Occupancy

Determined 

on a site-

specific basis 

in 

coordination 

with USFWS

Habitat decline 

or fatalities 

caused by oil 

and gas 

activities; 

occupancy of 

species would 

be managed in 

a site-specific 

management 

plan

Reinitiate Section 7 and 

consultation with 

USFWS
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-6

As energy development begins, POD-specific WMPPs, following the same template as this document, will be 

written in cooperation with other agencies, operators, landowners and other interests. The POD analysis will 

include wildlife impacts from the POD area and the cumulative impacts from other PODs (including those of 

other companies) as well as other activities in the area. The objectives of the program are described below.

 Establish a framework for cooperation among agencies, operators, landowners, tribal governments, and 

interest groups.

 Provide a process for data collection, data management, and reporting.

 Determine needs for inventory, monitoring, and protection measures.

 Provide guidance and recommendations for the conservation of wildlife species.

 Establish protocols for biological clearances of special status species.

 Meet the terms and conditions of the biological opinion.

 Determine if management practices to conserve wildlife species and habitat in lease stipulations and 

conservation measures contained in the BLM Record of Decision (ROD), CBNG project plans, or oil and 

gas applications for permit to drill (APDs) are meeting specified objectives.

 Develop recommendations to adjust management actions based on field observations and monitoring.

Implementation of the WMPP will begin with the issuance of the ROD and will remain in effect for the life of 

the project. Guidance for the conservation of special status species will be incorporated into the Project Plan of 

Development Preparation Guide. Signatories on an Interagency Cooperative Agreement will serve as the 

Steering Committee (Interagency Working Group). A Core Team (i.e., agency biologists) will oversee the 

implementation of the programmatic elements of the WMPP. As energy development is initiated within the 

Montana portion of the Powder River Basin, operator-funded biologists, approved by the BLM, will write areaspecific monitoring and protection plans. These plans will be reviewed by the BLM resource specialists for 

completeness and content. 

The programmatic template will undergo an annual review, at least initially, for effectiveness. A major review 

will be conducted every 5 years, or as determined by members of the Core Team and Wildlife and Aquatic Task 

Groups. The various cooperators will meet annually (or more often as needed to evaluate the progress of the 

various POD inventory and monitoring efforts. 

IMPLEMENTATION PROTOCOL

This section provides preliminary wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol. Required actions for 

inventory, monitoring, and protection vary by species and development intensity. In areas of development with 

greater than 1 well location per section, additional actions in Table 6 become applicable. Standard protocol for 

APD and right-of-way (ROW) application field reviews are provided in Table 7. Alternative measures and 

protocols will be developed as determined by Core Team members in response to specific needs identified in 

annual reports. This document provides methods for a number of wildlife species and categories. Additional 

species and categories may be added based on needs identified in annual wildlife reports. The wildlife species

and categories for which specific inventory, monitoring, and protection procedures will be applied were 

developed based on input provided by the public, other agencies, and the BLM during preparation of the DEIS.

Considerable efforts will be required by agency and operator personnel for plan implementation. Many of the 

annually proposed agency data collection activities are consistent with current agency activities. Additionally, 

agency cost-sharing approaches will be considered to achieve public demands and statutory directives. 

ANNUAL REPORTS AND MEETINGS

State and federal agencies will cooperate to implement the programmatic elements of inventory, monitoring,

and protection actions associated with CBNG development in the Powder River and Billings RMP areas (Table 

8). The Montana participants in the Interagency Working Group will oversee implementation across the 

planning area and summarize information from work achieved in various PODs. 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-7

During project development (i.e., 25 years), to include habitat restoration or rehabilitation efforts, operators will 

annually provide an updated inventory and description of all existing project features (i.e., location, size, and 

associated level of human activity at each feature), as well as those tentatively proposed for development during 

the next 12 months. These data will be coupled with annual wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data 

obtained for the previous year and included in annual reports. Annual reports will be prepared by the BLM. 

Annual wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection data gathered by parties other than the BLM (e.g., 

operators or MFWP) should provide data or summaries to the BLM using current format standards. Upon 

receipt of this information, annual reports will be completed in draft form by the BLM and submitted to the 

operators, USFWS, MFWP, and other parties. A one-day meeting of the Core Team will be organized by the 

BLM and held in early December of each year to discuss and modify, as necessary, proposed wildlife inventory, 

monitoring, and protection protocol for the subsequent year. Additional meetings will be scheduled as 

necessary.

Discussions regarding annual operator-specific financing and personnel requirements will occur at these 

meetings. A formula for determining these requirements will be developed at the first year’s meeting (i.e., size 

of development, anticipated impacts, or amount of public land). A protocol regarding how to accommodate 

previously unidentified development sites will also be determined during the annual meeting. Final decisions 

will be made by the BLM based on the input of all affected parties.

A final annual report will be issued by BLM to all potentially affected individuals and groups by early February 

of each year. Annual reports will summarize annual wildlife inventory and monitoring results, note any trends 

across years, identify and assess protection measures implemented during past years, specify monitoring and 

protection measures proposed for the upcoming year, and recommend modifications to the existing WMPP 

based on the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of past years (i.e., identification of additional species and 

categories to be monitored). Where possible, data presented in reports will be used to identify potential 

correlations between development and wildlife productivity or abundance. The BLM will be the custodian of 

the data and stored in the BLM’s GIS for retrieval and planning unless otherwise agreed to by the BLM, 

MFWP, and USFWS. Raw data collected each year will be provided to other management agencies (e.g., 

USFWS, MFWP) at the request of these agencies. In addition, sources of potential disturbance to wildlife will 

be identified, where practical (e.g., development activities or weather conditions). Inventory and monitoring 

data will be shared on a timely basis by all cooperating agencies.

Additional reports may be prepared in any year, as necessary, to comply with other relevant wildlife laws, rules, 

and regulations (e.g., black-footed ferret survey reports, mountain plovers, sage-grouse lek counts, and bald 

eagle habitat loss reports).

ANNUAL INVENTORY AND MONITORING

This document outlines the inventory and monitoring protocol for a number of selected wildlife species or 

categories. Protocol will be unchanged except as authorized by the BLM or specified in this plan. Additional 

wildlife species or categories and associated surveys may be added or wildlife species or categories and surveys 

may be omitted in future years, depending on the results presented in the coordinated review of annual wildlife 

reports. MFWP will be contacted during the coordination of survey and other data acquisition phases. 

Opportunistic wildlife observations may be made throughout the year by agency and operator personnel. 

The frequency of inventory and monitoring will be dependent upon the level of development. In general, 

inventory and monitoring frequency will increase with increased levels of development. The level of effort 

should also be determined by species presence and development projection. Inventory and monitoring results 

may lead to further currently unidentifiable studies (i.e., cause and effect). The following sections identify the 

level of effort required by the WMPP. Site- and species-specific surveys will continue to be conducted in 

association with APD and ROW application or CBNG project field reviews.
WMPP-8

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection PlanFISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

TABLE 6.

ADDITIONAL WILDLIFE INVENTORY AND MONITORING MEASURES ON AND ADJACENT TO AREAS 

WITH HIGH LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT1

Action Dates Responsible Entity

Raptor nest inventory or monitoring on areas 

with development, plus a 1-mile buffer. Annually, from April and May BLM surveyor with operator-provided financial assistance

Raptor productivity monitoring 

on areas with development, plus a 1-mile buffer. Annually, from March to July BLM surveyor with operator-provided financial assistance for BLM volunteer support

Selected threatened, endangered, candidate, and 

other species of concern inventory or 

monitoring on suitable habitats in areas with 

development, plus a 1-mile buffer 

Annually, during spring and summer BLM or operator-financed, BLM-approved 

biologist

Collect baseline information for benthic 

macroinvertebrates, amphibians and aquatic 

reptiles, algae, and non-game fish. Monitor 

changes on selected streams

Baseline 1 to 2 years prior and annually 

over the life of the project

BLM surveyor with operator-provided financial 

assistance

Sage-grouse lek inventory on areas of 

development plus a 2-mile buffer and selected 

undeveloped comparison areas

Every 5 years, mid-March to mid-May BLM surveyor with operator-provided financial 

assistance

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on areas 

of development plus a 2-mile buffer and 

selected undeveloped comparison areas Annually, mid-March to mid-May

Each known lek will be visited at least once 

annually by the BLM or operator-financed BLMapproved biologist; subsequent visits will occur 

at BLM-selected leks by the BLM, or operatorfinanced BLM-approved biologist

Others studies on areas with development and 

selected undeveloped comparison areas

USFWS or BLM with operator- and other partyprovided financial assistance

1

4 locations per section
WMPP-9

FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

TABLE 7. 

SUMMARY OF APD OR ROW SURVEY AND PROTECTION MEASURES FOR CBNG DEVELOPMENT

Protection Measure Dates

Bald eagle nest surveys within 1 mile of project area Yearlong

Bald eagle nest avoidance within 0.5 miles of active nests No Surface Use or Occupancy

Bald Eagle Winter Roost surveys within 1 mile of project area December 1 to April 1

Bald Eagle Winter Roost avoidance within 0.5 miles of roost site No Surface Use or Occupancy

Black-footed ferret surveys Prairie dog colonies > 80 acres

Mountain plover surveys within 0.5 miles of project area May 1 to June 15

Active prairie dog colonies on federal surface in mountain plover habitat BLM and operator assistance

Mountain plover nest/brood avoidance within 0.25 miles of project area April 1 to July 31

Peregrine falcon nest avoidance within 1 mile of active nest No Surface Use or Occupancy

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species surveys As necessary

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species avoidance As necessary

Big game crucial winter range avoidance December 1 to March 31

Elk parturition range avoidance April 1 to June 15

Bighorn Sheep, Powder River Breaks No Surface Use or Occupancy

Prairie dog colony mapping and burrow density determinations Yearlong

Raptor next surveyor inventory within 0.5 miles of project area Yearlong

Raptor nest avoidance within 0.5 miles of active nests March 1 to August 1

Sage-grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 2 miles of a lek April 1 to June 30

Sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse lek avoidance within 0.25 miles of a lek No surface use or occupancy

Sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat avoidance on areas within 2 miles of a lek March 1 to June 15

Western burrowing owl surveys (prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of disturbance. June to August

General wildlife avoidance or protection As necessary
WMPP-10

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection PlanFISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

TABLE 8. 

SUMMARY OF GENERAL WILDLIFE REPORTING, INVENTORY, AND MONITORING FOR CBNG DEVELOPMENT

Action Dates Responsible Entity

PODs for outcoming years, showing general location of proposed 

development

Annually Team (BLM, USFWS, MFWP, and 

operators)

Annual reports summarizing findings and presenting necessary 

protection measures

Annually BLM with reviews MFWP, USFWS, 

operators, and other interested parties

Meeting to finalize future year’s inventory, monitoring, and 

protection measures

Annually BLM with participation by USFWS, 

MFWP, operators, and other 

interested parties

Inventory and Monitoring

Big game use monitoring When applicable BLM with assistance

Determine mountain plover habitat suitability Prior to permit approval BLM and operator assistance

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, conduct nest surveys 

in project area, plus a 0.5-mile buffer

Prior to ground disturbing activities BLM and operator assistance

In areas of suitable mountain plover habitat, map active blacktailed prairie dog colonies on federal mineral estate.Prior to permit approval BLM and operator assistance

Active prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of a specific project 

area will be identified, mapped and surveyed

Prior to permit approval BLM with operator assistance

Raptor nest inventories (POD areas plus 1-mile buffer; burrowing 

owls excluded).

Every 5 years during April and 

May but prior to permit approval

BLM with operator assistance

In areas with potential bald eagle winter roost sites/territories, 

conduct surveys within 1 mile of project area

Prior to ground-disturbing activities BLM and operator assistance

Conduct bald eagle nest inventories within 1-mile buffer of 

project area

Between March 1 and mid-July BLM and operator assistance

Monitor productivity at active bald eagle nests within 1 mile of 

project-related disturbance

Between March 1 and mid-July BLM and operator assistance

Raptor next productivity monitoring at active nests within 1 mile 

of project disturbance area

Annually March to mid-July BLM with operator assistance

Sage-grouse lek inventories (project area plus 2-mile buffer) Every 5 years BLM with operator assistance

Sage-grouse lek attendance monitoring on and within 2 miles of 

the POD boundary

Annually BLM, with operator assistance, will 

visit selected leks each year so that 

all leks will be visited annually

Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species inventory or 

monitoring within selected CBNG development areas 

When applicable BLM with operator assistance

Other wildlife species inventory or monitoring within selected 

CBNG development areas 

When applicable BLM with operator assistance
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-11

RAPTORS (INCLUDING BALD EAGLE AND BURROWING OWL)

Raptor inventories will be conducted over the entire CBNG project area every 5 years with financial assistance 

provided by proponents. In potentially affected areas, baseline inventory should be conducted by the BLM (with 

financial assistance from the operator) prior to the commencement of development to determine the location of 

raptor nests or territories and their activity status. These inventories should be repeated every 5 years (in areas 

with 1 or less well locations per section) for the life-of-the-project to monitor trends in habitat use. These 

surveys may be implemented aerially or from the ground. Operators may provide financial assistance for some 

work. Data collected during the surveys (both inventory and monitoring) will be recorded on BLM-approved 

data sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database. Standardized, recommended wildlife survey protocols are 

identified in the BLM’s 2005 Wildlife Survey Protocol for Coal Bed Natural Gas Development, Powder River 

Basin Wildlife Taskforce or as referenced in this appendix. The BLM should be contacted prior to 

commencement of wildlife surveys to ensure proper survey protocols are utilized.

Nest productivity monitoring will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist. Active nests located 

within 1 mile of project-related disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and mid-July to determine 

nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings or fledglings per nest). These surveys generally will be conducted 

from the ground. However, steep and rugged topography may prevent nest observation from the ground and 

require aerial surveys. Operators may provide financial assistance for aircraft rental as necessary. Attempts will 

be made to determine the cause of any documented nest failure (e.g., abandonment or predation).

Additional raptor nest activity and productivity monitoring measures will be applied in areas with development 

(i.e., areas with greater than 1 well location per section) on and within 1 mile of the project area. Inventory and 

monitoring efforts in these areas, as well as selected undeveloped reference areas, will be conducted annually 

during April and May, followed by nest productivity monitoring. Site- and species-specific nest inventories will 

also continue to be conducted as necessary in association with all APD and ROW application field reviews. 

All raptor nest or raptor productivity surveys will be conducted using procedures that minimize potential 

adverse effects to nesting raptors. Specific survey protocol for reducing detrimental effects is listed in Grier and 

Fyfe (1987) and Call (1978) and include actions described below.

 Nest visits will be delayed for as long as possible during the nesting season.

 Nests will be approached cautiously, and their status (i.e., number of nestling or fledglings) will be 

determined from a distance with binoculars or a spotting scope.

 Nests will be approached tangentially and in an obvious manner to avoid startling adults.

 Nests will not be visited during adverse weather conditions (e.g., extreme cold, precipitation events, windy 

periods, or during the hottest part of the day).

 Visits will be kept as brief as possible.

 Inventories will be coordinated by the BLM.

 The number of nest visits in any year will be kept to a minimum.

Ferruginous Hawk

Timing of surveys is very important in documenting the territory, occupancy, success, and productivity of 

ferruginous hawk populations. The accepted survey and monitoring guidelines for ferruginous hawk are taken 

from the Survey and Monitoring Guidelines for Ferruginous Hawks in Montana, 1995 (Atkinson 1995).

Bald Eagle

Inventory and monitoring protocol for the bald eagle will be as described for raptors, with the following 

additions. 

 Operators will indicate the presence of eagle habitat (nesting, foraging, roosting, or winter) as 

previously defined on their application. 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-12

 Prior to CBNG development or construction, surveys of the wooded riparian corridors within 1 mile of 

a project area will be conducted in the winter or spring by BLM biologists or BLM-approved biologists 

to determine the occurrence of winter bald eagle roost sites or territories. 

 Surveys will be conducted from daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise or from 2 hours before sunset to 1 

hour after sunset by fixed-wing aircraft. Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will be conducted 

during the same period. 

 Surveys will be at least 7 days apart. The location, activity, number, and age class (immature or 

mature) of any bald eagles observed will be recorded. 

 If a roost or suspected roost is identified, BLM, USFWS, and MFWP will be notified and a global 

positioning system (GPS) record of the roost or suspected roost will be obtained and entered into the 

BLM GIS database. There will be a no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation within 0.5 miles of any 

identified bald eagle roost site or territories.

 Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved biologist in areas with one or 

more well locations per section and within 1 mile of the project area. 

 Active nests located within 1 mile of project-related disturbance areas (well sites, pipelines, roads, 

compressor stations, and other infrastructure) will be monitored on an annual basis between March 1 

and mid-July to determine nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings or fledglings per nest).

Burrowing Owl

Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of sensitive 

habitat does not indicate burrowing owls are present. It does, however, alert the company and the BLM that a 

field review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. In association with APD and 

ROW application field reviews, prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of a proposed project or any other suitable 

habitat within a 0.5-mile radius area will be surveyed for western burrowing owls by BLM biologists or a BLMapproved, operator-financed biologist twice yearly from June through August to determine the presence or 

absence of nesting owls. Efforts will be made to determine reproductive success (number of fledglings per nest).

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE, AND OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN

Operators must identify and map the presence of cottonwood riparian; herbaceous riparian or wet meadows;

permanent water or wetlands; prairie dog towns; or rock outcrops, ridges, or knolls on their application. The 

presence of sensitive habitat may not indicate a species is present. It does, however, alert the company and 

BLM that a field review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. The level of effort 

associated with the inventory and monitoring required for threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species 

of concern will be commensurate with established protocol for the potentially affected species. Methodologies 

and results of these surveys will be included in annual reports or provided in separate supplemental reports. As 

threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species are added to or withdrawn from USFWS or BLM lists, 

appropriate modifications will be incorporated in this plan and specified in annual reports.

Threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species data collected during the surveys will be provided only as 

necessary to those requiring the data for specific management or project development needs. Site- and speciesspecific threatened, endangered, candidate, and other species surveys will continue to be conducted as necessary 

in association with all APD and ROW application field reviews. Data will be collected on BLM-approved data 

sheets and entered into the BLM GIS database.

Black-footed Ferret

Operators should indicate the presence of prairie dog towns on their application. The presence of sensitive 

habitat does not necessarily indicate suitable black-footed ferret habitat is present. It does, however, alert the 

company and BLM that a field review and surveys may be required to process the permit or initiate action. 

BLM biologists or BLM-approved, operator-financed biologists will determine the presence or absence of 

prairie dog colonies within 0.5 miles of proposed activity during APD and ROW application field reviews. 

Prairie dog colonies on the area will be mapped to determine overall size following the approved methodology. 

Colony acreage will be determined using GIS applications. Colonies that meet USFWS size criteria as potential 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-13

black-footed ferret habitat (USFWS 1989) will be surveyed to determine active burrow density using the 

methods described by Biggins et al. (1993) or other BLM- and USFWS-approved methodology.

Project activity will be located to avoid impacts to prairie dog colonies that meet USFWS criteria as blackfooted ferret habitat (USFWS 1989). If avoidance is not possible, all colonies meeting the USFWS size criteria 

and any colonies for which density estimates are not obtained will be surveyed for black-footed ferrets by an 

operator-financed, USFWS-certified surveyor prior to, but no more than 1 year in advance of, disturbance to 

these colonies. Black-footed ferret surveys will be conducted in accordance with USFWS guidelines (USFWS

1989) and will be conducted on a site-specific basis, depending on the areas proposed for disturbance in a given 

year as specified in the annual report. If a black-footed ferret or its sign is found during a survey, all 

development activity would be subject to recommendations from the Montana Black-footed Ferret Survey 

Guidelines, Draft Managing Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog Ecosystems with Potential for Black-footed 

ferret Reintroduction and re-initiation of Section 7 Consultation with USFWS.

Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dog

The BLM will determine the acreage of occupied black-tailed or white-tailed prairie dog habitat within suitable 

mountain plover habitat on federally managed surface acres and federal mineral estate lands. Further, a 

reasonable effort should be made to estimate actual impacts, including habitat loss, of CBNG development on 

occupied black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the entire 

project area.

Prairie dog towns on BLM-administered lands within 0.5 miles of a specific project area will be identified, 

mapped, and surveyed as described in the black-footed ferret section. The BLM or a BLM-approved, operatorfinanced biologist will survey at least a portion of the prairie dog colonies, including the reference colonies, 

annually. Because prairie dog populations are subject to drastic population fluctuations (primarily resulting 

from disease, i.e., plague), efforts will be made to compare the data from the reference colonies with that 

obtained from the project areas in order to monitor the response of prairie dog populations to CBNG 

development.

Mountain Plover 

Surface use is prohibited within 0.25 miles of active mountain plover nest sites. Disturbance to prairie dog 

towns will be avoided where possible. Any active prairie dog town occupied by mountain plover will have a 

controlled surface use stipulation between April 1 and July 31, but which may be reduced to a controlled 

surface use stipulation within 0.25 miles of an active nest once nesting has been confirmed. An exception may 

be granted by the authorized officer after the BLM consults with the USFWS on a case-by-case basis and the 

operator agrees to adhere to the new operational constraints.

On federally managed surface acres, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog towns greater than 80 acres in size 

within suitable mountain plover habitat will have an NSO stipulation from May 1 through June 15. Prior to 

permit approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, USFWS, and MFWP will estimate potential 

mountain plover habitat across the CBNG area using a predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 years, 

information will be refined by field validation using the most current USFWS mountain plover survey 

guidelines (USFWS 2002c) to determine the presence or absence of potentially suitable mountain plover 

habitat. Surveys will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM-approved, operator-financed biologist (using the 

USFWS protocol at the project area) prior to ground disturbance activities in areas of suitable mountain plover 

habitat and a 0.5-mile buffer will be implemented. Efforts will be made to identify mountain plover nesting 

areas not subject to CBNG development to be used as reference sites. Comparisons will be made of the trends in 

mountain plover nesting occupancy between these reference areas and areas experiencing CBNG development.

The BLM shall monitor the loss of mountain plover habitat associated with all portions of this action (operators 

will indicate the presence of prairie dog towns or other mountain plover habitat indicators on their application). 

The actual measurement of disturbed habitat will be the responsibility of the BLM or their agent (consultant, 

contractor, or other agent), with a written summary provided to the USFWS’ Montana Field Office, upon 

project completion or immediately, if the anticipated impact area is exceeded.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-14

Sage-grouse

Sage-grouse lek inventories will be conducted over the CBNG project area every 5 years to determine lek 

locations. Surveys of different areas may occur during different years with the goal of covering high potential 

CBNG project areas at least once every 5 years. Inventories and protocol will be consistent with the 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana-Final (Montana Sage Grouse 

Work Group 2005), coordinated by the BLM and MFWP. In areas with development, aerial inventories will be 

conducted annually on affected sections, 3-mile buffers, and selected undeveloped reference areas. Surveys may 

be conducted aerially or on the ground as deemed appropriate by the BLM and MFWP. The operator may 

provide financial assistance.

Reference leks are leks located in similar habitat and within close proximity to areas currently being developed

and will be identified by the BLM and MFWP.

Aerial surveys will be used for determining lek locations. BLM, MFWP, or BLM-approved, operator-financed 

biologists will monitor sage-grouse lek attendance within 3 miles of areas with development such that all leks 

on these areas are surveyed at least once every 3 years. Data collected during these surveys will be recorded on 

BLM- and MFWP-approved data sheets and entered into the approved database. An effort should also be made 

to compare trends of the number of males per lek to reference leks.

Sage-grouse winter use surveys of suitable winter habitat within 3 miles of a project area will be coordinated by 

the BLM and implemented from November to February as deemed appropriate by these agencies, and results 

will be provided in interim or annual reports. Historical information of winter sage-grouse locations will be 

useful in focusing efforts in areas suspected of providing winter habitat. Sage-grouse winter habitat use surveys 

will be conducted when suitable conditions exist.

BIG GAME

Elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and pronghorn are the common big game species that occur within parts or all 

of the CBNG planning area. Annual big game seasonal habitat use data will be collected and made available to 

operators, tribes, and landowners. Because big game use of seasonal habitats is highly dependent upon a 

combination of environmental factors including terrain, forage quality, and snow depth, it is difficult to attribute 

changes in habitat use to a single factor. Comparisons in trends between big game seasonal habitat reference 

areas and seasonal habitats associated with CBNG development may provide some insight into the response of 

big game to CBNG development.

GENERAL WILDLIFE

Wildlife mortality observed in pits will be documented, reported to the BLM and USFWS, and measures will be 

taken to prevent future mortality. If the dead animals are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification 

by someone with an appropriate salvage permit. The pits would need to be spot checked by appropriate BLM or 

USFWS personnel to ensure compliance. Operators or other workers would not be allowed to be in possession 

of migratory bird carcasses in any situation. Well field access roads and other roads with project-related traffic 

increases will be monitored for wildlife mortality so that specific mitigation can be designed and implemented 

as deemed necessary by the BLM, in consultation with MFWP. 

AQUATIC SPECIES

Prior to development, baseline aquatic inventories will be conducted in potentially affected areas with operator 

financial assistance, in an effort to determine occurrence, abundance, and population diversity of the aquatic 

community. These inventories should be repeated as necessary in selected intermittent or perennial streams 

associated with produced water discharge, as well as selected intermittent or perennial streams associated with 

no produced water discharge (control sample site).
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-15

Natural fluctuations in species occurrence, abundance, and population diversity will be determined by 

comparing changes in control sample sites to baseline inventories. Changes in occurrence, abundance, and 

population diversity of the aquatic community in streams associated with produced water discharge may then be 

possible by comparing to the natural fluctuations.

Detection of a retraction in the range of a species, a downward trend in abundance, or reduced population 

diversity in systems with produced water discharge shall warrant a review of project plans and possible 

recommendations for adjustment of management to address the specific problems.

Aquatic groups to be inventoried and monitored will include those described below.

 Benthic macroinvertebrates: determine population diversity using Hess/kick net sampling protocol to 

measure species abundance and establish a diversity index.

 Amphibians and aquatic reptiles: determine population diversity and abundance using sampling 

methodologies being developed for prairie species.

 Non-game fish: determine population diversity using electrofishing and seining.

 Algae (periphyton): determine population diversity.

<Sections from the Biological Opinion (see the BLM, Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, and 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s 2003 Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource 

Management Plans).>

PROTECTION MEASURES

Wildlife protection measures have been put in place through lease stipulations. The following sections from the 

FWS’ Biological Opinion describe stipulations or mitigation that restrict activities through lease agreements or 

terms and conditions to reduce the likelihood of “take” of a federally listed species. For all stipulations and 

mitigation measures that include protection of specific habitats (e.g., sage-grouse winter habitat), identification 

of the specific habitat areas will be based on the best available science. This may include BLM surveys or 

information from other sources. For example, researchers at the University of Montana and Montana State 

University are developing sage-grouse habitat models that should provide better information on sage-grouse 

habitat areas than is currently available.

Control of West Nile Virus

Manage produced water to reduce the spread of West Nile virus within sage-grouse habitat areas. Implement the 

following impoundment construction techniques to eliminate water sources that support breeding mosquitoes:

Overbuild the size of ponds to accommodate a greater volume of water than is discharged. This will result in nonvegetated and muddy shorelines that breeding mosquitoes avoid.

Build steep shorelines to reduce shallow water and aquatic vegetation around the perimeter of impoundments. 

Construction of steep shorelines also will increase wave action that deters mosquito production. Use of this 

construction technique could be harmful to certain wildlife species such as birds, and would require 

consideration on a case-by-case basis.

Maintain the water level below rooted vegetation for a muddy shoreline that is unfavorable habitat for mosquito 

larvae. Rooted vegetation includes both aquatic and upland vegetative types. Always avoid flooding terrestrial 

vegetation in flat terrain or low lying areas.

Construct dams or impoundments that restrict down slope seepage or overflow. Seepage and overflow results in 

down-grade accumulation of vegetated shallow water areas that support breeding mosquitoes.

Line the channel where discharge water flows into the pond with crushed rock, or use a horizontal pipe to discharge 

inflow directly into existing open water, thus precluding shallow surface inflow and accumulation of sediment 

that promotes aquatic vegetation.

Line the overflow spillway with crushed rock, and construct the spillway with steep sides to preclude the 

accumulation of shallow water and vegetation.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-16

Fence pond site to restrict access by livestock and other wild ungulates that trample and disturb shorelines, enrich 

sediments with manure and create hoof print pockets of water that are attractive to breeding mosquitoes.

The following measures will also be employed for impoundments storing produced water:

Use adulticides to target adult mosquito populations and larvicides to control the hatching of mosquito larvae, using 

approved pesticides and utilizing licensed applicators with a PUP.

Introduce native fish species, such as fathead minnow or sand shiner, that would feed on mosquito larvae.

Use electric, solar, or wind-powered fountains or aerators, which would create a ripple disturbance in the water 

surface and dissuade mosquitoes from laying eggs. This would also have the added effect of aerating the water to 

support a fish population and help prevent against winter fish die-off.

Use a vertical discharge pipe in the center of the impoundment to create a ripple effect and aerate the water to 

support a fish population.

Prairie Dog Towns and Associated Black-footed Ferret Habitat

Prior to surface-disturbing activities, prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in size and 

containing at least 5 burrows per acre will be examined to determine the presence or absence of black-footed 

ferrets. The findings of this examination may result in some restrictions to the operator’s plans or may even 

preclude use and occupancy. 

The lessee or operator may, at their own option, conduct an examination on the leased lands to determine if 

black-footed ferrets are present if the proposed activity would have an adverse effect or if the area can be block 

cleared. This examination must be done by, or under the supervision of, a qualified resource specialist approved 

by the BLM. An acceptable report must be provided documenting the presence or absence of black-footed 

ferrets and identifying the anticipated effects of the proposed action on the black-footed ferret and its habitat. 

This stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities.

Interior Least Tern

The interior least tern is listed as an endangered species under the ESA. Birds occupy sandbars and graveled 

islands in eastern Montana and along the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers. Surface occupancy and will be 

prohibited within 1/4 mile of wetlands identified as interior least tern habitat.

Terms and Conditions from Section 7 Consultation

In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of Section 9 of the ESA, the Bureau must comply with the 

following terms and conditions, which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described and outlined 

in the Biological Opinion. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary.

All Species

In the event wildlife species (dead or injured. are located during construction and operation, the FWS’ Billings 

Sub-Office of the Montana Field Office (406-247-7366) and Law Enforcement Office (406-247-7355) will be 

notified within 24 hours. If the dead animals are birds, they will be collected and kept for identification by 

someone with an appropriate salvage permit. Also, the pits would need to be “spot checked” by appropriate 

BLM or FWS personnel in insure compliance. In no cases would operators or other workers be allowed to be in 

possession of migratory bird carcasses. The action agency must provide for monitoring the actual number of 

individuals taken. Because of difficulty in identification, all small birds found dead should be stored in a freezer 

for the FWS to identify.

The Bureau shall monitor all loss of bald eagle (nesting, potential nesting and roost sites) and suitable mountain 

plover habitat associated with all actions covered under the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS and 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs and ROD. Bald eagle nesting, potential nesting and roost sites, 

and suitable mountain plover habitat have been defined under ‘habitat use’ and critical habitat’ respectively, for each 

species in the Biological Opinion. The actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the BLM 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-17

or their agent (consultant, contractor, etc., with a written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office upon 

project completion. The report will include the location and acres of habitat loss, field survey reports, what 

stipulations were applied, and a record of any variance granted to timing and/or spatial buffers. The monitoring of 

habitat loss for these species will commence from the date the Record of Decision (ROD. is signed. The actual 

measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the Bureau’s agent (consultant, contractor, etc.) with a 

written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office semi-annually, or immediately if the Bureau 

determines the action (i.e. APD, pipeline, compressor station) will adversely affect a listed species. It is the 

responsibility of the Bureau to ensure the semi-annual reports are complete and filed with the FWS in a timely 

manner. The semi-annual report will include field survey reports for endangered, threatened, proposed and candidate 

species for all actions covered under the Montana Statewide Draft Oil and Gas EIS and Amendment of the Powder 

River and Billings RMPs and ROD. The semi-annual reports will include all actions completed under this Biological 

Opinion up to 30 days prior to the reporting date. The first report will be due 6 months from the signing of the ROD 

and on the anniversary date of the signing of the ROD. Reporting will continue for the life of the project.

As outlined in the guidance and conservation measures in the WMPP for the Statewide Oil and Gas EIS and 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings RMPs, “All new roads required for the proposed project will be 

appropriately constructed, improved, maintained, and signed to minimize potential wildlife/vehicle collisions. 

Appropriate speed limits will be adhered to on all project area roads, and operators will advise employees and 

contractors regarding these speed limits.” 

Bald Eagle

The Bureau shall require implementation of all conservation measures/mitigation measures identified in the 

Biological Assessment prepared for the project and dated October 2006, and the wildlife inventory, monitoring, 

and protection protocol identified in the WMPP. The Bureau shall monitor for compliance with the measures 

and protocol. They are as follows:

The appropriate standard seasonal or year-long stipulations for raptors or no surface occupancy for bald eagles as 

identified in the Billings RMP (BLM 1983), Powder River RMP (BLM 1984), and Oil and Gas RMP/EIS 

Amendment (BLM 1992) will be applied. This includes No Surface Occupancy within 1⁄2 mile of nests active in the 

last 7 years and 1⁄2 mile of roost sites.

Inventory and monitoring protocol for the bald eagle will be as described for raptors, with the following additions. 

Operators will indicate the presence of eagle habitat as previously defined, on their application. Prior to CBNG 

development or construction, surveys of the wooded riparian corridors within 1.0 mile of a project area will be 

conducted in the winter and/or spring by BLM biologists and/or BLM-approved biologists to determine the 

occurrence of winter bald eagle roosts. Surveys will be conducted from daybreak to 2 hours after sunrise and/or 

from 2 hours before sunset to 1 hour after sunset by aircraft. Follow-up ground surveys, if necessary, will be 

conducted during the same time frame. Surveys will be at least 7 days apart. The location, activity, number, and 

age class (immature, mature. of any bald eagles observed will be recorded and if a roost or suspected roost is 

identified, BLM, FWS, and MFWP will be notified and a GPS record of the roost/suspected roost will be entered 

into the approved database. No Surface Occupancy will be applied within 0.5 miles of any identified bald eagle 

roost sites.

Nest productivity will be conducted by the BLM or a BLM approved biologist in areas with development (i.e., 

areas with greater than 1 well locations/section) and within 1 mile of the project area. Active nests located within 

one mile of project-related disturbance areas will be monitored between March 1 and mid-July to determine 

nesting success (i.e., number of nestlings/fledglings per nest).

No new above-ground power line should be constructed within 1⁄2 mile of an active eagle nest or nest occupied 

within the recent past. No surface occupancy or use is allowed within 0.5 miles of known bald eagle nest sites 

which have been active within the past 7 years. All other actions will be consistent with the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Plan-July 1994. 

Power lines will be built to standards identified by the Power Line Interaction Committee (2006) to minimize 

electrocution potential. The FWS has more specific recommendations that reaffirm and complement those 

presented in the Suggested Practices. It should be noted these measures vary in their effectiveness to minimize 
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-18

mortality, and may be modified as they are tested. Local habitat conditions should be considered in their use. The 

FWS does not endorse any specific product that can be used to prevent and/or minimize mortality; however, we are 

providing a list of Major Manufacturers of Products to Reduce Animal Interactions on Electrical Utility Facilities.

New Distribution Lines and Facilities

The following represents areas where the raptor protection measures will be applied when designing new 

distribution line construction:

1.1 Bury distribution lines where feasible.

1.2 Raptor-safe structures (e.g., with increased conductor-conductor spacing) are to be used (i.e., 

minimum 60" for bald eagles would cover all species). 

1.3 Equipment installations (overhead service transformers, capacitors, reclosers, etc.) are to be 

made raptor safe (e.g., by insulating the bushing conductor terminations and by using covered 

jumper conductors).

1.4 Jumper conductor installations (e.g., corner, tap structures, etc. are to be made raptor safe by 

using covered jumpers or providing adequate separation.

1.5 Employ covers for arrestors and cutouts.

1.6 Lines should avoid high avian use areas such as wetlands, prairie dog towns, and grouse leks. 

If not avoidable, use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as 

grouse leks, prairie dog towns and wetlands to decrease predation and decrease loss of avian 

predators to electrocution.

Modification of Existing Facilities

Raptor protection measures to be applied when retrofitting existing distribution lines in an effort to reduce 

raptor mortality. Problem structures may include dead ends, tap or junction poles, transformers, reclosers and 

capacitor banks or other structures with less than 60" between conductors or a conductor and ground. The 

following modifications will be made:

2.1 Cover exposed jumpers.

2.2 Gap any pole top ground wires.

2.3 Isolate grounded guy wires by installing insulating link.

2.4 On transformers, install insulated bushing covers, covered jumpers, cutout covers and arrestor 

covers.

2.5 When raptor mortalities occur on existing lines and structures, raptor protection measures are 

to be applied (e.g., modify for raptor-safe construction, install perches, perching deterrents, 

nesting platforms, nest deterrent devices, etc.

2.6 Use anti-perching devices to discourage perching in sensitive habitats such as grouse leks, 

prairie dog towns and wetlands to decrease predation, and decrease loss of avian predators to 

electrocution.

2.7 In areas where midspan collisions are a problem, install effective line-marking devices. All 

transmission lines that span streams and rivers or in known or discovered raptor migration 

areas, should maintain proper spacing and have markers installed.

These additional standards to minimize migratory bird mortalities associated with utility transmission lines will 

be incorporated into the Terms and Conditions for all APDs and stipulations for ROW applications.

Mountain Plover

The Bureau shall require implementation of the conservation measures for mountain plover as identified in the 

Biological Assessment dated October 2006, and the wildlife inventory, monitoring, and protection protocol 

addressed in the WMPP. The Bureau shall monitor for compliance with the measures and protocol. They are as 

follows:
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-19

Surface use is prohibited within 1/4 mile of active mountain plover nest sites. Disturbance to prairie dog towns will 

be avoided where possible. Any active prairie dog town occupied by mountain plovers will have a Controlled 

Surface Use stipulation applied between April 1 and July 31. This area may be reduced to No Surface Use within 

1/4 mile of an active nest once nesting has been confirmed. An exception may be granted by the authorized officer 

after the BLM consults with the FWS and the operator agrees to adhere to the new operational constraints.

Due to the declining status of mountain plover in the analysis area and the need to retain the most important and 

limited nesting habitat, all active prairie dog colonies on federal surface within suitable mountain plover habitat 

will have No Surface Occupancy applied. This No Surface Occupancy may be modified through an amendment to 

the biological opinion after analysis of impacts to this preferred nesting habitat is completed.

BLM will determine the acreage of occupied black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog habitat within suitable 

mountain plover habitat on federally managed surface and mineral estate lands. Further, a reasonable effort should 

be made to estimate the actual impacts, including habitat loss, CBNG development will have on occupied blacktailed and white-tailed prairie dog acres within suitable mountain plover habitat over the entire project area. The 

BLM, FWS, and cooperators will develop a survey protocol that may include prioritization of subsets of the project 

area to be analyzed. Based on the results of such analysis, No Surface Occupancy on active prairie dog habitat

within suitable mountain plover habitat may be modified utilizing an amendment to the biological opinion.

Prior to permit approval, habitat suitability will be determined. The BLM, FWS or MFWP will estimate potential 

mountain plover habitat across the CBNG area using a predictive habitat model. Over the next 5 years, information 

will be refined by field validation using most current FWS mountain plover survey guidelines (FWS 2002c. to 

determine the presence/absence of potentially suitable mountain plover habitat. In areas of suitable mountain 

plover habitat, surveys will be conducted prior to ground disturbance activities by the BLM or a BLM-approved 

biologist using the FWS protocol at a specific project area plus a 0.5 mile buffer. Efforts will be made to identify 

mountain plover nesting areas not subject to CBNG development as reference sites. Comparisons will be made of 

the trends in mountain plover nesting occupancy between these reference areas and areas experiencing CBNG 

development.

BLM shall monitor all loss of mountain plover habitat associated with this action (operators will indicate the 

presence of prairie dog towns or other mountain plover habitat indicators on their application). Suitable mountain 

plover habitat has been defined under ‘critical habitat’ for the mountain plover in the Biological Opinion. The 

actual measurement of disturbed habitat can be the responsibility of the BLM, its agent (consultant, contractor, etc.

with a written summary provided to the FWS’ Montana Field Office upon completion or immediately if the 

anticipated impact area is exceeded relative to the estimated surface disturbances defined in the SEIS.

If suitable mountain plover habitat is present, surveys for nesting mountain plovers will be conducted prior to 

ground disturbance activities, if ground disturbing activities are anticipated to occur between April 10 and July 10. 

Disturbance occurring outside this period is permitted, but any loss of mountain plover suitable habitat must be 

documented. Sites must be surveyed 3 times between the April 10 and July 10 period, with each survey separated 

by at least 14 days. The earlier date will facilitate detection of early-breeding plovers. A disturbance-free buffer 

zone of 1/4 mile will be established around all mountain plover nesting locations between April 1 and July 31. If an 

active nest is found in the survey area, the planned activity should be delayed 37 days, or seven days post-hatching. 

If a brood of flightless chicks is observed, activities should be delayed at least seven days (FWS 2002). Exceptions 

and/or waiver to stipulations can be made by the BLM through consultation with the FWS.

Roads will be located outside of nesting plover habitat where possible. Apply mitigation measures to reduce 

mountain plover mortality caused by increased vehicle traffic. Construct speed bumps, use signing or post speed 

limits as necessary to reduce vehicle speeds near mountain plover habitat.

Creation of hunting perches will be minimized within 1⁄2 mile of occupied nesting areas. Utilize perch inhibitors 

(perch guards) to deter predator use.

Native seed mixes will be used to re-establish short grass vegetation during reclamation.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-20

There will be No Surface Occupancy of ancillary facilities (e.g., compressor stations, processing plants) within 1⁄2 

mile of known nesting areas. Variance may be granted after consultation with the FWS.

In habitat known to be occupied by mountain plover, no dogs will be permitted at work sites to reduce the potential 

for harassment of plovers.

The FWS will provide operators and the BLM with educational material illustrating and describing the mountain 

plover, its habitat needs, life history, threats, and development activities that may lead to incidental take of eggs, 

chicks, or adults. This information will be required to be posted in common areas and circulated in a memorandum 

among all employees and service providers.

<End of sections from the Biological Opinion.>

PROGRAMMATIC GUIDANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT PLANS

Guidance for developing project plans or conservation measures applied as COAs provide a full range of 

practicable means to avoid or minimize harm to wildlife species or their habitats. Operators will minimize 

impacts to wildlife by incorporating applicable WMPP programmatic guidance into project plans. Not all 

measures may apply to each site-specific development area and means to reduce harm are not limited to those 

identified in the WMPP. This guidance may change over time if new conservation strategies become available 

for special status species or if monitoring indicates the measure is not effective or unnecessary. 

The BLM and MFWP will work together to collect baseline information about wildlife and sensitive habitats 

possibly containing special status species. During the project development phase, operators will identify 

potentially sensitive habitats and coordinate with the BLM to determine which species or habitats are of concern 

within or adjacent to the project area. In areas where required site-specific wildlife inventories have not been 

completed, operators and the BLM will work cooperatively to complete these inventories. The BLM’s 

responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) are 

essentially the same on split estate as on federal surface. The BLM and operators will seek input from the 

private surface owner to include conservation measures in split estate situations.

The following guidance and conservation measures are considered “features” or project “design criteria” to be 

used during project plan preparation. The design of projects can incorporate conservation needs for wildlife 

species, or measures can be added as COAs. These types of conservation actions offer flexibility for local 

situations and help minimize or eliminate impacts to the species of interest.

1. Use the best available information for siting structures (e.g., storage facilities, generators, and holding 

tanks) outside the zone of impact in important wildlife breeding, brood-rearing, and winter habitat

based on the following considerations:

a. size of the structure or structures,

b. level or type of anticipated disturbance,

c. life of the operation, and

d. extent to which impacts would be minimized by topography.

2. Concentrate energy-related facilities when practicable.

3. Encourage development in incremental stages to stagger disturbance; design schedules that include 

long-term strategies to localize disturbance and recovery within established zones over a staggered 

time frame.

4. Prioritize areas relative to their need for protection, ranging from complete protection to moderate to 

high levels of energy development.

5. Develop a comprehensive project plan prior to POD or full-field development activities to minimize 

road densities.

6. To reduce additional surface disturbance, existing roads and two-tracks on and adjacent to the CBNG 

project area will be used to the extent possible and will be upgraded as necessary.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-21

7. Minimize stream channel disturbances and related sediment problems during construction of roads and 

installation of stream-crossing structures. Do not place erodible material into stream channels. Remove 

stockpiled material from high water zones. Locate temporary construction bypass roads in locations 

where the stream course will have minimal disturbance. Time construction activities to protect 

fisheries and water quality.

8. Design stream crossings for adequate passage of fish (if the potential exists). Minimize impacts on 

water quality and, at a minimum, the 25-year frequency runoff. Consider oversized pipe when debris 

loading may pose problems. Ensure sizing provides adequate length to allow for depth of road fill.

9. Use corridors to the maximum extent possible; roads, power, gas, and water lines should use the same 

corridor whenever possible.

10. Avoid, where possible, locating roads in crucial sage-grouse breeding, nesting, and wintering areas and 

mountain plover habitats. Develop roads utilizing topography, vegetative cover, site distance, and other 

methods or characteristics to effectively protect identified wildlife habitats. 

11. Conduct all road and stream-crossing construction and maintenance activities in accordance with 

agency-approved mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs).

12. Utilize remote monitoring technologies whenever possible to reduce site visits thereby reducing 

wildlife disturbance and mortalities.

13. All new roads required for the proposed project will be appropriately constructed, improved, 

maintained, and signed to minimize potential wildlife and vehicle collisions and facilitate wildlife 

movement through the project area. Appropriate speed limits will be adhered to on all project area 

roads, and operators will advise employees and contractors regarding these speed limits.

14. Road closures may be implemented during crucial periods (e.g., extreme winter conditions and 

calving or fawning seasons). Personnel will be advised to minimize stopping and exiting their vehicles 

in big game winter range.

15. Roads no longer required for operations or other uses will be reclaimed if required by the surface 

owner or surface management agency. Reclamation will be conducted as soon as practical.

16. Operator personnel and contractors will use existing state and county roads and approved access routes 

unless an exception is authorized by the surface management agency.

17. Use minimal surface disturbance to install roads and pipelines. Reclaim sites of abandoned wells to 

restore native plant communities.

18. Reclamation of disturbed areas will be initiated as soon as practical. Native species will be used in the 

reclamation of important wildlife habitat. Wildlife habitat needs will be considered during seed mix 

formulation.

19. Locate storage facilities, generators, and holding tanks outside the line of sight and sound of important 

sage-grouse breeding habitat.

20. Minimize ground disturbance in sagebrush stands with documented use by sage-grouse: 

 breeding habitat – the lek and associated sagebrush;

 nesting habitat – sagebrush within 4 miles of a lek; and

 wintering habitat – sagebrush with documented winter use by sage-grouse.

21. Site new power lines and pipelines in disturbed areas wherever possible, and remove overhead power

lines when use is complete.

22. Minimize the number of new overhead power lines in sage-grouse or mountain plover habitat. Use the 

best available information for siting power lines in important sage-grouse breeding, brood-rearing, and 

winter habitat. Bury lines in sage-grouse and mountain plover habitat, when feasible.

23. Restrict timing for power line installation to prevent disturbance during critical sage-grouse periods 

(breeding, March 1 to June 30; winter, December 1 to March 31).

24. If aboveground power line siting is required within 2 miles of important sage-grouse breeding, broodrearing, and winter habitat, emphasize options for preventing raptor perch sites utilizing the most 

recent guidance from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, currently 2006 (APLIC 2006).

25. Encourage monitoring of avian mortalities by entering into a memorandum of understanding with 

USFWS and the state agencies to establish procedures and policies to be employed by the parties to 

reduce industry’s liability concerns about the “take” of migratory birds. 

26. Remove unneeded structures and associated infrastructure when project is completed.
FISH AND WILDLIFE APPENDIX

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan

WMPP-22

27. Restrict maintenance and related activities in sage-grouse breeding or nesting complexes; March 1 to

June 30, allow from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

28. Restrict noise levels from production facilities to 50 decibels (10 A-weighted decibels (dBA) above 

background noise at the lek).

29. Restrict use of heavy equipment that exceeds 50 dBA within 2 miles of a lek and allow from 10:00

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. from March 1 to June 30.

30. Protect, to the extent possible, natural springs from disturbance or degradation.

31. Design and manage produced water storage impoundments to prevent degradation or inundation of 

sage-grouse leks, nesting sites and wintering sites, prairie dog towns, or other special status species

habitats.

32. CBNG-produced water should not be stored in shallow, closed impoundments or playas. 

Impoundments designed as flow-through systems will reduce the likelihood selenium will 

bioaccumulate to levels adversely affecting other wildlife.

33. Develop off-site mitigation strategies in situations where fragmentation or degradation of special status 

species habitat is unavoidable.

34. Protect reserve, workover, and production pits potentially hazardous to wildlife by netting or fencing 

as directed by the BLM to prevent wildlife access and minimize the potential for migratory bird 

mortality.

35. Reduce potential increases in poaching through employee and contractor education regarding wildlife 

laws. Operators should report violations to the BLM and MFWP.

36. Operator employees and their contractors will be discouraged from possessing firearms while working.

Measures 3, 4, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, and 30 were added from the Management Plan and Conservation Strategies 

for Sage Grouse in Montana-Final for sage-grouse in Montana (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005).
FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS APPENDIX

FOR-1

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS 

APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for forestry management in the planning area. Information includes 

guidelines relative to the Montana Streamside Management Zone Law and best management practices (BMPs).

MONTANA STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONE LAW

A streamside management zone is a buffer strip that provides necessary water quality protection, critical fish 

and wildlife habitat, and actively regulates high flood flows. The Montana Legislature passed the Streamside 

Management Zone Law in 1991. This law also mandated the development of administrative rules, which 

became effective March 15, 1993. 

Note: The Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law is a field guide to compliance with the 

Streamside Management Zone Law.

Developed by: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Service (MDNRC) 

Forestry Bureau, in cooperation with Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality, Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products Association, Plum 

Creek Timber Co., United States Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land 

Management.

Publication reference: Revised November 2006.

Available from: MDNRC, 2705 Spurgin Road, Missoula MT 59801-3199, (406) 542-4300, or local 

MDNRC field office.

Description: MT State Law (77 301(1) MCA). Complementary BMPs are found in the Water 

Quality BMPs for Montana Forests (also referenced in this appendix). Provides 

definitions, stream classifications, and guidelines on the seven forest practices 

prohibited by Montana Law in streamside management zones (broadcast burning; 

operation of wheeled or tracked vehicles except on established roads; the forest 

practice of clearcutting; the construction of roads except when necessary to cross a 

stream or wetland; the handling, storage, application, or disposal of hazardous or 

toxic materials in a manner that pollutes streams, lakes, or wetlands, or that may 

cause damage or injury to humans, land, animals, or plants; the side casting of road 

material into a stream, lake, wetland, or watercourse; and the deposit of slash in 

streams, lakes, or other water bodies).

WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Montana BMPs of voluntary and preferred ways to protect water quality and forest soils.

Developed by: Montana State University (MSU) Extension Service.

Publication reference: EB158, 2001.

Available from: MSU Extension Forestry, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula MT 59812, or MSU Extension 

Publications, P.O. Box 172040, Bozeman 59717.

Description: Discusses methods for managing forestland while protecting water quality and forest 

soils. Intended for all forestland in Montana, including non-industrial private, forest 

industry, and state or federally owned forests. These are preferred (but voluntary) 

methods that go beyond Montana State Law (streamside management zones). 

Includes definitions; basic biological information; BMPs for streamside management 

zones; road design, use, planning and locating, construction, drainage, and closure; 
FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS APPENDIX

FOR-2

stream crossings; soil; timber harvesting methods; reforestation; winter planning; and

cleanup.
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-1

LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY

APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for lands and realty and renewable energy in the planning area. 

Information includes:

 carbon geo-sequestration,

 rights-of-way (ROW) corridors,

 conveyance of federally owned mineral interests,

 information regarding land ownership adjustments,

 withdrawals, and 

 wind energy program guidance and best management practices (BMPs).

LANDS AND REALTY

CARBON GEO-SEQUESTRATION

Applications for carbon geo-sequestration exploration and site characterization projects and long-term 

sequestration projects would be processed in accordance with Bureau-wide policy and direction. 

Conditions of approval, BMPs, and design features used when developing oil and gas resources would be 

applied to authorizations for carbon geo-sequestration projects (see the Minerals Appendix, under Oil and Gas,

Conditions of Approval, and Best Management Practices and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oil and

gas website, http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/technical_info

rmation.html, for more information).

Stipulations for projects may be changed by application of waivers, exceptions, or modifications to protect or 

mitigate other resource values while allowing carbon geo-sequestration (see the Minerals Appendix).

ROW CORRIDORS

Major transportation and energy corridors were considered but not analyzed in detail. Because the planning area

contains a scattered or checkerboard land pattern of federal lands mixed with private and state lands, an 

alternative to consider corridors would not be achievable during implementation. Instead, as this resource 

management Plan (RMP) states in Chapter 2 under the Lands and Realty section, Management Common to All 

Alternatives, "Whenever possible, ROWs would be constructed within or next to compatible existing ROWs, 

such as highways and railroads." Not concentrating major ROW facilities in certain areas could reduce their 

vulnerability and, because they rely upon these facilities, the public’s vulnerability, to potential natural disasters 

or terrorism. 

CONVEYANCE OF FEDERALLY OWNED MINERAL INTERESTS

Section 209(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) provides for the conveyance of 

mineral interests owned by the United States where the surface is, or will be, in non-federal ownership. There 

must be a finding that there are no known mineral values in the land or that the reservation of the mineral rights 

in the United States is interfering with or precluding appropriate non-mineral development of the land and that 

such development is a more beneficial use of the land than mineral development. 
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-2

Such conveyance of mineral interests can only be made to the existing or proposed record owner of the surface 

upon payment of administrative costs and the fair market value of the interests being conveyed. 

GENERAL INFORMATION PERTAINING TO LAND OWNERSHIP 

ADJUSTMENTS 

Lands are categorized for management into three categories: 

 Category 1 retention lands, which will not be transferred from BLM management by any method 

during the life of the plan (unless the plan is amended) such as Congressionally designated 

wilderness, WSAs, and lands acquired by Land and Water Conservation Fund monies; 

 Category 2 retention lands with limited adjustment, which are not available for sale under Section 

203 of FLPMA (unless the plan is amended) but limited disposal actions may occur such as through 

exchange or Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP); and 

 Category 3 disposal lands, which are available to be considered for disposal through sale, exchange, 

R&PP Act grants, and other disposal methods.

METHODS OF ACQUISITION 

Acquisition of lands or interests in lands would be by such methods as exchange, purchase, donation, or public 

agency jurisdictional transfer. 

METHODS OF DISPOSAL 

Disposal methods to implement land ownership adjustment actions would include the following: 

 exchanges,

 sales,

 Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) conveyances,

 airport grants,

 public agency jurisdictional transfers, 

 state grants, 

 agricultural entries, and 

 Indian allotments.

Mineral patents are not considered a land ownership adjustment for the purposes of this plan. 

RETENTION, DISPOSAL, AND ACQUISITION CRITERIA

The retention and disposal lands identified in the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs, as amended (BLM 1985c 

and 1996) are carried forward into this plan. There are approximately 97,000 acres of Category 1 land and 2.2 

million acres of Category 2 lands which are identified for retention and 450,000 acres identified for disposal in 

the planning area as shown on Map 41. These acreage figures are approximate and it should not be inferred that 

they reflect exact or precise acres. Land ownership adjustments would be considered in accordance with 

applicable laws and regulations on a case-by-case basis based on retention, acquisition, and disposal criteria,

which can be found below. Disposal of individual tracts within Category 2 lands may occur when significant 

public benefits result. All land or mineral ownership adjustments and access actions would be based on a 

willing buyer and willing seller basis unless law, regulation, court order, or Congressional action required 

otherwise.

All lands identified for disposal were identified for disposal in a land use plan prior to July 25, 2000, and 

therefore, could qualify for consideration for disposal under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act of 

2000 if reauthorized.
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-3

Lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Fund Act appropriations would not be available for disposal 

by any means. 

LAND EXCHANGES

This type of real estate transaction is typically processed under the authority of FLPMA and involves the 

discretionary, voluntary exchange of lands or interest in lands between the federal government and a nonfederal 

party. It is required that: 

 the federal and non-federal lands involved be located in the same state;

 the federal and non-federal lands be of equal value, or in certain circumstances, approximately equal in 

value; and

 exchanges be completed only after a finding that the public interest would be well served.

In considering whether an exchange is in the public interest, consideration is given to the opportunity to: 

 achieve better management of federal lands;

 meet the needs of state and local residents and their economies; and

 secure important objectives, including but not limited to, protection of fish and wildlife habitats, 

cultural resources, watersheds, wilderness and aesthetic values; enhancement of recreation 

opportunities and public access; consolidation of lands or interests in lands; consolidation of split 

estate; expansion of communities; accommodation of land use authorizations; promotion of multipleuse values; and fulfillment of public needs.

In making the public interest determination, there needs to be a finding that: 

 the resource values and the public objectives that the federal lands or interests to be conveyed may 

serve if retained in federal ownership are not more than the resource values of the non-federal lands or 

interests and the public objectives they could serve if acquired, and 

 the intended use of the conveyed federal lands will not significantly conflict with established 

management objectives on adjacent federal lands and Indian trust lands.

COMPARISON TO OTHER METHODS OF DISPOSAL OR ACQUISITION

To help assure the integrity of state and local tax bases, land exchange would be the first priority for both 

acquisition and for the conveyance into nonfederal ownership of those parcels identified for disposal, 

except under the circumstances described below.

 Land sale may be considered where there is a competitive market situation and multiple entities 

are interested in a parcel of land.

 A disposal method other than exchange may be considered where one of the following situations 

applies:

o for resolving inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy;

o for providing for community expansion and development;

o for meeting obligations completing state selections; and 

o for creating facilities or service for public health, safety, and welfare. 

Sales 

Sales of public lands are authorized under section 203 of FLPMA and made at not less than fair market value. 

Public lands determined suitable for sale are offered only on the initiative of the BLM. Such sales have to meet 

at least one of the FLPMA sales criteria described below.
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-4

 Section 203(a)(1): such tract, because of its location or other characteristics, is difficult and 

uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands and is not suitable for management by another 

federal department or agency; 

 Section 203(a)(2): such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for 

that or any other federal purpose; or 

 Section 203(a)(3): disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives (including but not 

limited to, expansion of communities and economic development) that cannot be achieved prudently or 

feasibly on land other than public land and that outweigh other public objectives and values (including, 

but not limited to, recreation and scenic values) which would be served by maintaining such tract in 

federal ownership. 

The preferred method of sale of public lands is by competitive bidding at public auction. However, modified 

competitive bidding may be used to protect on-going uses, to assure compatibility of the possible uses with 

adjacent lands, or to avoid dislocation of existing users. Direct sale may be used when the public lands offered 

for sale are completely surrounded by lands in one ownership with no public access, where the lands are needed 

by state or local governments or non-profit corporations, or where necessary to protect existing equities in the 

lands or resolve inadvertent unauthorized use or occupancy. 

Direct Purchases 

Direct purchases would be limited to cases where no practical alternatives exist and high public values would be 

obtained. Such actions would need to meet the acquisition criteria for the particular alternative being 

considered. 

LAND PATTERN REVIEW CRITERIA

The public lands subject to these criteria are those lands, minerals, or interests in land administered by BLM. 

Criteria are presented to assist in categorizing the public lands for retention or disposal. Criteria are also 

provided to facilitate the selection of lands to be received in exchanges or other types of acquisition. The criteria 

range from specific to general and are designed to provide direction for statewide consistency while allowing 

the manager flexibility in identifying circumstances that dictate the category in which lands can be placed. All 

land or mineral ownership adjustments and access actions would be based on a willing buyer and willing seller 

basis unless law, regulation, court order, or Congressional action required otherwise.

A. Retention: The BLM’s long-term objectives for retention areas are to retain and manage the public 

lands. Specific objectives are to consolidate public land with public access and important resource 

values into units the BLM can effectively manage. Although the underlying philosophy is long-term 

public ownership, individual tracts or parcels in the retention areas may be disposed of or repositioned 

through sale or exchange when significant management efficiency, greater public values, or other 

objectives would be met and the public interest better served. Retention criteria follow.

1. Areas of national environmental significance, including but not limited to: 

 wilderness and wilderness study areas (WSAs), 

 wild and scenic rivers, 

 national and historic trails, 

 national conservation areas, 

 wetlands and riparian areas under Executive Order 11990 (May 24, 1977),

 other Congressionally designated areas, 

 wild horse management areas, and 

 areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs).
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-5

2. Areas of national economic significance including, but not limited to: 

 designated Mineral Resource Areas where disposal of the surface would unnecessarily 

interfere with the logical development of the mineral estate, e.g., surface minerals, coal, 

phosphate, known geologic structures, and others; and

 public lands containing strategic minerals needed for national defense. 

3. Public lands used in support of national defense, including but not limited to National Guard

maneuver areas. 

4. Areas where management is cost-effective or lands containing other important characteristics and 

public values that can best be managed in public ownership by BLM, including but not limited to:

 key tracts along rivers and lakes,

 community watersheds and/or flood-plains,

 wildlife priority areas as identified for land selection, and

 important hunting or fishing areas.

5. Lands with a combination of broad multiple use values that dictate they should be retained in 

public ownership and managed by the BLM. 

6. Areas where future plans will lead to further consolidation and improvement of land patterns and 

reduce the costs of management. 

7. Areas that the general public and state and local governments consider suitable for permanent 

public ownership. 

8. Public lands withdrawn by the BLM or other federal agency for which the purpose of the 

withdrawal remains valid and the resource uses can be managed by the BLM concurrently. 

9. Public lands that contribute significantly to the stability of the local economy by virtue of federal

ownership. 

10. Public lands that provide public access and contain previously mentioned public values which, 

when considered together, warrant their retention. 

B. Lands considered for disposal are lands identified for potential removal from public ownership through 

sale or exchange, or transfer to federal, state, county, or local public entities. The public land in the 

disposal areas consists of many small tracts or parcels that are widely scattered, possess limited 

resource values, and are difficult to manage. Although the BLM’s objective is to dispose of these types 

of public land in the disposal area, tracts would be retained if the environmental analyses show resource 

values worth retaining. In addition to land internally identified for disposal, the BLM will respond to 

proposals from the public. Exchanges or acquisitions may be considered to acquire desirable tracts 

within the disposal areas or add to existing public lands within these areas meeting the long-term 

management objective criteria. Disposal actions would be processed in accordance with Title II of 

FLPMA of October 21, 1976 based upon the criteria described below.

1. Lands of limited public value. 

2. Widely scattered parcels that are difficult for the BLM to manage with anything beyond minimal 

custodial administration and are not suitable for management by another Federal department or 

agency. 

3. Lands with high public values proper for management by other federal agencies or state or local 

governments. 

4. Lands around expanding communities and lands available for community expansion. 

5. Lands where disposal would aid in aggregating or repositioning other public lands or public land 

resource values to facilitate national, state, and local objectives. 

6. Lands acquired for a specific federal purpose that are no longer required for that or any other 

federal purpose. 

7. Lands with long term unauthorized use problems and lands not required for specific public 

purposes. 
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-6

8. Lands where disposal would increase the range of economic opportunities provided to the general 

public. 

9. Lands designated for agricultural, commercial, or industrial development as the highest value or 

most appropriate long-term use. 

10. Lands involved in BLM and United States Forest Service (USFS) jurisdictional transfers, state 

indemnity selections, or ongoing exchanges will continue as initiated. 

C. Acquisition Criteria: used to evaluate proposals that would result in the transfer of lands or minerals, or 

interests in lands to the BLM through exchange, purchase, donation, or other transactions. 

1. These criteria help to assure that any BLM decision to acquire a tract of land provides significant 

public benefits.

2. The criteria range from “general” standards, against which to evaluate all proposals, to “specific” 

guidelines covering the selected or prioritized program areas. 

3. These standards are designed to provide consistent direction, while allowing the line manager 

flexibility to meet local, state, and national needs. 

General Criteria 

All proposals will be evaluated to determine if the selected lands will:

1. Facilitate access to areas retained for long-term public use.

2. Be primarily focused in the retention areas. 

3. Facilitate national, state, and local BLM priorities or mission statement needs.

4. Place emphasis where BLM land use or activity plans are completed. Proposals must facilitate 

implementation or be consistent with these plans. 

5. Stabilize or enhance local economics or values. 

6. Meet long-term goals instead of short-term gains. 

7. Be of sufficient size to improve use of adjoining public lands or, if isolated, large enough in scale 

to allow the identified potential public land use. 

8. Allow more diverse or more intensive use or a change in uses to better fulfill the BLM’s mission. 

9. Maintain or enhance important and recognized public land values. Especially noteworthy are 

identified, designated, special, or high interest value areas. 

10. Enhance the opportunity for new or emerging public land uses or values. 

11. Contribute to a wide spectrum of uses or a large number of public land users. 

12. Facilitate management practices, uses, scale of operations or degrees of management intensity that 

are viable under economic program efficiency standards. 

13. Enhance designated ACECs.

14. Secure for the public significant water-related land interest, which would include lakeshore, 

riverfront, stream, or pond sites.

15. Secure important riparian or wetland areas.

16. Avoid acquisition of cultivated lands, unless such acquisition is clearly necessary to attain a 

specific resource goal. 

Cultural Resources

Any cultural site to be acquired should meet the following evaluation standards:

1. contain high research values;

2. be of moderate scarcity; and

3. possess some unique values, such as association with an important historic person or high 

aesthetic value.

Minerals 

1. Consolidation of mineral estates.

2. Acquisition in response to a federal project need, as in the case of a dam project. Criteria for 

this type of acquisition would generally include:
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-7

 the development of a federal project that precludes the mineral estate owner from 

exercising development rights, or

 the exercise of the mineral estate owner’s right of development that would 

materially interfere with the federal project.

Recreation

Acquire land with the following significant values:

1. national values, such as Congressionally designated areas, rivers, or trails;

2. state values that enhance recreation trails and waterways or interstate, state, and multi-county 

use; or

3. local values for extensive use, such as hunting and fishing or off-highway vehicle (OHV) and 

snowmobile use.

Wilderness

Acquire inholdings within WSAs and within the boundaries of Congressionally designated 

wilderness areas under BLM administration.

Wildlife Habitat Management

Areas for acquisition would be lands of any size with significant wildlife values as defined below:

1. Threatened and endangered species (including federally listed species, federal candidate 

species, and state-listed species of special concern)

2. Fisheries;

3. Big game (including important habitat such as crucial winter areas, fawning, calving, and 

security areas);

4. Upland game birds, migratory birds, and waterfowl (including crucial breeding, nesting, 

resting, roosting, feeding, and wintering habitat areas of complexes);

5. Raptors (including existing and potential nesting areas for sensitive species or significant 

nesting complexes for non-sensitive species); and 

6. Non-game, including crucial habitat complexes. 

WITHDRAWALS

INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY

This withdrawal affects 158 acres of surface and mineral estate within Daniels County and 135 acres within 

Sheridan County. The purpose of the withdrawal is to establish a buffer zone between the United States and 

Canada. The withdrawal segregates the lands from all forms of entry, including mineral entry, although they are 

open to lease under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act (BLM 1996).

MEDICINE LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

This withdrawal affects 22,742 acres of subsurface minerals, which includes 994 surface acres of public lands 

within Sheridan County. In Roosevelt County, 1,766 acres of subsurface minerals, including 40 acres of public 

surface acres, are withdrawn. This withdrawal established the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge for the 

purpose of waterfowl protection. These lands are segregated from all forms of entry, including mineral entry, 

although they are open to leasing under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act (BLM 1996). 

FOX LAKE GAME MANAGEMENT AREA

This withdrawal affects 160 acres in Richland County. The lands are primarily used as wetlands habitat, and 

these lands are closed to entry, including location under the General Mining Law of 1872, and to oil and gas 

leasing pursuant to the classification agreement of February 5, 1965 (BLM 1996). 
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-8

BUREAU OF SPORTS FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE WATERFOWL PRODUCTION AREA

This withdrawal affects 26 acres of subsurface minerals and public surface. The land is situated in the extreme 

northeast corner of Montana, within the Prairie Potholes region. The withdrawal segregates the lands from all 

forms of entry, including mineral entry, although they are open to leasing under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act 

(BLM 1996). 

CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

In total, 290,222 acres of public lands are withdrawn in Garfield and McCone counties for refuge purposes

(BLM 1996). Federal minerals underlying the private surface are subject to the conditions of the withdrawal. 

The withdrawal segregates the lands from all forms of entry, including mineral entry. Mineral leasing is 

restricted only to cases involving drainage and does not permit surface occupancy. Of these lands withdrawn, 

206,976 acres are also included in the Corps of Engineers withdrawal for the Fort Peck Dam (BLM 1996). 

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, FORT PECK DAM

Public lands totaling 210,732 acres are withdrawn for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Of these, 

206,976 acres overlap the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge withdrawal. This withdrawal segregates 

the land from entry with the exception of restricted mineral entry for metalliferous mining. A majority of the 

land in this withdrawal was recommended for relinquishment, with those lands used for the operation of the 

dam and hydroelectric facilities, consisting of 3,756 acres, to remain under the effect of the withdrawal (BLM 

1996).

FORT UNION TRADING POST NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

This withdrawal of 62 acres was to the National Park Service for this historic site established by an Act of 

Congress on June 20, 1966, and modified by an Act of Congress on November 20, 1978 (BLM 2010g).

FORT KEOGH LIVESTOCK EXPERIMENT STATION

This station was established by an Act of Congress in 1924. Prior to dedication of these lands for livestock 

research, the lands were reserved as a waterfowl refuge, pre-dated by a military reserve. The lands are 

withdrawn from all forms of entry, including mineral entry. Mineral leasing is allowed under the terms of the 

withdrawal. Because the withdrawal was invoked by Congress, revocation can only occur by an Act of 

Congress. No revocation or modification of this withdrawal has been proposed. The withdrawal affects a total 

of 55,765 acres of land within the planning area (BLM 1985c, 1996, and 2010g). 

CUSTER NATIONAL FOREST

The Powder River RMP states that federal lands withdrawn for the Custer National Forest are expected to 

continue; however, the number of acres in this withdrawal is not known (BLM 1984).

BELLTOWER TOWNSITE

Located in Carter County, the 80-acre Belltower Townsite withdrawal was created by Executive Order 2147 on 

March 16, 1915 (BLM 2010g).

LOWER YELLOWSTONE PROJECT (BUREAU OF RECLAMATION)

This withdrawal affects approximately 51,872 acres of public land in Richland and Dawson counties. The lands 

lie along the Yellowstone River, from the area of Glendive, Montana, to the mouth of the Yellowstone River in 

western North Dakota. Several withdrawal actions were enacted between 1903 and 1969 for the project and a 

majority of these lands were second-form withdrawals, which allowed homestead entry subject to specific 

conditions. All lands were subsequently open to mineral leasing following passage of the Mineral Leasing Act 

of 1920. About 860 acres of this withdrawal were recommended for revocation (BLM 1996 and 2010g). 
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-9

FORT BUFORD PROJECT (BUREAU OF RECLAMATION)

This withdrawal affects 914 acres of lands along the Yellowstone River in Dawson and Richland counties. This 

withdrawal was recommended for revocation (BLM 1996). The withdrawal segregated the lands from all forms 

of entry, including mineral entry, but left the land open to mineral leasing. 

PUBLIC WATER RESERVE 107 (MCCONE COUNTY)

This withdrawal includes 238 acres of public lands for water reserves in McCone County (BLM 1996). Two 

hundred acres of the overall total lies within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge boundary. This 

withdrawal was recommended for revocation since reservations of local water sources are no longer needed to 

protect public interests. Furthermore, this action opens 37 acres to public land laws, while the remaining 200 

acres are subject to the conditions of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge withdrawal. 

MILK RIVER PROJECT (BUREAU OF RECLAMATION)

This withdrawal affects 37 acres in McCone County for the Bureau of Reclamation’s (BOR) Milk River Project

(BLM 1996). This withdrawal was combined for review with the Milk River Project in the Lewistown District. 

Withdrawal on two parcels is in effect along the Missouri River in McCone County for the projects. The 

withdrawals segregate the lands from entry, including mineral entry under the General Mining Law, although 

the lands remain open for leasing under the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act. This withdrawal was recommended for 

revocation.

BUFFALO RAPIDS PROJECT (BOR)

A total of approximately 305 acres is withdrawn in Prairie and Dawson counties for the Buffalo Rapids Project. 

This was a first form withdrawal, which closes the lands to all forms of entry, although mineral leasing is 

allowed. This withdrawal was recommended for revocation because there are no physical improvements. 

Relinquishment opens these lands to operation under existing statutes (BLM 1996 and 2010g). 

POWER SITES

Primarily located in the Moorhead area, approximately 2,777 acres have been withdrawn by classification for 

power site purposes. These sites are expected to be revoked. The Moorhead Reservoir Withdrawal, consisting of 

approximately 2,700 acres was revoked in 1982. 

TONGUE RIVER RESERVOIR

A total of 160 acres were withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry by Executive Order 7960 for 

Reservoir Site Reserve No. 20 on August 22, 1938. Forty acres of these lands have been transferred out of BLM 

administration, and revocation has been recommended for the remaining lands (BLM 2010g).

BIA-NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRUST-WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT

Jurisdiction of 320 acres in Big Horn County near the Tongue River Reservoir was transferred to the BIA in 

Trust for the Northern Cheyenne Tribe as part of the Northern Cheyenne Water Settlement Act (106 Statute 

1186) in 1994 (BLM 2010g).

BIA-CROW TRUST-CROW BOUNDARY SETTLEMENT

Jurisdiction of approximately 9,873 acres of minerals or surface in Big Horn County, within the Miles City and 

Billings field offices, was transferred to the BIA in Trust for the Crow Tribe as part of the Crow Boundary 

Settlement Act in 1995 (BLM 2010g).
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-10

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Information on renewable energy can be found on BLM’s web page at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energ

y.html and the Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory site at http://www.nrel.gov. The 

Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory maps and information would be used when 

considering and evaluating wind and solar project proposals and applications.

Requests for solar energy project ROWs would be processed according to Washington Office (WO) Instruction 

Memorandum (IM) 2011-003 (BLM 2010d). BMPs from the Solar Energy Development Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement, which is being prepared by the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy Program and the BLM for six western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, New 

Mexico, Nevada, and Utah), would also be used for processing solar ROW applications (for more information 

see http://solareis.anl.gov/).

Maps of Potential Wind Development Areas depicting areas in Wind Class 4 and above with few or no known 

resource restrictions in which ROW applications for wind energy projects could be considered can be found for 

each alternative in Volume IV.

BLM WIND ENERGY PROGRAM POLICIES AND BMPS 

The BLM has established a number of policies, provided below, and BMPs (see the Best Management Practices 

Appendix) regarding the development of wind energy resources on BLM-administered public lands. 

<The following policies are from Attachment 1 of BLM WO IM No. 2009-043, December 19, 2008).>

The policies and BMPs are applicable to all wind energy development projects on BLM-administered public 

lands. The policies address the administration of wind energy development activities, and the BMPs identify 

required mitigation measures that will be incorporated into project-specific Plans of Development (PODs) and 

right-of-way (ROW) authorization stipulations. Additional mitigation measures will be applied to individual 

projects, in the form of stipulations in the ROW authorization as appropriate, to address site-specific and 

species-specific issues.

Policies

• The BLM will not issue ROW authorizations for wind energy development on lands on 

which wind energy development is incompatible with specific resource values. Lands 

excluded from wind energy site monitoring and testing and development include 

designated areas that are part of the National Landscape Conservation System (NLCS) 

(e.g., Wilderness Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, National Monuments, National 

Conservation Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and National Historic and Scenic Trails). 

(Wind energy development is permitted in one NCA, the California Desert Conservation 

Area, in accordance with the provisions of the California Desert Conservation Area Plan 

1980, as Amended.) Additional areas may be excluded from wind energy development 

based resource impacts that cannot be mitigated and/or conflict with existing multiple-use 

activities or land use plans. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) are not 

universally excluded from wind energy site monitoring and testing or wind energy 

development, but will be managed consistent with the management prescriptions for the 

individual ACEC.

• To the extent possible, wind energy projects shall be developed in a manner that will not 

prevent other land uses, including minerals extraction, livestock grazing, recreational use, 

and other ROW uses.

• Entities seeking to develop a wind energy project on BLM-administered lands shall 

consult with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies regarding specific projects as 

early in the planning process as appropriate to ensure that all potential construction, 
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-11

operation, and decommissioning issues and concerns are identified and adequately 

addressed.

• The BLM will initiate government-to-government consultation with Indian tribal 

governments whose interests might be directly and substantially affected by activities on 

BLM-administered lands as early in the planning process as appropriate to ensure that 

construction, operation, and decommissioning issues and concerns are identified and 

adequately addressed.

• Entities seeking to develop a wind energy project on BLM-administered lands shall 

consult with the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), in conjunction with BLM 

Washington Office and Field Office staff, regarding the location of wind power projects 

and turbine siting as early in the planning process as appropriate. This consultation shall 

occur concurrently at both the installation/field level and the Pentagon/BLM Washington 

Office level. The consultation process is outlined in an interagency protocol agreement.

• The BLM will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as required by 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). The specific consultation 

requirements will be determined on a project-by-project basis.

• The BLM will consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) as required by 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). The specific 

consultation requirements will be determined on a project-by-project basis. If 

programmatic section 106 consultations have been conducted and are adequate to cover a 

proposed project, additional consultation may not be needed.

• Existing land use plans will be amended, as appropriate, to (1) adopt provisions of the 

BLM’s Wind Energy Development Program, (2) identify land considered available for 

wind energy development, and (3) identify land that will not be available for wind energy 

development.

• The level of environmental analysis to be required under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) for individual wind power projects will be determined at the field 

office level. For many projects, it may be determined that a tiered environmental 

assessment (EA) is appropriate in lieu of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). To 

the extent that the Programmatic EIS (PEIS) addresses anticipated issues and concerns 

associated with an individual project, including potential cumulative impacts, the BLM 

will tier based on the decisions embedded in the PEIS and limit the scope of additional 

project-specific NEPA analyses. The site-specific NEPA analyses will include analyses

of project site configuration and micrositing considerations, monitoring program 

requirements, and appropriate mitigation measures. In particular, the mitigation measures 

discussed in chapter 5 of the PEIS may be consulted in determining site-specific 

requirements. Public involvement will be incorporated into all wind energy development 

projects to ensure that all concerns and issues are identified and adequately addressed. In 

general, the scope of the NEPA analyses will be limited to the proposed action on BLMadministered public lands; however, if access to proposed development on adjacent nonBLM-administered lands is entirely dependent on obtaining ROW access across BLMadministered public lands and there are no alternatives to that access, the NEPA analysis 

for the proposed ROW may need to assess the environmental effects from that proposed 

development. The BLM’s analyses of ROW access projects may tier based on the PEIS 

to the extent that the proposed project falls within the scope of the PEIS analyses.

• Site-specific environmental analyses will tier from the PEIS and identify and assess any 

cumulative impacts that are beyond the scope of the cumulative impacts addressed in the 

PEIS.

• The Categorical Exclusion (CX) applicable to the issuance of short-term ROWs or land 

use authorizations may be applicable to some site monitoring and testing activities. The 

relevant CX, established in the BLM NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1, Appendix 4, Section 

E. 19 (January 30, 2008), encompasses “issuance of short-term (3 years or less) rights-ofway or land use authorizations for such uses as storage sites, apiary sites, and 

construction sites where the proposal includes rehabilitation to restore the land to its 

natural or original condition.” The CX for “nondestructive data collection, inventory, 
LANDS AND REALTY-RENEWABLE ENERGY APPENDIX

LAN-12

study, research, and monitoring activities” may also be applicable to wind energy site 

testing and monitoring activities.

• The BLM will require financial bonds for all wind energy development projects on BLMadministered public lands to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the 

rights-of-way authorization and the requirements of applicable regulatory requirements, 

including reclamation costs. The amount of the required bond will be determined during 

the rights-of-way authorization process on the basis of site-specific and project-specific 

factors. A minimum bond will be required for site monitoring and testing authorizations.

• Entities seeking to develop a wind energy project on BLM-administered public lands 

shall develop a project-specific Plan of Development (POD) that incorporates all BMPs 

and, as appropriate, the requirements of other existing and relevant BLM mitigation 

guidance, including the BLM’s offsite mitigation guidance. Additional mitigation 

measures will be incorporated into the POD and into the ROW authorization as project 

stipulations, as needed, to address site-specific and species-specific issues. The POD will 

include a site plan showing the locations of turbines, roads, power lines, other 

infrastructure, and other areas of short- and long-term disturbance.

• The BLM will incorporate management goals and objectives specific to habitat 

conservation for species of concern (e.g., sage-grouse, raptors, bats), as appropriate, into 

the POD for proposed wind energy projects.

• The BLM will consider the visual resource values of the public lands involved in 

proposed wind energy development projects, consistent with BLM Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) policies and guidance. The BLM will work with the ROW applicant 

to incorporate visual design considerations into the planning and design of the project to 

minimize potential visual impacts of the proposal and to meet the VRM objectives of the 

area.

• Operators of wind power facilities on BLM-administered public lands shall consult with 

the BLM and other appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies regarding any planned 

upgrades or changes to the wind facility design or operation. Proposed changes of this 

nature may require additional environmental analysis and/or revision of the POD.

• The BLM’s Wind Energy Development Program will incorporate adaptive management 

strategies to ensure that potential adverse impacts of wind energy development are 

avoided if possible, minimized, or mitigated to acceptable levels. The programmatic 

policies and BMPs will be updated and revised as new data regarding the impacts of wind 

power projects become available. At the project level, operators will be required to 

develop monitoring programs to evaluate the environmental conditions at the site through 

all phases of development, establish metrics against which monitoring observations can 

be measured, identify potential mitigation measures, and establish protocols for 

incorporating monitoring observations and additional mitigation measures into standard 

operating procedures and project-specific stipulations.

<End of Attachment 1 from BLM IM No. 2009-043>
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-1

LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for livestock grazing and management in the planning area. 

Information includes:

 allotment categories,

 screening criteria for allotments,

 reserve common allotments (RCAs), and

 lists of allotments and allotments that failed to meet Standards for Rangeland Health (see Tables 1 and

2 at the end of this appendix).

ALLOTMENT CATEGORIES 

The existing selective management categories (Improve or I, Maintain or M, and Custodial or C) are the 

foundation for designating allotment categories. The selective management category process was initiated in 

1982 and was used primarily to establish priorities for investing in range improvements. Criteria for the original 

designations can be found in Handbook 1740-1, Appendix 1, pages 3 and 4.

Below are the criteria in addition to those found in Handbook 1740-1 that are to be used to designate allotments 

as Category I, M, or C. Allotments are categorized as appropriate and recorded in the Rangeland Administration 

System. Allotments may be re-categorized as new information from monitoring, land health evaluations, habitat 

assessments, sensitive species data, or other information becomes available. Assigning allotments to one of the 

three categories in accordance with the following criteria will help determine priorities for focusing staff and 

fiscal resources when processing grazing permits and leases, monitoring allotments, evaluating rangeland 

health, and implementing range improvements. 

 Category I: Allotments where current livestock grazing management or level of use on public land is, 

or is expected to be, a significant causal factor in non-compliance with land health standards, or where 

a change in mandatory terms and conditions in the grazing authorization is or may be necessary. When 

identifying Category I allotments, review condition of critical habitat and conflicts with sage-grouse 

and consider whether projects have been proposed specifically for implementing the land health 

initiatives. 

 Category M: Allotments where land health standards are met or where livestock grazing on public land 

is not a significant causal factor for non-compliance with the standards and current livestock 

management is in conformance with guidelines developed by State Directors in consultation with 

Resource Advisory Councils. Allotments where an evaluation of land health standards has not been 

completed, but existing monitoring data indicates that resource conditions are satisfactory. 

 Category C: Allotments where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the forage in the allotment, 

are less than 10 percent of the land area, or are less than 320 acres in size. An allotment should 

generally not be designated Category C if the public land in the allotment contains critical habitat for a 

threatened or endangered species or riparian and wetlands negatively affected by livestock grazing. See 

Figure 1 for more information.
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-2

Did the allotment meet the 

standards for Rangeland 

Health or is the allotment 

progressing towards 

achieving standards under 

current management?

Yes

Does the allotment 

contain <1280 BLM 

administered surface 

acres?

Yes/No

How much BLM 

administered land 

is in the pasture(s) 

(if available) 

and/or allotment?

≤50%

Are *resource 

management 

opportunities 

limited?

Yes

Does allotment 

contain BLM surface 

access designated as 

critical habitat?

Yes

Category M or I

No

Category C

No

New documentation 

(monitoring visits) indicates 

the allotment health & 

resources are satisfactory

Yes

Does allotment contain 

BLM surface acres 

designated as critical 

habitat?

Yes

Category M or I

No

Category M

No

Category I

>51%

Noxious weeds are not

a significant factor or 

concern in allotment

Yes

New documentation 

(monitoring visits) 

indicates the allotment 

health& resources are 

satisfactory

Yes

Does allotment contain 

BLM surface acres 

designated as critical 

habitat?

Yes

Category I

No

Category M

NO

Category I

No

Category I

No

Category I

FIGURE 1.

ALLOTMENT FLOWCHART

Resource management opportunities are considered 

based on the following factors:  cost management;  public or private land pattern;  high ratio of acres per animal unit months 

(AUMs) (due to terrain);

 level of importance of the resource value and 

use; and

 opportunity, need, and value of BLM-funded 

projects.
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-3

SCREENING CRITERIA

A screening criteria checklist would be reviewed prior to transfer or renewal. If the allotment passes the screening 

checklist, the renewal is within scope and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance can be achieved 

by preparing a documentation of NEPA adequacy form that references the EIS or other existing NEPA 

documentation, which has adequately addressed impacts, including cumulative analysis. If the allotment does not 

pass the screening checklist then the proposed transfer or renewal represents an exception and an environmental 

assessment should be prepared.

SCREENING CRITERIA CHECKLIST FOR 10-YEAR GRAZING PERMITS, LEASE 

RENEWALS, OR TRANSFERS

To determine if a proposed renewal or transfer is eligible, the following screening criteria should be applied. If the 

answer to every question is “Yes”, the proposed renewal or transfer qualifies and NEPA compliance can be achieved 

by preparing a Documentation of NEPA Adequacy that references the resource management plan. However, if the 

answer to any question is “No” the proposal represents an exception and an individual environmental assessment

should be prepared.

 Is the allotment currently categorized as an “I” category allotment? 

o If “Yes”, do not use this Screening Criteria, analyze action in appropriate NEPA.

o If “No”, continue to next question.

 Is the allotment currently categorized as a “C” category allotment? 

o If “Yes”, go to Section A.

o If “No”, continue to next question.

 Is the allotment currently categorized as an “M” category allotment?

o If “Yes”, go to Section B.

 Section A: (“C” Allotments)

 Does the allotment meet the Miles City Field Office Standards for Rangeland 

Health?

o Uplands are in proper functioning condition?

o Riparian areas and wetlands are in proper functioning condition?

o Water quality meets Montana State standards?

o Air quality meets Montana State standards?

o Habitats are provided for healthy, productive, and diverse native plant 

and animal populations and communities. Habitats are improved or 

maintained for special status species (federally threatened, endangered, 

candidate, or Montana species of special concern)? (Does the 

environment contain all the necessary components to support viable 

populations of a sensitive/threatened and endangered species in a given 

area relative to site potential?)

o Are habitat objectives and management considerations being met in 

priority sage-grouse habitat?

 Will the proposed renewal or transfer have a change in the class of livestock, 

season of use (14 days), or terms and conditions?
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-4

 Section B: (“M” Allotments)

 Does field visit information exist that is current (i.e., less than 5 years old)? If 

yes, does the current information indicate that the allotment meets the Miles 

City Field Office Standards for Rangeland Health?

o Uplands are in proper functioning condition?

o Riparian areas and wetlands are in proper functioning condition?

o Water quality meets Montana State standards?

o Air quality meets Montana State standards?

o Habitats are provided for healthy, productive, and diverse native plant 

and animal populations and communities. Habitats are improved or 

maintained for special status species (federally threatened, endangered, 

candidate or Montana species of special concern)? (Does the 

environment contain all the necessary components to support viable 

populations of a sensitive/threatened and endangered species in a given 

area relative to site potential?)

o Are habitat objectives and management considerations being met in 

priority sage-grouse habitat?

 If not, allotment conditions must be verified. If allotment conditions are verified, 

does allotment continue to meet Standards for Rangeland Health?

 Will the proposed renewal or transfer have a change in the class of livestock, 

change in the season of use? (14 days), or change in the terms and conditions?

RESERVE COMMON ALLOTMENT CRITERIA 

RCAs would be designated as opportunities arise and needs identified to facilitate rest for other allotments. 

Priority for using RCAs would be as follows:

1) permittees and lessees whose “normally permitted” allotments are under an approved restoration or 

recovery project, and

2) permittees and lessees whose “normally permitted” allotments are temporarily unavailable because of 

emergency conditions such as wildfire.

Competing applications (depending on the RCA allotment management plan and objectives, there may be more than 

one applicant selected to graze a particular RCA) would be evaluated based on the benefit to the resource and 

consider factors such as:

1) amount of public land benefited,

2) the prioritization of projects benefitting special status species, and

3) history of grazing permit compliance.

The authorized officer will make the selection based on the above listed factors.

An allotment management plan will be written for each RCA. The RCA must maintain the Standards for Rangeland 

Health. The plan will incorporate vegetation objectives for the RCA. The plan will also identify how range 

improvement project maintenance will be accomplished. Grazing on RCAs would be authorized through nonrenewable grazing permits under 43 CFR 4130.6-2. Grazing use authorized on the RCA would be subject to the 

NEPA process. Permittees would be required to take nonuse on their “normally permitted” allotment. 
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-5

TABLE 1.

ALLOTMENTS THAT FAILED 

RANGELAND HEALTH STANDARDS AS OF 

DECEMBER 2009

Allot

No.

Auth 

No. Acres AUMs

00018 2015 12,288 2,900

00030 2022 3,264 130

00065 2056 10,721 1,550

00204 2172 4,150 772

00286 2244 3,541 794

00286 2245 Common 795

00382 2339 7,872 1,571

00655 2403 3,571 605

00733 2777 446 100

00804 2701 230 63

01048 2547 12,088 2,216

01076 2576 800 192

01154 2656 1,280 267

01182 2684 4,640 840

01226 2799 1,607 428

01237 2739 560 324

01246 2747 9,364 1,830

01254 2755 11,182 2,343

01268 2772 17,304 4,152

01273 2779 6,440 1,684

01277 2781 2,040 537

01286 2790 2,204 616

01287 2791 2,380 630

01293 2742 3,042 1,004

01307 2811 256 66

01340 2842 1,289 309

01341 2843 Common 790

01341 2869 Common 922

01341 2871 12,360 413

01369 2772 2,089 168

01369 2797 Common 168

01392 2906 959 10

01392 2902 Common 146

01415 2925 5,056 770

01436 2946 14,008 2,657

10111 3972 628 200

10157 3435 320 31

Allot

No.

Auth 

No. Acres AUMs

10187 3464 5,190 1,166

10224 3499 9,932 1,839

10345 3622 2,383 424

10418 3876 335 93

10492 3809 2,116 469

10526 3803 7,026 1,444

10664 3909 1,360 165

10735 3698 1,836 431

10752 3622 1,000 180

41 Allotments 189,157 39,119

TABLE 2. 

UPDATED ALLOTMENT LIST AS OF 

JANUARY 2010 (ALLOTMENTS OPEN 

UNDER ALTERNATIVE A)

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

2 2502001 C 24 6

3 2502002 M 3,767 739

4 2503303 C 160 24

5 2502004 C 185 20

6 2502005 C 120 36

7 2502006 C 40 8

8 2502007 C 190 39

9 2503308 C 80 12

10 2502008 C 53 34

11 2502009 M 2,228 567

12 2502010 M 447 93

13 2502011 M 2,600 611

14 2502270 I 3,282 709

14 2502279 I 3,282 709

15 2502012 C 378 95

16 2502013 C 160 39

17 2502014 C 520 136

18 2502015 M 9,752 2900

19 2502016 M 1,689 421

20 2502017 M 2,887 700

21 2502018 M 1,207 277

22 2502186 C 278 59

23 2503320 C 40 8

24 2502020 M 16,954 2701

25 2503064 I 1,766 334

26 2502100 M 1,917 424

28 2502021 M 735 181

29 2502382 C 2,891 364

30 2502022 I 1,221 130
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-6

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

32 2502024 M 9,483 1834

33 2502392 C 413 58

34 2502025 C 827 231

35 2502393 C 1,600 211

36 2503333 C 1,280 190

37 2502027 C 120 24

38 2503335 C 322 51

39 2502029 M 235 60

40 2502030 M 16,428 1443

41 2503338 C 480 93

42 2503339 C 156 47

43 2503340 C 160 24

44 2502034 C 200 44

45 2502075 I 6,942 1122

46 2502036 M 875 160

47 2502037 M 2,713 481

48 2502038 M 20,997 4583

48 2502267 M 20,997 4583

49 2502328 C 320 54

50 2502039 C 40 12

51 2502040 C 120 36

52 2502041 M 2,668 478

54 2502043 C 80 18

55 2502044 C 584 128

56 2502045 C 140 28

57 2502046 I 1,431 306

58 2503354 C 280 60

59 2503355 C 120 28

60 2503370 C 120 18

61 2502232 M 1,312 346

62 2503358 M 1,674 188

63 2502052 M 2,373 102

64 2502053 M 1,085 204

65 2502054 M 10,721 1550

65 2502055 M 10,721 1550

65 2502056 M 10,721 1550

66 2502055 M 3,297 662

67 2502055 M 5,945 1767

68 2502057 M 1,842 334

69 2502705 M 160 38

70 2502058 M 10,390 1646

71 2502059 I 2,268 775

73 2503369 C 80 12

74 2502060 M 691 132

75 2502061 C 547 93

76 2502062 C 46 7

77 2502063 M 1,752 148

78 2502065 C 200 43

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

79 2502066 C 605 114

80 2502067 M 2,296 478

81 2502068 C 1,550 259

82 2502032 M 1,706 257

84 2502071 M 4,869 774

85 2503381 I 4,169 695

86 2503382 C 440 103

87 2502073 C 962 159

88 2502074 M 1,844 400

90 2502273 M 90 14

91 2502077 C 320 32

92 2503388 C 626 104

93 2502079 I 6,608 1576

93 2502262 I 6,608 1576

94 2502080 M 2,115 384

94 2502262 M 2,115 384

94 2504070 M 2,115 384

95 2502081 C 528 85

96 2503392 C 80 11

97 2502082 M 887 253

99 2502083 C 60 12

100 2502084 M 8,370 659

102 2502085 I 4,600 681

103 2502086 C 40 9

104 2502087 M 1,240 180

105 2502088 M 2,240 216

106 2502089 C 189 64

107 2502204 C 320 50

107 2502090 C 320 50

108 2502229 M 1,574 407

109 2502092 M 640 133

110 2503406 C 80 21

111 2502094 M 3,239 520

114 2502096 C 200 30

115 2502097 C 40 11

116 2502098 M 540 52

117 2502099 M 6,237 1090

119 2502134 M 1,120 251

121 2502101 C 959 202

123 2503104 M 3,840 520

124 2502103 M 1,840 481

125 2502104 M 2,252 378

126 2502105 M 1,185 267

127 2502106 M 1,817 275

129 2502107 C 2,421 448

130 2502109 M 3,000 587

132 2502111 M 4,048 1014

133 2502307 C 585 48
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-7

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

134 2502113 M 3,877 679

135 2502114 C 640 108

137 2502116 M 193 61

138 2502306 M 240 58

139 2502064 I 1,208 241

140 2502117 C 1,578 333

141 2502118 M 5,666 1085

143 2502119 C 143 51

144 2502120 C 355 84

145 2502121 C 600 132

146 2502122 C 199 38

147 2502123 C 40 11

148 2502124 M 5,328 1069

149 2503112 C 1,098 341

151 2503430 C 640 214

152 2503575 C 770 117

154 2502129 M 1,315 244

155 2502130 I 5,144 990

157 2502132 C 120 36

158 2502133 M 10,062 2008

159 2502135 M 642 172

160 2503769 C 230 68

161 2502137 C 401 49

162 2502138 C 160 19

163 2502139 M 1,240 350

164 2502140 M 681 198

165 2502141 C 400 111

166 2503731 M 1,916 372

167 2502143 C 320 41

168 2502327 M 19,444 3262

169 2503103 M 11,771 2138

170 2502280 M 3,994 617

171 2502280 M 9,244 1516

172 2502145 M 1,811 414

173 2502136 M 1,033 253

174 2502146 M 2,666 488

175 2502147 C 40 11

176 2502148 C 294 67

177 2502149 C 40 11

178 2502150 M 3,084 356

182 2502151 C 276 42

184 2502153 M 1,765 369

185 2502155 C 79 27

186 2502156 M 706 138

187 2502269 M 1,758 315

189 2502158 C 80 23

190 2502159 M 440 64

191 2502160 C 283 46

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

192 2502161 C 360 66

193 2502162 C 360 60

194 2502163 C 40 13

195 2502164 M 960 169

196 2502165 M 6,975 1029

197 2502166 M 2,735 578

199 2502167 M 5,077 710

200 2502168 C 367 74

201 2502169 M 2,714 495

202 2502170 M 800 200

203 2502171 M 1,063 187

204 2502172 M 4,108 772

205 2502173 M 100 24

206 2502174 C 200 42

207 2502175 M 2,039 324

209 2502176 C 320 91

211 2502178 C 560 162

212 2502179 M 1,915 332

213 2502180 C 528 118

214 2502181 C 79 14

216 2502183 I 1,976 501

217 2502184 M 1,478 313

219 2503495 C 160 42

222 2502187 M 1,227 180

223 2502188 M 1,592 334

224 2502189 C 40 9

225 2502190 C 320 89

226 2502191 C 200 38

227 2502192 C 60 19

228 2502193 M 971 276

230 2502195 M 594 174

231 2502196 C 80 18

232 2502197 M 975 132

233 2502261 M 4,260 620

233 2502262 M 4,260 620

233 2504050 M 4,260 620

233 2502320 M 4,260 620

234 2502198 M 578 85

234 2502417 M 578 85

235 2502198 M 280 28

236 2502199 M 538 44

237 2502200 C 160 46

238 2504018 M 3,621 591

239 2502202 C 600 136

240 2503594 C 38 10

241 2502204 M 2,869 357

242 2502205 M 904 213

243 2503519 M 868 119
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-8

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

244 2502207 M 16,835 3197

245 2502208 C 80 22

246 2502209 C 518 116

248 2502211 M 1,460 320

250 2502212 M 2,144 486

251 2502213 M 921 216

252 2502359 M 650 127

253 2502215 M 2,350 294

255 2502216 M 12,389 2671

255 2504103 M 12,389 2671

257 2502218 C 240 69

258 2502219 M 1,183 152

259 2503535 C 280 64

260 2502221 C 160 32

261 2502222 M 1,760 252

262 2503538 C 160 48

263 2502224 M 6,103 1130

264 2503540 C 509 152

265 2502226 M 1,688 328

266 2502227 C 80 25

267 2502228 M 1,440 350

269 2502229 M 5,634 1303

270 2502230 C 400 84

271 2502231 C 160 47

272 2502232 M 4,308 818

273 2502233 M 957 170

274 2503551 M 665 44

275 2502235 C 545 161

276 2502236 M 4,523 807

276 2502512 M 4,523 807

278 2502237 M 1,085 271

279 2502238 M 2,845 527

280 2502239 M 623 94

281 2502240 M 320 80

282 2503559 M 640 115

283 2502242 I 6,849 1445

285 2503563 C 140 29

286 2502244 M 3,541 1587

286 2502245 M 3,541 1587

287 2502245 I 225 184

288 2502248 C 160 39

289 2502249 M 1,624 398

290 2502250 M 2,902 324

290 2502362 M 2,902 324

292 2502251 M 2,425 289

293 2502252 M 2,915 489

294 2502253 M 7,329 1427

295 2502254 M 2,737 599

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

296 2502255 M 2,620 577

297 2502256 M 2,465 393

298 2503574 M 1,625 329

300 2502259 M 3,184 341

301 2502260 C 127 24

302 2502261 M 213 24

303 2503579 M 10,723 1414

304 2504050 M 114 26

305 2502266 M 2,449 473

307 2503870 M 2,942 584

308 2502268 C 160 40

309 2502269 M 717 142

310 2502270 I 550 143

311 2503588 C 1,040 191

312 2503589 M 1,950 304

313 2502273 M 1,410 231

314 2502274 M 3,794 536

315 2502275 C 120 33

316 2502276 C 200 48

317 2502277 C 80 18

318 2502278 C 452 81

320 2502282 M 8,387 1875

321 2502283 M 1,475 384

322 2502284 M 4,352 864

323 2502286 C 26 7

324 2502287 C 40 12

325 2502288 C 320 91

326 2502289 C 26 12

327 2502290 M 885 203

328 2502291 C 1,901 244

329 2502292 M 4,772 372

330 2502293 C 240 52

331 2503431 C 250 42

332 2503609 C 46 15

333 2502296 M 4,815 496

334 2502297 M 400 115

335 2502298 C 40 8

336 2502299 C 80 23

337 2502300 M 640 60

338 2502233 M 640 171

341 2502302 M 7,612 1413

342 2503104 M 5,723 917

344 2502305 M 3,219 504

346 2503623 C 600 150

347 2502308 C 1,235 291

348 2502309 C 320 54

349 2502310 C 120 24

350 2502311 M 10,102 2062
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-9

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

351 2502312 I 7,264 1378

353 2503632 M 2,000 478

354 2502313 C 80 13

355 2502314 C 2,461 481

356 2502315 M 1,040 252

357 2502316 M 3,600 891

358 2502317 C 320 67

359 2502318 M 2,360 556

360 2502320 M 540 46

361 2503640 C 40 3

362 2502321 M 2,031 231

363 2503642 M 4,581 901

364 2502323 C 320 59

365 2502324 C 320 60

366 2502325 M 1,598 295

367 2502326 C 40 12

369 2502130 M 909 121

370 2502329 M 680 188

371 2503650 C 120 32

372 2502331 M 4,000 758

373 2502332 I 2,591 482

374 2502384 M 2,266 510

375 2502333 M 960 188

376 2502334 M 4,127 1017

378 2503656 C 315 96

379 2502336 M 3,489 795

380 2502337 M 1,177 203

381 2502338 M 600 113

382 2502339 M 7,872 1571

384 2502341 M 40 8

385 2502342 I 9,635 1246

386 2502343 I 2,877 457

387 2502344 C 380 84

388 2502345 M 2,487 494

389 2502354 I 4,134 888

390 2502346 M 1,262 199

391 2502347 M 6,968 1254

393 2502348 M 1,441 298

395 2502201 C 2,959 442

396 2502351 C 825 154

397 2502352 C 638 129

398 2502353 C 519 104

403 2503680 C 1,931 230

405 2502355 I 2,629 526

407 2502358 M 960 183

409 2502360 M 2,870 742

410 2502361 C 160 24

411 2502363 M 515 102

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

412 2502364 C 40 9

413 2503691 M 4,302 1154

414 2502366 C 40 11

415 2502367 M 1,846 213

416 2502368 M 840 216

418 2502370 C 200 57

419 2502371 M 11,107 1080

420 2502372 C 436 88

421 2502373 M 1,174 319

422 2502374 I 21,107 3450

423 2502375 M 716 188

424 2503699 C 1,012 216

425 2502377 M 8,448 1044

426 2502378 M 3,424 492

427 2503703 C 80 17

428 2502380 C 80 20

429 2502383 M 1,281 173

433 2502379 M 499 144

433 2502410 M 499 144

434 2503710 I 2,442 578

435 2503711 M 1,617 142

436 2503712 C 80 21

437 2503713 C 662 200

439 2503716 C 609 107

440 2503717 C 839 191

442 2503719 C 1,233 360

443 2503720 C 277 20

444 2503721 C 639 105

445 2503722 C 1,508 120

446 2503926 I 12,126 2901

447 2503723 C 52 14

448 2504016 C 320 82

449 2502959 C 40 10

453 2502214 M 2,502 420

455 2502153 M 2,604 500

456 2504021 I 6,532 1062

456 2503732 I 6,532 1062

457 2503733 C 4,191 778

458 2503734 C 120 24

459 2503480 I 856 166

460 2502970 C 40 20

461 2503737 M 6,684 1116

462 2502280 M 1,120 147

463 2503739 M 1,776 300

464 2503740 M 941 88

465 2503741 C 80 16

467 2503743 M 2,246 269

468 2503555 C 634 90
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-10

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

468 2503999 C 634 90

468 2504000 C 634 90

469 2503583 C 480 113

470 2502170 C 320 74

471 2503746 C 600 111

472 2503574 C 80 26

474 2502992 C 40 13

475 2502386 C 240 57

476 2502387 C 40 9

478 2502389 C 320 86

479 2502357 C 631 168

482 2503756 C 40 13

483 2503757 C 925 211

484 2503758 C 160 59

487 2503761 I 1,092 329

490 2503764 C 437 148

491 2503765 C 80 24

492 2502394 C 40 7

496 2502395 C 320 35

497 2503772 C 617 165

498 2503773 C 1,145 143

499 2503009 C 317 91

500 2503775 M 3,062 498

501 2503776 C 455 46

502 2503927 I 5,014 914

503 2503777 C 120 40

504 2503778 M 4,191 808

505 2503779 C 413 62

506 2503780 M 920 226

507 2503781 M 1,698 418

508 2503127 M 326 79

509 2503019 C 80 27

510 2503785 C 872 139

511 2503786 C 105 28

512 2503787 C 684 111

513 2503788 C 80 28

514 2503790 I 2,566 388

515 2503791 I 11,201 1804

516 2503792 C 549 154

517 2503793 C 240 53

518 2503795 C 40 10

519 2503755 C 880 212

520 2503797 M 802 234

521 2503798 C 279 72

522 2503799 M 4,216 942

523 2503800 C 400 100

525 2503035 C 440 147

526 2503089 C 240 60

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

527 2503804 C 80 21

528 2503805 C 138 20

529 2503806 C 1,538 260

530 2503807 M 962 187

531 2503808 C 160 25

532 2503809 M 202 42

533 2503810 M 1,398 219

534 2503811 M 1,240 277

535 2503812 M 1,195 305

536 2503813 M 32 12

537 2503047 C 80 12

538 2503048 C 191 42

538 2503120 C 191 42

539 2503789 I 2,508 559

540 2503817 I 560 92

541 2503818 C 40 12

542 2503819 C 160 40

543 2503820 M 4,429 589

544 2503821 C 141 31

545 2503822 M 2,305 486

546 2503824 M 960 205

547 2503824 C 40 15

548 2503825 C 80 13

552 2503829 C 308 79

553 2503830 C 320 59

554 2503831 M 1,120 149

555 2504061 C 919 220

556 2503370 C 1,553 275

557 2503067 C 840 227

559 2503069 C 17 9

560 2503839 I 3,324 523

561 2503840 I 4,015 965

562 2503841 I 3,371 645

564 2503843 C 517 124

565 2503844 I 2,402 523

566 2503845 M 4,458 1013

567 2503846 I 2,047 427

568 2503847 C 240 47

569 2503848 M 10,366 2054

570 2503835 C 40 16

571 2503850 M 2,431 625

572 2503929 I 430 85

574 2503552 M 10,452 2424

575 2503820 M 1,040 138

577 2503854 C 360 61

578 2503855 M 4,062 706

579 2503856 C 270 57

580 2503857 I 1,092 222
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-11

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

581 2503466 C 480 107

582 2503859 I 1,268 336

583 2503860 M 1,372 256

584 2503861 C 40 7

585 2503862 C 324 73

586 2503863 M 2,240 398

587 2503864 C 40 16

588 2503865 M 4,780 961

590 2503867 I 1,617 299

591 2503868 C 367 113

592 2503869 I 5,652 980

595 2503872 C 40 10

596 2503873 C 360 75

597 2503874 M 4,243 973

598 2503875 C 610 131

599 2503877 C 285 83

612 2502076 M 702 152

616 2502026 M 703 142

620 2502104 M 552 165

621 2502047 C 480 74

622 2502048 M 11,557 2070

623 2502390 M 40 10

625 2503117 C 40 13

626 2503118 C 71 24

628 2503930 C 1,080 146

629 2503931 C 235 45

630 2503937 M 7,322 2003

631 2503938 C 315 116

635 2503883 M 2,420 438

640 2503305 C 99 20

641 2503329 M 960 69

642 2503528 C 40 10

645 2503007 C 82 18

646 2502996 C 40 10

647 2503088 C 920 307

647 2502424 C 920 307

648 2502396 M 368 72

649 2502400 M 7,307 961

650 2502398 M 1,452 295

654 2502402 M 82 19

655 2502403 I 3,566 605

656 2502404 M 1,970 176

657 2503901 C 328 50

658 2503685 I 1,535 460

659 2502335 C 240 62

660 2503905 I 1,215 422

666 2503910 I 4,863 975

667 2504020 C 20 6

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

668 2503911 I 812 157

669 2503912 M 6,015 1030

670 2503913 M 1,144 217

671 2503914 I 773 167

672 2502078 C 200 37

674 2503915 I 1,742 365

675 2503916 M 4,377 700

676 2503917 M 720 248

677 2502263 M 925 219

678 2502210 M 800 100

679 2502667 C 12 3

680 2503721 M 996 159

681 2504015 M 941 236

686 2502110 M 320 74

687 2503008 C 1,330 248

688 2502513 M 640 147

689 2502539 M 360 91

690 2503934 I 2,713 683

694 2503028 M 1,249 270

699 2503943 C 87 19

700 2503944 C 320 64

701 2502738 M 2,058 561

702 2502725 M 980 270

703 2503947 M 1,427 232

704 2502854 M 1,060 276

705 2502989 C 560 187

706 2502503 C 80 24

707 2502537 C 360 83

708 2502552 M 665 128

709 2502644 C 160 36

711 2502653 C 313 60

712 2502721 M 680 189

713 2502731 M 560 144

714 2502739 M 885 222

715 2502744 M 951 270

716 2502217 C 1,874 410

718 2502764 C 200 24

719 2502234 M 2,241 259

720 2502802 I 5,818 1772

721 2502271 C 40 10

722 2502272 M 715 160

723 2502330 C 1,190 238

724 2502923 C 80 24

725 2502934 M 720 152

726 2502650 M 639 193

730 2502760 M 160 47

731 2502243 M 2,849 680

732 2502154 M 321 98
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-12

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

733 2502777 C 446 100

735 2502246 M 4,757 801

738 2502095 M 641 125

739 2502033 M 1,320 229

743 2502938 C 331 95

749 2502661 M 160 34

750 2502950 M 1,279 194

751 2502399 M 1,064 106

754 2503934 C 115 38

757 2502182 M 13 3

773 2502049 C 120 38

774 2502883 C 409 53

776 2502787 M 620 185

777 2504022 C 231 53

778 2503423 M 2,442 350

779 2503447 M 1,400 332

779 2503783 M 1,400 332

780 2503642 C 3,008 411

781 2503428 C 643 174

782 2503984 C 24 3

783 2503429 C 120 31

784 2503758 C 239 77

785 2503858 I 706 168

786 2502405 I 2,902 423

787 2503888 I 1,125 165

788 2503110 I 676 136

789 2503101 M 240 48

790 2502220 C 40 7

791 2502322 C 120 25

792 2502356 C 5,710 847

793 2502381 C 124 8

794 2502369 M 480 96

795 2503092 M 959 139

796 2502728 I 10,545 1796

797 2502050 I 1,832 349

798 2502724 I 1,218 253

798 2502075 I 1,218 253

799 2502274 M 411 48

800 2502411 C 40 10

801 2502125 C 40 11

802 2502131 C 40 7

803 2502128 C 160 33

804 2502813 M 230 63

805 2502673 M 956 235

806 2502000 M 5,021 856

807 2502142 C 245 84

808 2502701 M 815 157

809 2502702 M 1,468 382

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

810 2502294 M 640 56

812 2503109 M 240 72

814 2503994 C 147 32

815 2502543 C 1,444 376

817 2504003 C 720 144

818 2504004 C 1,120 196

821 2504005 C 485 109

822 2504006 C 1,085 215

824 2504007 C 960 244

828 2502723 M 3,883 984

829 2503111 C 200 50

830 2503113 M 375 95

831 2503115 C 40 9

832 2503605 C 160 16

833 2502157 C 38 6

834 2502093 C 40 8

835 2502340 M 11,643 2463

836 2502157 C 88 11

837 2502406 C 74 20

837 2502407 C 74 20

838 2502408 M 1,355 202

839 2502409 M 713 226

840 2503116 C 40 13

841 2503991 C 135 23

842 2502400 I 4,646 355

843 2503119 C 145 17

845 2502414 C 80 14

846 2502413 M 400 88

848 2502415 C 40 9

849 2503996 M 320 33

851 2503427 C 803 112

852 2503998 M 3,076 478

853 2502421 M 5,440 958

854 2503126 M 1,301 224

856 2502422 M 713 115

857 2502423 M 320 88

858 2502493 M 320 89

890 2504008 C 160 16

891 2504009 C 295 67

892 2503124 I 2,379 294

893 2502419 M 748 153

894 2503976 I 2,733 445

895 2503816 I 1,355 209

906 2504010 C 2,688 251

919 2502250 C 46 18

925 2504013 C 3,862 1065

926 2502757 C 1,866 511

926 2502769 C 1,866 511
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-13

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

928 2504014 C 160 14

942 2504023 C 80 16

945 2504024 C 960 195

946 2504025 I 5,604 1085

947 2502321 C 4,162 311

948 2504026 C 437 124

964 2502354 C 1,173 172

967 2502507 C 160 38

968 2503344 C 720 71

969 2508065 C 1,029 265

972 2504037 C 40 13

973 2504038 C 192 45

979 2502491 C 275 66

980 2502492 C 135 27

981 2502492 C 320 72

984 2504041 C 71 9

988 2504045 C 302 46

989 2504047 C 20 5

990 2502735 C 320 80

991 2504049 C 4,119 827

995 2504051 C 40 10

998 2504052 C 160 34

999 2504012 C 80 21

1002 2502501 M 200 60

1003 2502502 C 160 38

1004 2502003 M 2,741 737

1005 2502504 C 200 50

1006 2502505 C 640 212

1007 2503111 C 320 45

1008 2502507 M 786 168

1009 2502508 M 4,990 1309

1010 2502509 M 1,600 405

1011 2502510 C 40 12

1012 2502511 M 200 60

1015 2502514 I 4,947 1040

1016 2502515 M 620 165

1017 2502516 I 1,690 506

1018 2502517 C 3,193 538

1019 2502518 M 640 164

1020 2502519 C 440 120

1021 2502520 I 320 100

1022 2502521 M 640 154

1023 2502522 M 720 185

1025 2502524 C 160 38

1026 2502525 C 40 5

1027 2502526 M 1,439 447

1028 2502527 M 640 168

1029 2502528 M 1,280 361

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1030 2502529 M 600 156

1031 2502530 M 320 58

1031 2502295 M 320 58

1032 2502531 C 280 87

1033 2502532 M 1,600 160

1035 2502534 C 1,280 322

1036 2502535 C 599 171

1037 2502536 M 80 24

1038 2504092 M 996 189

1039 2502538 C 798 162

1041 2502540 C 80 16

1042 2502541 C 640 164

1043 2502542 C 40 12

1045 2502544 C 80 22

1046 2502545 M 960 248

1047 2502546 C 320 96

1048 2502547 I 12,029 2216

1049 2502548 M 403 87

1050 2502549 M 4,967 1158

1051 2502550 M 2,520 639

1052 2502551 I 6,158 1146

1053 2502042 M 1,202 283

1054 2502553 M 320 64

1055 2502554 C 320 84

1056 2502555 M 3,240 601

1056 2504044 M 3,240 601

1057 2502556 C 320 41

1058 2502557 M 80 17

1059 2502558 I 2,087 439

1060 2502559 C 222 56

1061 2502560 C 168 31

1062 2502051 C 640 121

1063 2502562 M 440 96

1064 2502563 M 2,237 651

1065 2502564 C 200 60

1066 2502565 C 581 148

1067 2502566 M 2,770 346

1068 2502567 C 400 106

1069 2502568 I 3,200 785

1071 2502570 M 800 194

1072 2502571 M 320 68

1073 2502572 C 318 96

1074 2502573 M 1,920 290

1074 2502574 M 1,920 290

1074 2502610 M 1,920 290

1074 2502609 M 1,920 290

1075 2502575 M 1,717 439

1076 2502576 I 800 192
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-14

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1077 2502577 M 760 145

1078 2502578 C 640 164

1079 2502627 C 320 95

1080 2502580 C 160 55

1081 2502581 M 1,935 265

1082 2502582 M 1,411 319

1083 2502583 C 143 37

1084 2502584 M 320 83

1085 2502585 M 640 110

1086 2502586 C 440 76

1087 2502587 M 360 80

1089 2502589 C 320 97

1090 2502590 M 800 221

1091 2502591 M 461 105

1092 2502592 C 160 36

1093 2502593 C 40 12

1094 2502594 M 3,884 331

1095 2502595 C 720 189

1096 2502596 M 819 180

1097 2502597 M 729 178

1098 2502598 C 160 24

1099 2502599 C 115 38

1100 2502600 C 120 34

1101 2502601 M 320 92

1102 2502602 M 3,529 962

1103 2502603 M 320 93

1104 2502604 C 280 72

1105 2502551 I 2,817 155

1106 2502606 M 1,800 540

1108 2502608 C 160 39

1109 2502611 C 1,250 190

1110 2502612 M 1,279 324

1111 2502523 C 80 20

1111 2502613 C 80 20

1112 2502614 C 60 12

1113 2502615 M 8,707 1430

1114 2502616 C 160 38

1115 2502617 M 400 119

1116 2502618 C 274 93

1117 2502619 C 628 170

1118 2502620 C 40 9

1119 2502621 C 40 3

1120 2502622 M 760 143

1121 2502623 I 840 199

1122 2502624 I 1,200 338

1123 2502625 M 1,681 463

1124 2502626 M 1,651 505

1125 2502627 C 320 72

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1126 2502628 M 546 92

1127 2502629 C 240 67

1128 2502630 C 640 168

1129 2502631 M 400 121

1130 2502632 C 320 84

1131 2502633 C 1,280 289

1132 2502634 C 158 34

1133 2502635 M 1,120 320

1134 2502636 M 400 114

1135 2502637 C 440 84

1136 2502638 C 320 86

1137 2502639 C 5,463 935

1138 2502640 M 346 95

1140 2502642 C 1,121 281

1141 2502643 M 320 99

1142 2502385 I 9,102 1748

1143 2502645 C 320 72

1144 2502646 C 160 48

1145 2502647 M 480 111

1146 2502648 M 800 238

1147 2502649 M 2,504 844

1149 2502651 M 400 107

1150 2502126 M 2,331 348

1151 2502127 M 916 140

1152 2502654 C 160 34

1153 2502655 C 320 78

1154 2502656 I 1,280 267

1155 2502657 C 842 237

1156 2502658 M 660 167

1157 2502659 C 80 21

1158 2502660 M 120 30

1160 2502662 C 40 12

1162 2502664 M 640 174

1163 2502665 M 399 97

1164 2502666 M 641 178

1167 2502669 M 307 97

1168 2502670 I 1,204 398

1169 2502671 M 1,090 274

1170 2502672 M 1,411 468

1172 2502674 M 1,880 1082

1174 2502676 I 680 196

1175 2502677 M 702 216

1176 2502678 M 640 212

1177 2502679 M 1,920 470

1178 2502680 C 640 143

1180 2502682 M 3,895 1041

1181 2502683 M 640 168

1181 2504101 M 640 168
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-15

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1182 2502684 I 4,639 840

1183 2502685 M 3,704 898

1184 2502686 M 106 29

1185 2502687 M 960 270

1186 2502688 M 960 225

1187 2502677 M 645 214

1188 2502690 C 142 34

1189 2502691 I 2,710 590

1190 2502692 M 640 142

1191 2502693 M 520 116

1192 2502694 C 2,914 543

1194 2502696 M 680 142

1196 2502698 M 480 142

1197 2502699 M 1,280 309

1198 2502700 M 320 76

1201 2502703 M 390 98

1202 2502152 M 2,316 577

1204 2502706 M 640 154

1205 2502707 C 399 82

1206 2502708 C 320 84

1207 2502709 M 639 143

1208 2502710 M 320 88

1209 2502711 M 160 43

1210 2502712 M 1,445 335

1211 2502713 M 720 182

1212 2502714 M 730 2141

1213 2502715 M 160 42

1214 2502490 M 685 161

1214 2502492 M 685 161

1214 2502716 M 685 161

1215 2502717 M 1,280 315

1216 2502718 M 710 165

1217 2502719 M 920 204

1218 2502720 M 778 212

1220 2502722 M 640 359

1221 2503982 C 101 27

1222 2504054 C 40 13

1223 2502280 M 2,757 238

1224 2502727 M 1,485 424

1225 2502727 I 9,317 2589

1226 2502799 I 1,607 428

1228 2502730 M 530 144

1229 2502194 C 490 52

1230 2502732 C 320 93

1231 2502733 M 640 164

1232 2502734 I 2,248 616

1233 2502735 M 2,796 743

1234 2502736 C 320 90

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1235 2502737 M 10,826 2722

1236 2502738 I 2,820 765

1237 2502739 I 1,273 324

1238 2503098 M 320 89

1239 2502740 M 560 152

1240 2502741 C 160 46

1241 2502742 M 925 247

1242 2502743 C 960 296

1243 2502206 C 1,611 453

1244 2502745 M 6,343 1801

1245 2502746 C 360 89

1246 2502747 I 9,364 1830

1247 2502748 M 2,625 689

1248 2502749 C 800 193

1249 2502750 I 3,225 825

1250 2502751 M 960 256

1251 2502752 M 3,638 939

1252 2502753 M 6,064 1603

1253 2502754 M 19,750 5526

1254 2502755 I 11,182 2343

1255 2502756 M 960 246

1256 2502776 I 1,807 602

1256 2502768 I 1,807 602

1257 2502757 M 320 88

1258 2502758 C 320 96

1259 2502759 C 320 96

1261 2502761 C 320 84

1262 2502223 M 5,062 633

1263 2502763 M 10,244 2667

1264 2502225 C 840 180

1265 2502765 M 1,421 319

1266 2502766 M 2,960 844

1267 2502771 C 281 84

1268 2502772 M 17,087 4152

1269 2502773 I 6,402 1719

1270 2502774 M 6,958 1845

1271 2502775 C 560 144

1272 2502776 M 965 249

1273 2502779 I 6,440 1684

1274 2502778 M 4,628 1362

1276 2502780 M 7,598 1777

1277 2502781 M 2,040 537

1278 2502782 M 1,120 336

1279 2502783 I 851 188

1280 2502784 C 320 90

1281 2502785 C 320 81

1282 2502786 I 3,640 1041

1283 2502112 C 1,598 366
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-16

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1284 2502788 M 5,493 1411

1285 2502789 M 3,212 850

1286 2502790 M 2,204 616

1287 2502791 I 2,368 630

1288 2502792 M 9,277 1703

1289 2502793 M 3,145 887

1290 2502794 M 507 148

1291 2502742 M 320 93

1292 2502796 M 2,241 455

1293 2502742 M 4,052 1004

1294 2502798 M 349 102

1295 2503065 C 122 34

1296 2502108 C 80 14

1297 2502801 M 1,811 445

1298 2502257 I 7,037 1378

1299 2502873 M 7,872 2366

1300 2502804 M 6,016 1279

1301 2502805 I 787 155

1302 2502806 I 640 191

1303 2502809 I 1,520 450

1304 2502808 I 4,052 984

1305 2502823 M 1,279 312

1306 2502810 I 1,923 319

1307 2502811 I 256 66

1308 2502812 C 335 79

1309 2502833 M 1,266 324

1310 2502859 M 1,660 427

1311 2502814 C 148 74

1312 2502815 I 4,716 1092

1313 2502816 I 7,119 1302

1315 2502817 C 551 134

1316 2502561 M 1,920 348

1317 2502819 M 3,595 812

1318 2502820 C 298 71

1319 2502821 M 970 180

1320 2502822 M 1,392 377

1321 2502416 C 34 8

1322 2502824 C 320 84

1323 2502824 M 5,840 1506

1323 2502826 M 5,840 1506

1324 2502825 M 774 224

1325 2502827 C 1,811 448

1326 2502828 M 3,282 752

1327 2502829 I 2,129 565

1328 2502830 I 6,124 1399

1329 2502831 M 3,944 1038

1330 2502832 I 6,708 1742

1332 2502834 C 160 35

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1333 2502835 M 1,371 295

1334 2502836 M 1,640 307

1335 2502837 C 960 240

1336 2502838 M 8,837 2073

1337 2502839 M 962 242

1338 2502840 M 1,440 330

1339 2502841 M 2,615 645

1340 2502842 M 1,289 309

1341 2502843 I 12,360 2125

1341 2502869 I 12,360 2125

1341 2502871 I 12,360 2125

1342 2502844 I 5,053 1063

1343 2502847 M 2,412 472

1344 2502848 M 2,201 492

1345 2502849 M 1,520 428

1346 2502850 M 1,830 455

1347 2502851 M 2,240 586

1348 2502877 M 616 135

1349 2502853 I 430 122

1351 2502855 M 640 126

1353 2502857 M 1,680 350

1355 2502860 I 1,803 466

1356 2502861 M 5,496 1235

1357 2502862 M 3,044 749

1358 2502863 C 40 11

1359 2502865 M 2,875 754

1360 2502868 M 490 81

1361 2502869 I 624 175

1362 2502872 M 2,736 780

1363 2502873 M 9,502 2404

1364 2502874 M 1,857 510

1365 2502875 M 2,156 510

1366 2502876 M 646 147

1367 2502866 M 1,920 460

1368 2502331 C 40 7

1369 2502797 M 911 189

1370 2504059 C 748 132

1371 2502870 C 29 3

1372 2502882 C 48 4

1373 2502881 C 80 24

1374 2502884 C 80 20

1375 2502885 C 40 10

1376 2502886 C 320 70

1377 2502887 C 160 24

1378 2502888 M 960 193

1379 2502889 C 640 108

1380 2502890 C 36 18

1381 2502418 C 1,280 243
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-17

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1381 2502891 C 1,280 243

1382 2502892 C 360 83

1383 2502893 C 80 14

1384 2502894 C 80 20

1385 2502895 M 40 30

1386 2502896 C 3,210 552

1387 2502897 C 640 115

1388 2502898 C 101 20

1389 2502899 C 320 74

1390 2502900 C 205 34

1391 2502901 C 320 33

1392 2502902 M 959 220

1392 2502906 M 959 220

1393 2502903 C 280 48

1394 2502904 C 120 26

1395 2502905 C 40 11

1396 2504055 C 80 16

1397 2502907 M 960 183

1398 2502908 C 320 87

1399 2502909 C 460 149

1400 2502910 M 640 106

1401 2502911 I 3,208 615

1402 2502912 C 320 56

1403 2502913 C 320 64

1405 2502915 M 640 87

1406 2502916 C 71 13

1407 2502917 C 200 40

1408 2502918 C 720 161

1409 2502919 C 40 10

1410 2502920 C 117 27

1411 2502921 C 157 32

1412 2502922 M 1,200 243

1413 2502365 C 193 36

1414 2504057 C 739 76

1415 2502925 I 5,056 770

1416 2502926 M 1,037 192

1417 2502927 C 80 24

1418 2502928 C 39 11

1419 2502929 M 720 94

1420 2502930 C 133 30

1421 2502931 C 22 12

1422 2502932 M 1,241 293

1423 2502933 C 242 60

1424 2502376 M 1,586 534

1425 2502935 C 480 89

1426 2502936 C 365 100

1427 2502937 M 2,444 648

1428 2504058 C 640 120

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1429 2502939 C 200 48

1430 2502940 C 200 63

1431 2502941 M 1,356 177

1432 2502942 C 320 76

1433 2502943 C 160 36

1434 2502944 M 2,074 416

1435 2502945 C 80 24

1436 2502946 I 14,008 2657

1437 2502947 C 37 10

1438 2502895 I 4,720 560

1438 2502925 I 4,720 560

1441 2502951 C 966 274

1442 2502952 C 477 100

1443 2502953 C 160 29

1444 2502954 C 320 92

1445 2502955 C 360 122

1446 2502956 M 120 30

1447 2502957 M 1,861 312

1448 2502958 M 1,616 424

1449 2502247 C 1,638 442

1450 2502960 C 7,261 1271

1451 2502961 C 80 28

1452 2502962 C 299 83

1454 2502964 M 320 92

1455 2502965 C 160 30

1456 2502966 C 79 26

1457 2502967 C 160 50

1458 2502968 C 244 82

1459 2502969 C 80 23

1461 2502971 M 371 99

1462 2502972 C 160 59

1463 2502973 C 200 68

1464 2502974 C 398 114

1465 2502605 I 787 219

1466 2502976 C 120 24

1467 2502977 C 320 64

1468 2502978 C 400 134

1469 2502979 C 160 53

1470 2502980 M 569 156

1471 2502981 M 323 69

1472 2502982 M 829 237

1473 2502983 C 697 139

1474 2502241 M 375 75

1476 2502986 C 120 24

1477 2502987 M 415 79

1478 2502988 C 80 20

1480 2502990 C 320 50

1481 2502991 M 628 167
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-18

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1482 2502856 I 3,254 809

1483 2502993 M 1,600 288

1484 2502994 M 4,591 1028

1485 2502995 M 1,840 320

1487 2502997 C 320 107

1488 2502998 C 40 13

1490 2503000 C 80 22

1491 2503001 C 66 20

1492 2503002 C 40 8

1493 2503003 M 1,800 317

1494 2503004 I 2,980 621

1495 2503005 I 204 43

1496 2503006 M 750 188

1497 2503085 C 1,959 347

1500 2503010 M 2,670 752

1502 2503012 C 229 70

1503 2503013 C 26 13

1504 2503014 M 992 303

1505 2503015 M 1,122 321

1506 2503016 C 560 162

1507 2503017 C 153 64

1508 2503018 C 320 32

1509 2503858 C 269 44

1510 2503020 C 80 23

1511 2503021 C 40 12

1512 2503022 M 469 84

1513 2503023 I 160 46

1514 2503024 M 680 138

1515 2503025 M 683 184

1516 2503026 C 480 137

1517 2503027 C 39 10

1519 2503029 C 305 77

1520 2503030 C 161 41

1521 2503031 C 120 30

1522 2503032 M 1,308 202

1523 2503033 M 644 214

1524 2503034 M 880 188

1526 2503036 C 120 35

1527 2503037 C 40 11

1528 2503038 I 640 96

1529 2503039 C 132 42

1530 2503040 C 80 23

1531 2503041 C 495 122

1532 2503042 C 320 92

1533 2503043 C 400 133

1534 2503044 M 960 240

1535 2503045 C 560 80

1536 2503046 C 40 10

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1537 2504062 C 160 43

1538 2504068 C 40 6

1539 2503049 C 40 16

1540 2503050 C 189 54

1541 2503051 C 160 40

1543 2503053 C 564 154

1544 2503054 M 600 152

1545 2503055 M 2,985 629

1546 2503056 C 940 279

1547 2503057 C 83 41

1548 2503058 M 2,429 449

1549 2503059 C 1,280 201

1550 2503060 C 80 20

1552 2503062 C 118 26

1553 2503063 C 120 35

1558 2504065 C 200 59

1560 2503070 C 160 40

1561 2503071 C 40 14

1562 2503072 M 160 37

1563 2503073 C 40 14

1564 2503074 C 22 9

1565 2503075 C 40 15

1566 2503076 C 40 12

1567 2503077 C 40 14

1568 2503078 C 40 13

1569 2503079 C 40 13

1570 2503080 C 37 6

1571 2503081 C 60 11

1572 2503082 C 76 11

1573 2503083 M 839 117

1574 2502244 M 40 9

1575 2503128 I 1,154 238

1578 2502877 M 2,375 558

1624 2502948 M 40 11

1626 2502867 M 1,060 149

1627 2502864 M 585 109

1628 2503084 C 42 11

1629 2503086 C 80 11

1630 2502031 C 40 14

1640 2502963 C 120 35

1641 2502984 C 40 11

1642 2502985 C 404 102

1657 2502350 C 2,739 658

1666 2503091 M 320 48

1668 2502924 C 200 51

1669 2502750 I 20,907 2362

1676 2502569 M 1,380 470

1682 2502800 M 1,772 360
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-19

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

1683 2503093 M 120 27

1684 2502328 M 200 38

1685 2503094 C 240 59

1686 2503095 M 3,079 700

1687 2503096 M 720 173

1688 2503097 M 1,480 320

1689 2502795 M 4,075 1093

1690 2503099 C 80 20

1691 2503100 M 4,609 945

1693 2503104 M 5,668 800

1694 2503105 M 320 55

1695 2502296 M 160 39

1697 2502533 C 395 115

1699 2502072 C 1,413 341

1700 2503108 C 1,040 214

1802 2504019 C 320 30

1803 2502818 C 1,277 333

1804 2504027 C 160 51

1805 2504028 C 120 44

1806 2504035 C 400 114

1807 2504031 C 40 10

1808 2504033 C 1,491 266

1810 2504063 C 40 12

2408 2508065 C 387 177

3084 2504069 C 4,842 1087

3085 2504071 C 43 15

3086 2504072 C 40 15

3087 2504073 C 1,560 213

3088 2504074 C 3,825 726

3092 2504076 C 40 9

3102 2504081 C 550 154

3103 2504080 C 150 43

3108 2504082 C 80 20

3111 2504083 C 37 23

3116 2504084 C 80 17

3117 2503503 C 390 100

3141 2504086 C 320 56

3142 2504087 C 773 166

3143 2504088 C 1,178 221

3147 2504089 C 347 82

3151 2504090 C 440 107

3152 2504091 C 40 13

3156 2502028 C 320 22

3163 2504094 C 501 117

3164 2504095 C 40 10

3169 2504096 C 570 170

3180 2502772 C 1,105 147

3185 2504098 C 939 206

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

3193 2504099 C 300 59

3194 2504100 C 645 124

3196 2504102 C 906 149

3197 2502728 C 150 28

3214 2504105 C 40 8

3223 2504106 C 640 127

3231 2504109 C 80 14

3236 2504108 C 73 18

5422 2503328 C 218 82

5429 2503375 M 656 219

5431 2503963 C 91 21

5443 2503328 C 361 138

5465 2503328 C 40 8

5527 2503970 C 53 18

10003 2503302 C 550 90

10005 2503304 C 308 62

10006 2503305 C 680 107

10007 2503306 C 1,563 216

10008 2503307 C 1,619 179

10010 2503309 C 657 115

10011 2503310 C 626 101

10012 2503363 C 295 17

10013 2503363 M 4,760 513

10014 2503311 M 4,692 812

10015 2503313 C 560 73

10016 2503313 C 2,482 347

10017 2503123 C 360 85

10018 2503315 C 40 7

10019 2503316 C 360 72

10020 2503326 C 201 50

10021 2503318 I 2,988 297

10022 2503319 C 2,475 427

10024 2503321 C 1,267 172

10025 2503322 C 2,105 378

10028 2503318 I 7,907 1275

10029 2503326 C 1,720 382

10030 2503326 C 896 277

10031 2503328 C 40 8

10032 2503329 C 1,403 110

10033 2503330 C 320 30

10034 2503332 C 218 44

10035 2503350 C 214 20

10037 2503334 C 640 114

10039 2503336 C 1,227 236

10040 2503337 C 543 106

10044 2503341 C 28 5

10045 2503342 C 313 39

10046 2503343 C 320 76
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-20

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10047 2503409 C 78 16

10048 2503318 C 2,181 312

10049 2503345 C 630 93

10050 2503346 C 1,442 182

10051 2503347 C 80 12

10054 2503350 C 1,203 191

10055 2503351 C 283 60

10056 2503352 C 650 59

10057 2503353 C 560 103

10061 2503402 C 143 20

10063 2503359 C 226 50

10064 2503360 C 200 43

10066 2503408 M 1,499 252

10067 2503364 C 783 97

10068 2503365 C 2,172 407

10069 2503608 C 762 139

10070 2503420 C 32 4

10071 2503416 C 103 18

10074 2503421 I 649 101

10076 2503370 C 18 31

10077 2503373 C 346 51

10078 2503374 C 432 78

10079 2503408 C 170 32

10080 2503376 C 687 95

10081 2503377 C 103 28

10082 2503378 C 811 232

10083 2503379 C 240 56

10084 2503380 M 7,229 1018

10087 2503383 C 191 47

10088 2503385 C 40 5

10089 2503385 C 476 81

10090 2503395 C 381 66

10091 2503387 C 1,110 182

10093 2503389 C 1,125 185

10095 2503391 M 511 93

10097 2503393 I 1,516 223

10098 2503419 C 15 3

10100 2503396 C 402 60

10101 2503305 C 440 78

10102 2503318 M 827 117

10103 2503399 C 160 20

10104 2503400 M 720 113

10105 2503401 C 6,096 976

10108 2503404 C 43 12

10109 2503405 C 398 50

10111 2503972 I 628 200

10113 2503407 C 3,058 695

10116 2503558 C 512 83

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10142 2503318 C 200 39

10150 2503349 M 2,040 439

10152 2503816 I 6,527 1501

10153 2503432 C 1,300 241

10154 2503433 C 154 42

10155 2503434 C 100 20

10156 2503997 M 1,600 449

10156 2503794 M 1,600 449

10157 2503435 C 320 31

10158 2504034 M 1,867 362

10159 2503437 I 6,447 1447

10161 2503439 C 1,904 530

10162 2503440 M 3,295 619

10163 2503441 C 445 119

10164 2503442 M 6,752 1439

10165 2503442 C 75 30

10167 2503445 M 5,310 1159

10168 2503446 C 48 15

10169 2503125 M 2,610 604

10170 2503448 C 80 27

10171 2503549 C 640 123

10172 2503450 M 1,527 388

10173 2503451 C 519 92

10174 2503452 C 40 9

10175 2503453 I 1,944 340

10176 2503587 C 80 19

10177 2503455 I 8,133 1495

10178 2503456 C 80 14

10179 2503506 C 720 147

10180 2503631 C 365 73

10181 2503458 M 8,867 2313

10182 2503459 M 305 61

10183 2503460 M 2,881 498

10184 2503461 C 495 50

10185 2503462 M 5,638 1026

10186 2503463 M 6,352 1142

10187 2503464 I 5,190 1166

10188 2503465 C 80 26

10189 2503466 M 5,167 956

10190 2503467 M 3,422 525

10191 2503468 C 80 18

10192 2503469 C 131 35

10193 2503470 M 2,040 365

10194 2503471 I 6,827 1329

10196 2503473 M 479 88

10197 2503424 M 2,520 320

10198 2503475 C 120 25

10199 2503476 M 1,040 272
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-21

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10200 2503995 C 160 40

10201 2503478 I 9,004 1992

10202 2503479 C 164 39

10203 2503481 M 2,097 371

10203 2503988 M 2,097 371

10204 2503482 I 3,260 740

10205 2503483 C 113 36

10207 2503485 C 200 50

10209 2503487 C 40 10

10211 2503489 C 880 233

10212 2503490 C 1,239 216

10213 2503925 I 9,642 2187

10214 2503491 C 160 50

10216 2503493 M 2,337 473

10217 2503620 I 5,214 1254

10218 2503494 C 120 40

10220 2503496 M 6,338 1243

10221 2503497 I 3,330 577

10222 2503498 M 1,315 227

10223 2503500 M 1,972 392

10224 2503499 I 9,932 1839

10225 2503501 C 1,180 108

10226 2503502 C 400 75

10228 2503925 I 2,561 851

10230 2503506 C 120 34

10231 2503507 I 227 55

10232 2503508 M 4,506 825

10233 2503509 C 280 66

10234 2503510 M 2,306 577

10235 2503511 C 240 23

10237 2503580 M 1,512 309

10239 2503515 C 40 10

10241 2504046 C 360 87

10242 2503518 M 1,327 347

10244 2503520 C 80 6

10245 2503521 I 3,184 537

10246 2503522 I 2,156 566

10247 2503523 C 1,517 172

10248 2503524 C 40 7

10249 2503504 M 2,779 449

10250 2504085 C 300 68

10251 2503527 C 15 4

10252 2503724 C 188 50

10253 2503529 M 1,990 358

10254 2503530 M 1,618 262

10255 2503531 C 102 24

10257 2503533 C 240 55

10258 2503534 C 120 48

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10260 2504060 C 240 52

10261 2503537 C 293 59

10263 2503539 M 6,613 1141

10265 2503541 C 40 12

10266 2503542 C 30 2

10267 2503543 C 40 12

10268 2503544 C 161 37

10269 2503545 C 75 16

10270 2503546 I 5,041 961

10271 2503547 C 530 82

10272 2503548 C 540 120

10273 2503549 C 2,466 314

10275 2503924 C 810 193

10276 2503553 C 184 44

10279 2503556 C 80 23

10280 2503557 M 1,701 322

10281 2503557 M 1,200 169

10283 2503560 M 796 114

10284 2503576 I 2,733 533

10286 2503564 C 223 40

10287 2503565 M 2,132 183

10289 2503567 C 40 4

10290 2503950 C 150 25

10291 2503568 C 310 72

10292 2503569 M 429 73

10293 2503570 M 1,215 271

10294 2503571 C 202 67

10295 2503572 I 2,441 425

10296 2503573 M 1,908 356

10297 2503893 C 109 24

10299 2503576 C 331 76

10300 2503701 I 1,594 281

10301 2503577 C 80 14

10302 2503578 C 34 7

10304 2503949 I 973 305

10305 2503581 M 3,724 844

10306 2503582 C 700 143

10308 2503584 M 1,288 255

10309 2503460 M 1,763 258

10310 2503586 I 1,839 536

10313 2503590 C 819 223

10314 2503591 C 160 23

10315 2503592 C 320 51

10316 2503593 I 2,553 476

10317 2503594 C 40 8

10318 2503595 C 160 16

10319 2503596 C 1,030 98

10320 2503597 C 755 189
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-22

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10321 2503598 C 493 72

10322 2503599 C 120 28

10323 2503600 C 519 100

10324 2503601 C 414 108

10325 2503602 C 2,543 583

10326 2503603 M 6,461 1684

10327 2503949 C 1,009 167

10328 2503831 C 301 62

10329 2503606 C 560 101

10330 2503951 I 3,616 292

10333 2503610 C 520 67

10334 2503611 C 677 149

10335 2503612 C 65 15

10336 2503613 C 233 68

10337 2503614 M 2,114 432

10338 2503615 M 1,564 409

10339 2503616 C 320 26

10340 2503605 C 160 27

10341 2503618 C 320 55

10343 2503620 I 5,720 1297

10344 2503621 C 120 31

10345 2503622 I 2,383 424

10347 2503624 M 2,829 716

10348 2503625 C 40 5

10349 2503627 C 40 10

10350 2503545 C 120 35

10351 2503629 C 309 81

10352 2503630 C 80 24

10354 2503635 C 160 18

10355 2503634 C 400 93

10356 2503635 C 30 7

10357 2503636 I 4,353 803

10358 2503637 I 2,676 759

10359 2503638 I 2,675 570

10360 2503639 I 2,400 781

10362 2503641 C 320 50

10364 2503643 C 209 69

10365 2503644 C 840 228

10366 2503645 C 160 46

10367 2503646 C 150 19

10368 2503647 I 11,049 2153

10369 2503513 C 326 88

10370 2503649 M 4,534 723

10372 2503651 C 320 72

10373 2502583 C 200 62

10374 2503653 M 668 139

10375 2503654 C 120 22

10377 2503655 C 40 10

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10379 2503657 M 4,498 828

10381 2503659 C 40 13

10382 2503660 C 398 60

10383 2503661 I 1,179 223

10384 2503922 I 2,566 486

10385 2503662 M 1,526 392

10386 2503663 M 3,005 668

10387 2503487 C 40 10

10388 2503665 M 1,921 292

10389 2503798 I 1,600 468

10390 2503667 I 2,876 509

10391 2503668 I 4,020 922

10392 2503585 C 40 13

10393 2503670 C 314 63

10394 2503671 C 360 50

10395 2503672 M 1,280 349

10396 2503673 C 240 59

10397 2503674 C 56 15

10398 2503835 M 438 106

10399 2503835 C 80 38

10401 2503678 M 1,018 327

10402 2503679 C 71 16

10404 2503681 M 773 118

10405 2503682 C 706 158

10406 2503683 C 40 11

10407 2503684 C 54 11

10408 2503686 C 40 8

10409 2503687 C 258 34

10410 2503688 C 80 24

10411 2503689 I 3,146 656

10412 2503690 C 80 16

10414 2503692 M 782 168

10415 2503693 C 20 6

10416 2503694 C 320 45

10417 2503695 M 1,075 199

10418 2503876 C 743 93

10419 2503696 M 8,210 1699

10420 2503697 I 4,416 868

10422 2503480 I 1,870 340

10423 2503561 M 6,097 1455

10426 2503702 M 1,828 320

10428 2502157 C 160 13

10429 2503554 C 252 57

10430 2503706 C 119 18

10431 2503707 C 286 74

10432 2503708 C 460 130

10433 2503709 C 396 105

10435 2503525 C 40 7
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-23

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10449 2503725 C 40 12

10451 2503496 I 120 26

10452 2503735 C 112 18

10453 2503729 I 2,708 649

10454 2503730 M 1,287 192

10455 2503731 C 128 31

10458 2503626 C 47 8

10460 2503736 M 12,387 1857

10462 2503952 C 73 10

10466 2503742 C 97 36

10467 2503849 C 145 24

10470 2503715 I 4,723 717

10474 2503749 C 315 65

10476 2503750 M 640 158

10477 2503751 M 430 104

10479 2503753 C 38 12

10481 2503993 M 773 166

10483 2503384 C 80 16

10485 2503759 I 6,729 1086

10486 2503760 M 5,158 620

10488 2503762 C 1,209 253

10492 2503809 M 2,116 469

10494 2503768 I 7,752 1376

10495 2503770 C 80 27

10496 2503771 C 932 259

10499 2503990 C 43 10

10500 2503615 C 160 44

10509 2503784 I 5,449 810

10519 2503425 C 635 132

10525 2503802 I 1,917 448

10526 2503803 I 7,026 1444

10537 2503814 I 7,497 1466

10538 2503815 M 1,200 232

10551 2503828 C 160 45

10553 2504056 M 4,189 724

10555 2503549 C 984 131

10556 2503833 C 40 10

10557 2503835 M 2,490 504

10558 2503837 C 920 152

10559 2503838 M 660 150

10560 2503955 C 160 43

10561 2503471 C 40 8

10562 2503121 C 80 18

10563 2503774 M 575 211

10563 2503990 M 575 211

10564 2503834 C 400 107

10600 2503878 C 203 40

10601 2503879 I 16,591 2740

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10602 2503880 M 4,554 811

10603 2503881 C 82 18

10604 2503882 C 668 107

10605 2503884 C 80 27

10606 2503884 C 160 40

10607 2503885 I 11,227 1719

10608 2503886 C 380 77

10609 2503887 M 974 208

10610 2503888 I 1,715 369

10611 2503889 C 1,021 293

10612 2503890 I 3,013 318

10613 2503932 M 2,343 433

10614 2503891 C 200 53

10615 2503923 I 6,038 726

10616 2503892 C 1,426 238

10617 2503894 I 891 163

10618 2503895 C 154 39

10626 2503891 C 280 73

10633 2503941 C 25 6

10636 2503487 C 40 8

10637 2503981 M 2,323 403

10643 2503562 C 80 22

10644 2503607 M 2,033 617

10645 2503617 M 887 286

10647 2503852 I 2,675 389

10648 2503669 C 641 58

10649 2503858 I 700 64

10650 2503700 I 4,092 704

10651 2503913 M 598 201

10652 2503897 M 1,291 317

10653 2503898 M 6,155 1513

10654 2503899 I 1,035 250

10655 2503900 I 471 80

10656 2503919 I 6,436 962

10659 2503903 C 245 61

10661 2503904 C 204 54

10662 2503906 I 2,684 497

10663 2503908 I 2,576 500

10664 2503909 M 1,360 165

10665 2503907 C 40 10

10668 2503684 C 640 107

10669 2504032 C 840 116

10672 2503921 I 1,425 332

10673 2503902 M 1,257 345

10677 2503918 M 1,258 212

10678 2503920 I 2,862 572

10679 2503628 C 910 221

10682 2503550 M 680 113
LIVESTOCK GRAZING APPENDIX

LVG-24

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10683 2503787 M 1,280 133

10684 2503410 C 79 20

10685 2503411 C 40 6

10686 2503853 I 5,844 951

10688 2503848 M 1,983 259

10689 2503858 I 946 244

10691 2503935 C 329 56

10692 2503423 C 432 54

10695 2503939 I 3,448 814

10698 2503488 C 40 10

10701 2503945 C 187 57

10702 2503946 C 40 8

10704 2503948 C 320 119

10705 2503949 C 482 51

10706 2503831 C 280 93

10707 2503412 C 80 28

10708 2503413 C 51 14

10709 2503736 I 3,386 609

10710 2503318 C 200 26

10712 2503372 C 12 3

10713 2503394 C 6 2

10715 2503985 M 2,545 588

10716 2503957 I 2,827 713

10717 2503958 C 41 7

10718 2503602 M 2,320 398

10719 2503960 C 800 135

10720 2503985 C 40 12

10721 2503986 M 8,808 1899

10722 2503973 C 706 161

10723 2503974 C 40 11

10724 2503975 C 420 69

10725 2503976 I 332 101

10728 2503979 I 4,762 1026

10729 2503980 C 168 52

10731 2503585 C 12 3

10732 2503944 C 40 14

10733 2503454 M 360 51

10734 2503967 C 80 11

10735 2503698 I 1,835 431

10736 2503836 I 2,337 478

10744 2503985 M 40 16

10746 2503331 C 321 54

10747 2503977 I 4,052 718

10750 2503954 C 106 34

10750 2503956 C 106 34

10752 2504011 I 1,000 180

10753 2503705 I 867 239

10754 2503449 C 40 8

Allot

No.

Auth

No.

Cate

g

Public 

Acres

Public 

AUMs

10755 2503989 C 160 33

10756 2503992 C 120 25

20742 2503422 M 640 54
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-1

MINERALS APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for minerals and management in the planning area. Information 

includes:

 procedures in oil and gas recovery;

 oil and gas leasing stipulations by alternative;

 oil and gas regulations;

 oil and gas production and development guidelines;

 reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) scenario for fluid minerals (including the RFD for the 

proposed Carter Master Leasing Plan [MLP] area);

 coal decisions carried forward under this plan; and

 the solid minerals RFD.

FLUID MINERALS

OIL AND GAS

PROCEDURES IN OIL AND GAS RECOVERY

Geophysical Exploration

Oil and gas geophysical exploration activities include data acquisition by use of ground vehicle or aircraft. Data 

are acquired to determine structures that may contain oil or gas. Geophysical exploration does not include core 

drilling for subsurface geologic information or well drilling for oil and gas. A federal oil and gas lease is not 

required before conducting geophysical operations. 

Information from geophysical exploration can assist in the selection of drill sites on existing leases or lead oil 

companies or others to request lands be offered for lease. 

Existing road systems are used where available. Roads may be cleared of vegetation and loose rocks to improve 

access for trucks if that action is allowed by the permit. Because blading and road construction for seismic 

operations are not usually allowed, environmental impacts are minimized. Seismic work is conducted by 

helicopter or airplane rather than by ground vehicles in areas with rugged terrain, areas without access roads, or 

during certain seasons of the year. Geophysical operations that do not cause additional surface disturbance 

include remote sensing, gravity prospecting, and aeromagnetic surveying. 

Notification Process

Geophysical operations on public lands are reviewed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Exploration 

on public lands requires review and approval following the procedures in 43 Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) 3150, 3151, and 3154. Additional guidance is found in BLM Manual Section 3150 and Handbook 3150. 

In the Miles City Field Office (MCFO), the field manager is authorized to approve geophysical operations. 

Geophysical operator and field manager responsibilities during geophysical operations are described below. 

Geophysical Operator

The operator is required to file a notice of intent (NOI) to conduct oil and gas exploration operations (BLM 

Form 3150-4) for operations on public lands administered by the BLM. Maps (preferably 1:24,000 scale 

topographic maps) showing the location of the proposed lines and access routes must accompany the NOI. The 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-2

BLM would review NOIs in the planning area and develop appropriate mitigation measures so as not to create 

undue and unnecessary degradation. A site-specific environmental review would occur for each NOI filed.

When the NOI is filed, the authorized officer (AO) may request a prework conference or field inspection. 

Special requirements or procedures that are identified by the AO are included in the Terms and Conditions for 

NOI to Conduct Geophysical Exploration (BLM Form 3150-4a and a copy of the state requirements). By 

signing the NOI and Terms and Conditions, the operator agrees to comply with requirements specified by the 

AO. The NOI, maps, and a signed copy of the Terms and Conditions must be filed in the BLM field office

before operations begin.

Bonding of the operator is required. A copy of proof of satisfactory bonding shall accompany the NOI. Proper 

bonding may include a nationwide or statewide oil and gas bond, with a rider for geophysical exploration, or a 

$5,000 individual bond filed with the AO. 

A full reclamation bond specific to the site would be required in accordance with 43 CFR 3104.2, 3104.3, and 

3104.5. Bonds would be sufficient for costs relative to reclamation (Connelly, Schroeder, Sands, and Braun 

2000; Hagen, Connelly, and Schroeder 2007) that would result in full restoration of the lands to the condition 

existing prior to disturbance. The reclamation costs would be based on the assumption that contractors for the 

BLM would perform the work.

The operator is required to comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws such as Federal Land Policy 

and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), and the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. Operators may be required to submit an archeological 

evaluation if dirt work is considered or there is reason to believe that significant cultural resources may be 

adversely affected.

Any changes in the original NOI must be submitted in writing to the AO. Written approval must be secured 

before activities proceed. 

When geophysical operations have been completed, the operator is required to file a Notice of Completion of 

Oil and Gas Geophysical Exploration (BLM Form 3150-5) and include certification that all terms and 

conditions of the approved NOI have been fulfilled. The operator must also submit a map (preferably a 1:24,000 

scale topographic map) that shows the actual line location, access route, and other survey details. 

BLM Field Managers (Authorized Officers)

The AO is required to contact the operator within 5 working days after receiving the NOI to explain the terms of 

the notice, including the terms and conditions, all current laws, and BLM administrative requirements. At the 

time of the pre-work conference or field inspection, written instructions or orders are given to the operator. The 

AO is responsible for the examination of resource values to determine appropriate surface protection and 

reclamation measures. 

The AO is required to make a final inspection following filing of the Notice of Completion. When reclamation 

is approved, obligation against the operator’s bond is released. The BLM has 30 days after filing of the Notice 

of Completion to notify the operator whether the reclamation is satisfactory or if additional reclamation work is 

necessary. Bonding liability will automatically terminate within 90 days after filing of the Notice of Completion 

unless the AO notifies the operator of the need for additional reclamation work. 

State Standards

Geophysical operators register with the state through the County Clerk and Recorder’s office. State regulations 

include requirements for shothole locations, drilling techniques, plugging techniques, and reclamation. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-3

Mitigation

When a geophysical NOI is received, restrictions may be placed on the application to protect or mitigate 

impacts to resource values. Some of these requirements may be the same as oil and gas lease stipulations. Other,

less restrictive measures may be used when impacts to resource values will be less severe, which is due in part 

to the temporary nature of geophysical exploration. The decisions concerning the level of protection required 

are made on a case-by-case basis when an NOI is received. 

LEASING PROCESS AND STIPULATIONS

Federal oil and gas leasing authority is found in the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, as amended, for public lands and 

the 1947 Acquired Lands Leasing Act, as amended (30 United States Code [U.S.C.] 351 et seq.), for acquired 

lands. Leasing of federal oil and gas is affected by other acts such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, NHPA, 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), ESA, FLPMA, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas 

Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 226 et seq.). Regulations governing federal oil and gas leasing are 

contained in 43 CFR 3100 with additional requirements and clarification found in onshore operating orders and 

Washington office manuals and instruction memorandums. 

The lease grants the right to explore, extract, remove, and dispose of oil and gas deposits that may be found in 

the leased lands. The lessee may exercise the rights conveyed by the lease subject to lease terms and conditions 

of approval (COAs). The terms of existing oil and gas leases cannot be changed by the decisions in this 

document. When leases expire, they would be managed for oil and gas according to the decisions reached in this 

document.

Lease rights may be subject to lease stipulations and permit approval requirements. Stipulations and permit 

requirements describe how lease rights are modified. Lease constraints or requirements may also be applied to 

new use authorizations on existing leases, provided the constraints or requirements are within the authority 

reserved by the terms and conditions of the lease. The stipulations and COAs must be in accordance with laws, 

regulations, and lease terms. The lease stipulations and permit COAs allow for management of federal oil and 

gas resources in concert with other resources and land uses. 

The BLM planning process is the mechanism used to evaluate and determine where and how federal oil and gas 

resources will be made available for leasing. Areas where oil and gas development will conflict with other land 

uses or resources despite mitigation measures will be closed to leasing. Areas where oil and gas development 

could coexist with other land uses or resources will be open to leasing. Leases in these areas will be issued with 

or without stipulations based upon decisions in the land use document. Stipulations are a part of the lease only 

when environmental and planning records demonstrate the necessity for the stipulations (modifications of the 

lease). 

Currently, leases are issued as either a competitive or noncompetitive lease; both have a primary lease term of 

10 years. All tracts must first be offered at an oral auction; the minimum bid per acre is $2.00. Competitive 

leases will be issued to the highest qualified bidder at the auction. Tracts that do not receive a bid during the 

auction will be available for noncompetitive leasing for a 2-year period after the sale date. If a noncompetitive 

offer is not filed within the 2-year period, the tract must be offered again at an oral auction before it can be 

leased. Rental payments for competitive and noncompetitive leases are $1.50 per acre for the first 5 years and 

$2.00 per acre thereafter until production is established. Leases will be issued with a fixed 12.5 percent royalty 

rate. 

Because multiple use activities have the potential to affect resources and resource uses, stipulations are needed 

in some areas. Specific resource and resource uses and the method of protection are contained in lease 

stipulations, which are usually no surface occupancy (NSO), controlled surface use (CSU), or timing 

stipulations.

A timing stipulation prohibits surface use during specified periods to protect identified resource values. This 

stipulation does not apply to the operation and maintenance of production facilities unless the findings of 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-4

analyses demonstrate the continued need for such mitigation and less stringent, project-specific mitigation 

measures would be insufficient. 

A CSU stipulation is used for operating guidance, not as a substitute for the NSO or timing stipulations. Use or 

occupancy is allowed (unless restricted by another stipulation) but identified resource values require special 

operational constraints that may modify the lease rights. 

The NSO stipulation includes stipulations that may have been worded as “No Surface Use and Occupancy,” 

“No Surface Disturbance,” “Conditional No Surface Occupancy,” and “Surface Disturbance or Occupancy 

Restriction (by location).” Use or occupancy of the land surface for fluid mineral exploration or development is 

prohibited in order to protect identified resource values. 

Additional information can be provided to the lessee in the form of a lease notice. This notice does not place 

restrictions on lease operation, but does provide information about applicable laws and regulations and the 

requirements for additional information to be supplied by the lessee.

The following lease stipulations and notices would be included with leases issued in the planning area. This 

section is organized into Management Common to all Alternatives followed by Alternatives A through E.

Management Common to All Alternatives

Controlled Surface Use

Resource – Potential black-footed ferret habitat (prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in size 

not designated as black-footed ferret reintroduction areas).

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance, prairie dog colonies and complexes 80 acres or more in size will be examined to 

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

in some restrictions to the operator’s plans or may even preclude use and occupancy. The lessee or 

operator may, at their own option, conduct an examination to determine the presence or absence of 

black-footed ferrets. This examination must be done by or under the supervision of a qualified resource 

specialist approved by the surface management agency. An acceptable report must be provided to the 

surface management agency documenting the presence or absence of black footed ferrets and 

identifying the anticipated effects of the proposed action on the black-footed ferret and its habitat. 

 Objective – To ensure compliance with the ESA by locating and protecting black-footed ferrets and 

their habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the black-footed ferret is declared recovered and no longer 

subject to the ESA or if the entire leasehold is block cleared, permanently cleared based on current or 

past black-footed ferret surveys, or is no longer black-footed ferret habitat.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO for surface-disturbing activities determined to 

have no adverse effect on black-footed ferrets or black-tailed prairie dogs and their habitats.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified by the AO if portions of the 

leasehold are cleared based on current or past black-footed ferret surveys.

Resource – Prairie dog towns within potential black-footed ferret reintroduction areas determined to be essential 

for black-footed ferret recovery, such as the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction Area of Environmental Concern 

(ACEC).

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: the Draft 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Activities in Prairie Dog Ecosystems Managed for Black-footed Ferret 

Recovery (USFWS 1990a) will be used to develop site-specific COAs to protect black-footed ferret 

reintroduction and recovery areas. Specific COAs will depend on type and duration of proposed activity 

and its proximity to occupied black-footed ferret habitat and other site-specific conditions.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Management Common to all Alternatives

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-5

 Objective – To maintain the integrity of designated black-footed ferret reintroduction area habitat for 

reintroduction and recovery of black-footed ferrets.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in coordination with the Montana Black-footed Ferret 

Committee, determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains habitat essential for reintroduction and 

recovery of the black-footed ferret or the species is removed from protection under the ESA.

 Exception –An exception may be granted by the AO for activities determined, through coordination with 

the Black-footed Ferret Coordination Committee, to have no adverse impacts on reintroduction and 

recovery of black-footed ferrets.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in coordination with the 

Black-footed Ferret Coordination Committee, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential 

for black-footed ferret reintroduction and recovery or a portion of the area no longer contains habitat 

considered suitable for black-footed ferrets.

Resource – VRM Class I

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: all 

surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class I areas may 

require special design, including location, painting, and camouflage, to blend with the natural 

surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

 Objective – To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.

 Waiver – None 

 Exception – None 

 Modification – None 

No Surface Occupancy

Resource – Makoshika State Park and surrounding area of management concern.

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within Makoshika State Park and the 

surrounding area of management concern, except on designated sites identified in the Big Dry 

Resource Management Plan (RMP), as amended (1999b), which include:

o T. 15 N. R. 55 E., sec. 26 lots 3 and 4 E1⁄2, E1⁄2W1⁄2;

o T. 15 N. R. 56 E., sec. 32 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4; and

o T. 14 N. R. 56 E. sec. 6

 Objective – To maintain the recreation, visual, sensitive soil, paleontological, and cultural values 

within the area.

 Waiver, Exception, Modification – This stipulation can be waived, excepted, or modified only through 

changes to the 1999 memorandum of understanding. A land use plan amendment can also be required 

(1999b).

Resource – Cultural ACECs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated ACECs, including the Big 

Sheep Mountain, Hoe, Jordan Bison Kill, Powder River Depot, and Seline cultural ACECs.

 Objective – To protect those cultural properties for which the site or area was designated (including the

Big Sheep Mountain, Hoe, Jordan Bison Kill, Powder River Depot, and Seline Cultural ACECs).

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated sites or areas within 

the leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource values for which such 

sites or areas were designated or all designated sites or areas within the leasehold are allocated for 

other uses.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Management Common to all Alternatives

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-6

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan that demonstrates that the cultural resource values that formed the basis for designation 

will not be affected or that adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated site or area can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource 

values for which the site or area was designated. 

Resource – Paleontological ACECs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological localities

(including the Ash Creek Divide, Hell Creek, Sand Arroyo, and Bug Creek ACECs).

 Objective – To protect significant paleontological localities. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated localities within the 

leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological resource values for which 

the localities were designated or all designated localities within the leasehold are allocated for other 

uses.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan that demonstrates that the paleontological resource values that formed the basis for 

designation are not affected or adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated locality can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological 

resource values for which the locality was designated or the boundaries of the designated locality are 

changed. 

Resource – Coal

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within existing coal leases with approved mining 

plans. 

 Objective – To protect existing coal leases with approved mining plans. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that all coal lease operations 

within the leasehold have been completed or the lease is terminated, canceled, or relinquished.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan of operations (PO)

that is compatible with existing or planned coal mining operations and approved by all affected parties. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area are not needed for existing or planned mining operations or where mining 

operations have been completed and the modification is approved by all affected parties. 

Resource – Finger Buttes ACEC

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the Finger Buttes ACEC.

 Objective – To help control the visual impacts of activities and facilities and to help meet the visual 

quality objectives for the area.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that areas within the leasehold can be 

occupied without adversely affecting the scenic values for which the area was designated.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan where BLM determines the scenic values for which the area was designated are not 

affected or adverse impacts can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of designated area can be occupied without adversely affecting the scenic values for which the 

area was designated.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Management Common to all Alternatives

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-7

Resource – Piping Plover ACEC

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the Piping Plover ACEC.

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the piping plover, a threatened species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), determines that the entire leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the 

piping plover or the piping plover is declared recovered and is no longer protected under the ESA of 

1973. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO determines that the action 

may affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required prior to final 

determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the piping plover. 

Resource – Smoky Butte ACEC

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the Smoky Butte area.

 Objective – To protect the local and regional scenic values, historic values, and unique geologic values

and to protect the special geologic values of the area.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if the area can be occupied without adversely 

affecting the scenic, historic, and cultural values.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified by the AO if the boundaries of 

the ACEC are changed. 

Lease Notice

Endangered Species Act, Section 7, Consultation

 The lease area may now or hereafter contain plants, animals, or their habitats determined to be 

threatened, endangered, or other special status species. The BLM may recommend modifications to 

exploration and development proposals to further its conservation and management objective to avoid 

BLM-approved activity that will contribute to a need to list such species or their habitat. The BLM 

may require modifications to or disapprove proposed activity that is likely to result in jeopardy to the 

continued existence of a proposed or listed threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction 

or adverse modification of a designated or proposed critical habitat. The BLM will not approve any 

ground-disturbing activity that may affect any such species or critical habitat until it completes its

obligations under applicable requirements of the ESA, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., including 

completion of any required procedure for conference or consultation.

Cultural Resources and Tribal Consultation 

 This lease may be found to contain historic properties or resources protected under NHPA, the

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.), Executive Order 13007 (May 24, 1996), or other statutes 

and executive orders. The BLM will not approve any ground-disturbing activities that may affect any 

such properties or resources until it completes its obligations (e.g., state historic preservation officer 

and tribal consultation) under applicable requirements of the NHPA and other authorities. The BLM 

may require modification to exploration or development proposals to protect such properties, or 

disapprove any activity that is likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be successfully avoided, 

minimized, or mitigated.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative A

Timing

MIN-8

Alternative A

Timing

Resource – Crucial Winter Range

 Stipulation – Surface use is prohibited within crucial winter range for wildlife during the following 

time period: December 1 to March 31. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and 

maintenance of production facilities. 

 Objective – To protect white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, antelope, moose, bighorn sheep, and sagegrouse crucial winter range from disturbance during the winter use season, and to facilitate long-term 

maintenance of wildlife populations.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains crucial winter range for wildlife.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that

portions of the area no longer contain crucial winter range for wildlife. The dates for the timing 

restriction can be modified if new wildlife use information indicates that the December 1 to March 31 

dates are not valid for the leasehold.

Resource – Grouse Nesting Zone

 Stipulation – Surface use is prohibited in grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of a lek during the 

following time period: from March 1 to June 15. This stipulation does not apply to the operation and 

maintenance of production facilities. 

 Objective – To protect sharp-tailed and sage-grouse nesting habitat from disturbance during spring and 

early summer in order to maximize annual production of young and to protect nesting activities 

adjacent to nesting sites for the long-term maintenance of sharp-tailed and sage-grouse populations in 

the area. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains sharp-tailed or sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of a lek. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain sharp-tailed or sage-grouse nesting habitat within 2 miles of a 

lek. The dates for the timing restriction can be modified if new information indicates that the March 1 

to June 15 dates are not valid for the leasehold. 

Resource – Raptor Nests

 Stipulation – Surface use is prohibited within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 2 

years during the following time period: from March 1 to August 1. This stipulation does not apply to 

the operation and maintenance of production facilities. 

 Objective – To protect nest sites of raptors that have been identified as species of special concern in

Montana. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer is 

within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 2 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 2 years. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative A

Timing

MIN-9

The dates for the timing restrictions can be modified if new information indicates that the March 1 to 

August 1 dates are not valid for the leasehold. 

Controlled Surface Use 

Resource – Soils, slopes

Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior to surface 

disturbance on slopes over 30 percent, an engineering and reclamation plan must be approved by the AO. The 

plan must demonstrate how the following will be accomplished: 

o site productivity will be restored;

o surface runoff will be adequately controlled;

o off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion, such as rilling, gullying, piping, and 

mass wasting;

o water quality and quantity will be in conformance with state and federal water quality laws;

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods; and

o construction will be prohibited when soils are frozen. 

 Objective – To maintain soil productivity; provide necessary protection to prevent excessive soil 

erosion on steep slopes; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems or those subject to slope 

failure, mass wasting, or piping. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold 

includes slopes over 30 percent. 

 Exception – None

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include slopes over 30 percent. 

Resource – Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: all 

surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class II areas may 

require special design, including location, painting, and camouflage, to blend with the natural 

surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

 Objective – To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – None

 Modification – None

No Surface Occupancy 

Resource – Riparian and Water

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within riparian areas, 100-year floodplains of 

major rivers, and on waterbodies and streams. 

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with riparian areas, 

100-year floodplains of major rivers, and waterbodies and streams. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include riparian areas, floodplains, or waterbodies.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include riparian areas, floodplains, or waterbodies. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative A

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-10

Resource – Reservoirs with Fisheries

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.25 miles of designated reservoirs with 

fisheries. 

 Objective – This stipulation is intended to protect the fisheries and recreational values of reservoirs. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the fisheries and recreational values of 

the reservoir. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold can be occupied 

without adversely affecting the fisheries and recreational values of the reservoir. 

Resource – Grouse Leks

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.25 miles of grouse leks. 

 Objective – To protect sharp-tailed and sage-grouse lek sites necessary for the long-term maintenance 

of grouse populations in the area. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold can be occupied 

without adversely affecting grouse lek sites or grouse lek sites within 0.25 miles of the leasehold have 

not been used for 5 consecutive years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting grouse lek sites.

Resource – Bighorn Sheep Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the designated Bighorn Sheep Range.

 Objective – To protect the limited area of bighorn sheep habitat in southeastern Montana.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep habitat.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain bighorn sheep habitat.

Resource – Bald Eagle Nest Sites and Nesting Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.50 miles of known bald eagle nest sites 

active within the past 7 years and within bald eagle nesting habitat in riparian areas. 

 Objective – To protect bald eagle nesting sites and nesting habitat in accordance with the ESA, the 

Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (Montana Bald Eagle Working Group 1994), and the Montana 

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

(Montana Bald Eagle Working Group 2010). 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting bald eagle nest sites or nesting habitat

or the bald eagle is declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA of 1973. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

the proposed action will not affect the bald eagle or its habitat. If the AO determines that the action can 

affect the bald eagle or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required prior to final 

determination on the exception. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative A

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-11

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting bald 

eagle nest sites or nesting habitat. 

Resource – Ferruginous Hawk

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.50 miles of known ferruginous hawk 

nest sites active within the past 2 years. 

 Objective – To maintain the production potential of ferruginous hawk nest sites. Ferruginous hawks 

are sensitive to disturbance and have been identified as a Category 2 species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold can be occupied 

without adversely affecting the production potential of ferruginous hawk nest sites or the ferruginous 

hawk is downgraded from any protective category. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that the impacts from the proposed action will not adversely affect the ferruginous hawk 

or its habitat. Seasonal exceptions can be allowed from August 1 to March 1 (the non-breeding season) 

if the AO determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the production potential of ferruginous 

hawk nest sites. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting the production potential of ferruginous 

hawk nest sites. 

Resource – Peregrine Falcon

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 1 mile of identified peregrine falcon 

nesting sites. 

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the peregrine falcon, an endangered species under the ESA.

 Waiver – The stipulation maybe waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold no longer contains habitat critical to the peregrine falcon or the peregrine falcon is 

declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

the proposed action will not affect the peregrine falcon or its habitat. If the AO determines that the 

action may or will have an adverse effect, the operator may submit a plan demonstrating that the 

impacts can be adequately mitigated. This plan must be approved by the BLM in consultation with the 

USFWS. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the peregrine falcon. 

Resource – Piping Plover 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.25 miles of wetlands identified as 

piping plover habitat. 

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the piping plover, a threatened species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the piping plover or the piping plover is 

declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO determines that the action 

can affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required prior to final 

determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the piping plover. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative A

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-12

Resource – Interior Least Tern 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 0.25 miles of wetlands identified as least 

tern habitat. 

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the least tern, an endangered species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold no longer contains habitat essential to the least tern or the least tern is declared 

recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan demonstrating that 

the proposed action will not affect the least tern or its habitat. If the AO determines that the action can 

affect the least tern or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required prior to final 

determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the least tern. 

Resource – Cultural Resources

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within sites or areas designated for conservation 

use, public use, or socio-cultural use. 

 Objective – To protect those cultural properties (including the Battle Butte Battlefield ACEC and 

Reynolds Battlefield ACEC) identified for conservation use, public use, and socio-cultural use (see 

definitions for use categories in BLM Manual 8110. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated sites or areas within 

the leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource values for which such 

sites or areas were designated, or all designated sites or areas within the leasehold are allocated for 

other uses.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator submits 

a plan demonstrating that the cultural resource values for which the area was designated are not 

affected or adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated site or area can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource 

values for which the site or area was designated. 

NOTE: Compliance with Section 106 of NHPA is required for all actions that can affect cultural properties 

eligible for the NRHP. 

Resource – Paleontological Resources

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological localities 

(including the Flat Creek, Garbani, and Harbicht localities). 

 Objective – To protect significant paleontological localities. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated localities within the 

leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological resource values for which 

the localities were designated, or if all designated localities within the leasehold are allocated for other 

uses.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that the paleontological resource values forming the basis for designation 

are not affected or adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated locality can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological 

resource values for which the locality was designated, or the boundaries of the designated locality are 

changed. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative A

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-13

Resource – Recreation

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within developed recreation areas and 

undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated public use, such as the Powder River Depot and 

Lewis and Clark Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs). 

 Objective – To protect developed recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas receiving 

concentrated public use. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains developed recreation areas or undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated public use.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified by the AO if the recreation area 

boundaries are changed. 

Lease Notice

Resource - Cultural Resources 

 The surface management agency is responsible for assuring that the leased lands are examined to 

determine if cultural resources are present and to specify mitigation measures. Guidance for 

application of this requirement can be found in NTL-MSO-1-85.

 This notice would be consistent with present Montana guidance for cultural resource protection related 

to oil and gas operations (NTL-MSO-1-85).

Alternative B

Controlled Surface Use

Resource – Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use on and 

within 4 miles of sharp-tailed grouse leks. 

 Objective – To maintain the functionality of sharp-tailed grouse nesting habitat and lek sites.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area can be 

occupied without adversely affecting grouse lek sites, or grouse lek sites within 4 miles of the 

leasehold or area have not been used for 5 consecutive years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting grouse lek sites.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (outside of Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority

and Restoration Areas)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities will be allowed on and within 4 miles of leks when they will maintain sage-grouse habitat 

functionality. 

 Objective – To maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived, if: 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-14

o after consultation with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP), it is determined that 

significant portions of the General Habitat Area have been altered and there is no reasonable 

likelihood of functional habitat being restored; or

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the action, as 

proposed or stipulated, will meet the goals for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the longterm functionality of habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if a portion of the Sage-grouse

Habitat – General Habitat Area is determined not to be potential sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat –Restoration Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities will be allowed on and within 1 mile of leks that contain 4 or more wells when they will 

maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality. 

Objective – To maintain sage-grouse habitat functionality.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived, if: 

o after consultation with MFWP, it is determined that significant portions of the Restoration 

Area have been altered and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional habitat being 

restored; or

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the action, as 

proposed or stipulated, will meet the goals for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the longterm functionality of habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if a portion of the Sage-grouse 

Habitat – Restoration Area is determined not to be sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – VRM Classes II and III

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: all

surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class II and III 

areas may require special design, including location, painting, and camouflage, to blend with the 

natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

 Objective – To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – None

 Modification – None

No Surface Occupancy

Resource – Soils, Slopes

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on slopes 25 percent or greater.

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils; maintain soil 

productivity; provide a recovery mechanism for the entire ecosystem; provide necessary protection to 

prevent excessive soil loss; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems or those subject to 

slope failure, mass movement or subsidence. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-15

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold or 

area includes slopes 25 percent or greater. 

 Exception – None

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include slopes 25 percent or greater. 

Resource – Soils, Sensitive

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on sensitive soils.

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils; maintain soil 

productivity; provide a recovery mechanism for the entire ecosystem; provide necessary protection to 

prevent excessive soil degradation; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold or 

area includes sensitive soils. 

 Exception – None

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include sensitive soils.

Resource – Water

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within 100-year floodplains.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with 

floodplains. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include floodplains. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project initiator submits a 

plan that demonstrates that no other practicable alternatives exist and the activity can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the entire surface-disturbing 

activity will benefit floodplains.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include floodplains. 

Resource – Water

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within waterbodies and streams.

 Objective – To protect water quality and the unique biological and hydrological features and functions

associated with waterbodies and streams. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include floodplains. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project initiator submits a 

plan that demonstrates that no other practicable alternatives exist and the activity can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the entire surface-disturbing 

activity will benefit waterbodies and streams.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include waterbodies and streams. 

Resource – Designated Sport-fish Reservoirs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of designated sport-fish 

reservoirs. 

 Objective – To protect ecosystem functionality, fisheries, and recreational values of sport-fish 

reservoirs.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-16

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the reservoir is no longer capable 

of supporting a sport fishery. Because water levels fluctuate considerably, a reservoir that may not 

currently support fisheries will support fisheries under climatic conditions with more precipitation. If a 

reservoir is no longer capable of supporting fisheries (e.g., it has filled with sediment), effects to prairie 

stream fish and aquatic wildlife from surface-disturbing activities upstream or downstream of the 

reservoir must be considered.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan that demonstrates that activities are beneficial to aquatic wildlife habitat.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the lease area no longer contain sport-fish reservoirs covered within exception.

Resource – Big Game Crucial Winter Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in crucial winter range.

 Objective – To facilitate long-term maintenance of wildlife populations and protect white-tailed deer, 

mule deer, elk, antelope, moose, and bighorn sheep crucial winter range from disturbance during the 

winter use season. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains crucial winter range.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain crucial winter range.

Resource – Bighorn Sheep Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the designated Bighorn Sheep Range.

 Objective – To protect the limited area of bighorn sheep habitat in southeastern Montana.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains bighorn sheep habitat.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain bighorn sheep habitat.

Resource –Prairie Falcons

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest 

sites active within the past 7 years.

 Objective – To protect nest sites of prairie falcons. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area is no 

longer within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.50 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 

years. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-17

Resource – Special Status Species Raptors

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active 

within the past 7 years.

 Objective – To protect nest sites of raptors identified as species of special concern in Montana

(burrowing owl, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, peregrine falcon, and 

northern goshawk). 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area is no 

longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.50 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

Resource – Piping Plover Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.25 miles of wetlands identified 

as piping plover habitat.

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the piping plover, a threatened species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat essential to the piping plover or the piping plover 

is declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO 

determines that the action can affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will 

be required prior to final determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the piping plover. 

Resource – Interior Least Tern Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.25 miles of wetlands identified 

as least tern habitat. 

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the least tern, an endangered species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat essential to the least tern or the least tern is 

declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the least tern or its habitat. If the AO determines 

that the action can affect the least tern or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be required 

prior to final determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the least tern. 

Resource – Prairie Dog Colonies

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of prairie dog colonies.

 Objective – To protect burrowing owls, mountain plover, and other associated species that utilize 

prairie dog towns for nesting and breeding habitats.

 Waiver – The stipulation may be waived if:

o the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat for prairie dogs;
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-18

o the habitat is not likely to be reoccupied; or

o the prairie dog habitat occurs on surfaces managed by an entity other than the BLM, the 

surface owner requests the activity take place on the prairie dog town, and threatened or 

endangered species are likely to be negatively affected through this action.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO for activities that are not detrimental to the 

prairie dog, associated species, or their habitats. A survey for black-footed ferrets may be required if 

suitable habitat exists for this species.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are not prairie dog habitat.

Resource – Pallid Sturgeon Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of river and stream 

centerline identified as pallid sturgeon habitat.

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, an endangered species under the ESA.

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat essential to the pallid sturgeon or the pallid 

sturgeon is declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the pallid sturgeon or its habitat. If the AO 

determines that the action can affect the pallid sturgeon or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS 

will be required prior to final determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer essential to the pallid sturgeon. 

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

Areas.

 Objective – To maximize the integrity of the habitat to support maximum sage-grouse populations and 

manage habitats to ensure population trends follow the same magnitude of change as sage-grouse trend 

populations.

 Waiver – The stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with MFWP, determines that the 

entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse populations, or sage grouse 

are no longer considered BLM special status species and not listed by USFWS.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulated area may be granted, if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action 

are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or portions of the area no longer have sage grouse or their habitat.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on sections within 1 mile of a lek that contain 3 

or fewer wells.

 Objective – To maintain integrity of the existing sage-grouse habitat and maximize restoration efforts 

while allowing for the permitted uses.

 Waiver – The stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with MFWP, determines that the 

entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse populations, or sage grouse 

are no longer considered BLM special status species and not listed by USFWS.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-19

 Exception – An exception to this stipulated area may be granted, if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action 

are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or portions of the area no longer have sage grouse or their habitat.

Resource – Cultural Resources, NRHP-eligible Properties and Districts, and Traditional Cultural Properties

(TCPs)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in site boundaries and within 0.5 miles of the 

boundaries of: 

o sites or areas designated or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for designation 

for scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and 

experimental use;

o the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for or included on the NRHP;

o the boundaries of TCPs, or sites or areas designated as such, or sites or areas that meet the 

criteria for allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use); or

o the boundaries of TCPs; sites designated for traditional use; or cultural properties determined 

to be of particular importance to American Indian groups. (Such properties include, but are 

not limited, to burial locations, pictograph and petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plantgathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes.)

 Objective – To protect and avoid disturbance and inadvertent impacts to significant cultural properties, 

districts, and their settings; NRHP-eligible properties and districts; TCPs or those designated for 

traditional use and the settings in which they occur; and those properties determined to be of particular 

importance to American Indian groups.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project 

proponent submits a plan demonstrating that:

o adverse impacts or effects to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or 

relocation within the 0.5-mile buffer area; and

o the project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, and so that there will

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant 

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the 0.5-mile buffer area).

 Modification – None

Resource – Paleontological Resources 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of designated 

paleontological localities or localities that meet the criteria for designation as such.

 Objective – To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological localities.

 Waiver – No waivers will be granted.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project 

proponent submits a plan demonstrating that:
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative B

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-20

o adverse impacts to the paleontological resource can be avoided by project redesign or 

relocation within the 0.5-mile buffer area; and

o the project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the paleontological resource that designate it significant by diminishing the 

integrity of the resource’s location, setting, or association; and without causing any 

destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the paleontological resource.

 Modification – None

Resource – Lands with Wilderness Characteristics – Devil’s Creek Common

 Stipulation: Surface occupancy and use is prohibited on lands with wilderness characteristics in the 

Devil’s Creek Common area.

 Objective: To protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses.

 Waiver: None

 Exception: None

 Modification: None

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

Resource – Soils, Slopes

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance on slopes 25 percent or greater, an engineering and reclamation plan must be 

approved by the AO. The plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist and how 

the following will be accomplished: 

o site productivity will be maintained or restored,

o surface runoff and sedimentation will be adequately controlled,

o on- and off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion by wind or water,

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods, and

o the activity will be located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources.

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils; maintain soil 

productivity; provide a recovery mechanism for the entire ecosystem; provide necessary protection to 

prevent excessive soil loss; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems or those subject to 

slope failure, mass movement, or subsidence.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold or 

area includes slopes 25 percent or greater. 

 Exception – The exception can be applied if it is determined that the activity will not contribute to 

degradation of the soil resource.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include slopes 25 percent or greater. 

Resource – Soils, Sensitive

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance on sensitive soils, a reclamation plan must be approved by the AO. The plan 

must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist and how the following will be 

accomplished: 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-21

o site productivity will be maintained or restored,

o surface runoff and sedimentation will be adequately controlled,

o on- and off-site areas will be protected from accelerated erosion by wind or water,

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods, and

o the activity will be located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources.

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils; maintain soil 

productivity; provide a recovery mechanism for the entire ecosystem; provide necessary protection to 

prevent excessive soil degradation; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold or 

area includes sensitive soils. 

 Exception – This stipulation can be excepted if it is determined that the activity will not contribute to 

degradation of the soil resource. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include sensitive soils. 

Resource – Water, 100-year Floodplains

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface occupancy and use in 100-year floodplains, a plan must be approved by the AO that 

demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and demonstrates how the following will be 

accomplished:

o the unique biological and hydrological features associated with floodplains will be protected 

or restored;

o the natural and beneficial values of floodplains will be preserved or enhanced;

o human safety, health, and welfare associated with the risk of flood loss will not be adversely 

affected;

o floodplains, streambanks, streambeds, waterbodies, and streams will be protected from 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation; 

o water quality and quantity will be at acceptable levels and in conformance with state and 

federal laws;

o native vegetation (including woody species) will be protected or restored in areas where 

appropriate;

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods;

o soil compaction will be minimized; and

o the areal extent of surface-disturbing activities and native vegetation removal will be 

minimized.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with 

floodplains.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include floodplains. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project initiator submits a 

plan that demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and the activity can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the entire surface-disturbing 

activity will benefit floodplains.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include floodplains. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-22

Resource – Water, Waterbodies and Streams

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface occupancy and use in waterbodies and streams, a plan must be approved by the AO that 

demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and demonstrates how the following will be 

accomplished:

o the unique biological and hydrological features associated with waterbodies and streams will

be protected or restored;

o floodplains, streambanks, streambeds, waterbodies, and streams will be protected from 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation; 

o water quality and quantity will be at acceptable levels and in conformance with state and 

federal laws;

o native vegetation (including woody species) will be protected or restored in areas where 

appropriate;

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods; and

o the areal extent of surface-disturbing activities and native vegetation removal will be 

minimized.

 Objective – To protect water quality and the unique biological and hydrological features and functions 

associated with waterbodies and streams.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire surface-disturbing 

activity does not include waterbodies and streams. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project initiator submits a 

plan that demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and the activity can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the entire surface-disturbing 

activity will benefit waterbodies and streams.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include waterbodies and streams. 

Resource – Riparian and Wetland Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities, including permanent facilities and linear underground facilities, will avoid riparian and 

wetland areas. If avoidance is not possible, activities will be authorized within riparian and wetland 

areas but subject to approved specialized design features (stabilization, location and timing) 

demonstrating how the following will be accomplished to improve or maintain proper functioning 

condition (PFC) in riparian and wetland areas:

o the unique biological and hydrological features associated with riparian and wetland areas 

will be protected or restored;

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods;

o riparian and wetland areas, streambanks, streams, and waterbodies will be protected from 

accelerated erosion (such as rilling, gullying, piping, and mass wasting) and sedimentation; 

o water quality and quantity will be kept to acceptable levels and conformance with state and 

federal water quality laws; and

o native, woody species will be protected or restored where appropriate.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with riparian and 

wetland areas. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include riparian or wetland areas. This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activity, will not adversely affect riparian and wetland resources.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-23

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts can be adequately mitigated to improve or maintain PFC. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include riparian and wetland areas. The area affected by this stipulation can 

be modified if the AO determines that the surface-disturbing or disruptive activity, permanent facility, 

and linear underground facility will not adversely affect riparian and wetland resources.

Resource – Big Game Crucial Winter Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within crucial winter ranges for big game wildlife will

require a plan to maintain the functionality of habitat and avoid habitat loss. The plan will be approved 

by the AO.

 Objective – To facilitate long-term maintenance of big game wildlife populations and protect whitetailed deer, mule deer, elk, antelope, moose, and bighorn sheep crucial winter range from disturbance 

during the winter use season. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains crucial winter range for big game wildlife.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain crucial winter range for big game wildlife.

Resource – Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities on or within 2 miles of sharp-tailed grouse lek sites and 

nesting habitat will comply with the following:

o noise from oil and gas production facilities will not exceed 49 decibels (10 A-weighted 

decibel [dBA] above background noise at the lek site), and

o to minimize disturbance to sharp-tailed grouse lek sites and nesting habitats, operational 

constraints may include off-site production facilities and gated access.

 Objective – To protect sharp-tailed grouse lek sites and nesting habitats.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines the entire leasehold or area can be 

occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse lek sites, sharp-tailed grouse populations 

associated with the lek, or if the lek has not been active during at least 1 strutting season within the last 

10 years.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating how the activity can proceed without negatively impacting the lek and 

the birds associated with the lek, or it demonstrates the ways in which the actions will be adequately 

mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse lek sites.

Resource – Colonial Waterbirds (except interior least tern)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are allowed with specialized design features (e.g., location 

or timing) in waterbird nesting colonies. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-24

 Objective – To protect waterbird nesting colonies from disturbance during spring and early summer to

maximize annual production of young and to protect nesting activities adjacent to nesting sites for the 

long-term maintenance of colonial waterbird populations in the area. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains waterbird nesting colonies. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain waterbird nesting colonies. 

Resource – Bighorn Sheep Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities within bighorn sheep habitat require that the project 

proponent submit a plan to maintain the functionality of habitat and avoid habitat loss. The plan will

need to be approved by the AO.

 Objective – To protect and maintain the functionality of bighorn sheep habitat and avoid or minimize

habitat loss in the limited area of this habitat in southeastern Montana.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains bighorn sheep habitat.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain bighorn sheep habitat.

Resource –Prairie Falcons

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed in and within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 years 

unless they will cause abandonment or disturbance of adult birds on the nest. This stipulation does not 

apply to the operation and maintenance of mineral production facilities. 

 Objective – To protect nest sites of prairie falcons. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area is no 

longer within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 

years. 

Resource – Special Status Species Raptors

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed in and within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years unless 

they will cause abandonment or disturbance of adult birds on the nest. This stipulation does not apply 

to the operation and maintenance of mineral production facilities. 

 Objective – To protect nest sites of raptors that have been identified as species of special concern in 

Montana (burrowing owl, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, peregrine 

falcon, and northern goshawk).
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-25

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area is no 

longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years.

Resource – Piping Plover Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed in wetlands identified as piping plover habitat if the functionality of the habitat 

can be maintained. 

 Objective – To protect piping plover habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines the 

entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat crucial to the piping plover.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO 

determines the action can affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be 

required prior to final determination on the exception.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the piping plover.

Resource – Interior Least Tern Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed in wetlands identified as interior least tern habitat if the functionality of the 

habitat can be maintained. 

 Objective – To protect interior least tern habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines the 

entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat crucial to the interior least tern.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the interior least tern or its habitat. If the AO 

determines the action can affect the interior least tern or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will 

be required prior to final determination on the exception.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the interior least tern.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (outside of Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed on or within 3.1 miles of leks if habitat functionality is maintained.

 Objective – To maintain the integrity of sage-grouse habitat and promote movement and genetic 

diversity to support sustainable sage-grouse populations.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived, if:

o after consultation with MFWP, it is determined that significant portions of the Sage-grouse

Habitat – General Habitat Area have been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer occupy 

the site and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional habitat being restored; 

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS; or

o no reasonable alternative development scenario to mitigate the impacts is possible.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-26

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the action, as 

proposed or specified, will meet the goals for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the 

functionality of the habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an environmental assessment 

(EA) finds a portion of the Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Area is nonessential or no longer 

sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: to 

minimize the impacts of surface-disturbing activities or disruptive activities associated with federal 

actions, no more than 1 surface disturbance per 640 acres, with a cumulative disturbance of no more 

than 5 percent of the sagebrush habitat in the 640-acre area of land, can be authorized at a time, as long 

as functional sage-grouse habitat can be maintained. Disturbed areas will have to be fully reclaimed to 

pre-disturbance conditions or a desired plant community before additional disturbance could be 

approved. 

 Objective – To maximize the integrity of the habitat to support maximum sage-grouse populations and 

manage habitats to ensure population trends follow the same magnitude of change as sage-grouse trend 

populations.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived, if:

o after consultation with MFWP, it is determined that significant portions of the Sage-grouse

Habitat – Protection Priority Area have been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer 

occupy the site and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional habitat being restored; or

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception if the action, as proposed or specified, will meet the goals 

for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the functionality of the habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if site-specific planning finds a 

portion of the Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Area no longer contains sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities will be allowed if it is ensured that sage-grouse movement and genetic diversity will be 

promoted and that habitat needed for sage-grouse restoration and maintenance and expansion of 

functional habitat will be maintained. The BLM will ensure that authorized activities maintain habitat 

for future sustainable populations of sage-grouse, functional habitat remains after disturbance-related 

activities are concluded within Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas, degraded habitat is restored, 

and that the effects of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities to existing habitat are minimized. 

 Objective – To maintain integrity of the existing sage-grouse habitat and maximize restoration efforts 

while allowing for the permitted uses.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived, if:

o after consultation with MFWP, it is determined significant portions of the Sage-grouse

Habitat – Restoration Area have been altered and there is no reasonable likelihood of 

functional habitat being restored; 

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS; or

o no reasonable alternative development scenario to mitigate the impacts is possible.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-27

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the action, as 

proposed or stipulated, will meet the goals for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the longterm functionality of habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if a portion of the Sage-grouse

Habitat – Restoration Area is determined not to be potential sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – VRM Classes II and III

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: all 

surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class II and III 

areas may require special design, including location, painting, and camouflage, to blend with the 

natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

 Objective – To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – None

 Modification – None

No Surface Occupancy

Resource – Designated Sport-fish Reservoirs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.25 miles of sport-fish reservoirs, 

as are permanent facilities. The following conditions must be met to demonstrate that the recreational 

value of the sport-fishery and that the activity is beneficial to aquatic wildlife.

 Objective – To protect ecosystem functionality, fisheries, and recreational values of sport-fish 

reservoirs.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the reservoir is no longer capable 

of supporting a sport fishery. Because water levels fluctuate considerably, a reservoir that may not 

currently support fisheries will support fisheries under climatic conditions with more precipitation. If a 

reservoir is no longer capable of supporting fisheries (e.g., it has filled with sediment), effects to prairie 

stream fish and aquatic wildlife from surface-disturbing activities upstream or downstream of the 

reservoir must be considered.

 Exception – None

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the leasehold or area no longer contain sport-fish reservoirs or the activities will not impact 

these reservoirs.

Resource – Prairie Dog Colonies

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.25 miles of black-tailed prairie 

dog colonies.

 Objective – To protect burrowing owls, mountain plover, and other associated species that utilize 

prairie dog towns for nesting and breeding habitats.

 Waiver – The stipulation may be waived if:

o the AO determines the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat for prairie dogs;

o the habitat is not likely to be reoccupied; or

o the prairie dog habitat occurs on surfaces managed by an entity other than the BLM, the 

surface owner requests the activity take place on the prairie dog town, and threatened or 

endangered species are likely to be negatively impacted through this action.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-28

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO for activities that are not detrimental to the 

prairie dog or associated species or their habitats. A survey for black-footed ferrets may be required if 

suitable habitat exists for this species.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are not prairie dog habitat.

Resource – Pallid Sturgeon Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.5 miles of river and stream 

centerline identified as pallid sturgeon habitat.

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, an endangered species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat essential to the pallid sturgeon or the pallid 

sturgeon is declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the pallid sturgeon or its habitat. If the AO 

determines that the action can affect the pallid sturgeon or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS 

will be required prior to final determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the pallid sturgeon. 

Resource – Cultural Resources, NRHP-eligible Properties and Districts, and TCPs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 300 feet of the boundaries of:

o sites or areas designated or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for designation 

for scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and 

experimental use; 

o the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for or included on the NRHP; and

o the boundaries of TCPs, or sites or areas designated, or sites or areas that meet the criteria for 

allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use) if an associated surfacedisturbing activity would impact or have an effect on the quality and setting of the site or area. 

Activity is prohibited in or within 300 feet of the boundaries of cultural properties determined 

to be of particular importance to American Indian groups, TCPs, or sites designated for 

traditional use. (Such properties include, but are not limited to, burial locations, pictograph 

and petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plant-gathering locations, and areas considered 

sacred or used for religious purposes.)

 Objective – To protect and avoid disturbance and inadvertent impacts to significant cultural properties, 

districts, and their settings; NRHP-eligible properties and districts; and those properties determined to 

be of particular importance to American Indian groups, designated TCPs, or those designated for 

traditional use and the settings in which they occur.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area. 

o The project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that there will 

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual, 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-29

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy in the area will be prohibited. 

o The lessee or operator submits a plan demonstrating that operations will be designed or 

located in such a manner as to have a minimal impact to the natural setting and characteristics 

of the immediate area and demonstrating that adverse impacts to TCPs can be mitigated in 

consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, affected American Indian Tribes or American 

Indian groups.

 Modification – None

Resource – National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) and Historic Battlefields 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the visible area within a 3.5-mile radius 

of the Fort Union Historic Site NHL and a 0.5-mile radius of the boundaries of NHLs and historic 

battlefields.

 Objective – To protect NHLs and historic sites eligible for the NRHP and the setting or viewshed in 

which they occur. 

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area; or the project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter 

the characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the 

property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that 

there will be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s 

visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's 

significant historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by 

some other method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy in the area will be prohibited.

 Modification – None

Resource – Paleontological Resources 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 300 feet of designated 

paleontological localities or localities that meet the criteria for designation as such. 

 Objective – To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological localities.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the adverse impacts paleontological localities can be mitigated through data 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated to 

the satisfaction of the BLM, surface occupancy on that area will be prohibited.

 Modification – None
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative C

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-30

Resource – Recreation

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within developed recreation areas that are within 

a 2-mile viewshed of undeveloped recreation areas that receive concentrated public use, Montana state 

parks, and designated fishing access sites.

 Objective – To protect developed recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas receiving 

concentrated public use such as the Powder River Depot, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch, 

Glendive Short Pine OHV, Terry OHV, Strawberry Hill, and Lewis and Clark Trail areas. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains developed recreation areas or undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated 

public use.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified by the AO if the recreation area 

boundaries are changed.

Resource – Battle Butte Battlefield, Reynolds Battlefield, Cedar Creek Battlefield, Flat Creek Paleontological 

Area, Long Medicine Wheel, Walstein, and Yonkee ACECs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in site boundaries and within 0.5 miles of the 

boundaries of: 

o sites or areas designated or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for designation 

for scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and 

experimental use; 

o the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for or included on the NRHP; 

o the boundaries of TCPs, or sites or areas designated as such, or sites or areas that meet the 

criteria for allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use); or

o the boundaries of TCPs, sites designated for traditional use, or cultural properties determined 

to be of particular importance to American Indian groups. (Such properties include, but are 

not limited to, burial locations, pictograph and petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plantgathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes.)

 Objective – To protect and avoid disturbance and inadvertent impacts to significant cultural properties, 

districts, and their settings; NRHP-eligible properties and districts; TCPs or those designated for 

traditional use and the settings in which they occur; and those properties determined to be of particular 

importance to American Indian groups.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project 

proponent submits a plan demonstrating that: 

o adverse impacts or effects to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or 

relocation within the 0.5-mile buffer area; and

o the project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association, and so that there will 

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant 

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the 0.5-mile buffer area).
MINERALS APPENDIX

No Surface Occupancy

Alternative C

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-31

 Modification – None

Resource – Powderville ACEC

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological localities.

 Objective – To protect significant paleontological localities. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated localities within the 

leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological resource values for which 

the localities were designated or all designated localities within the leasehold are allocated for other 

uses.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that the paleontological resource values forming the basis for designation 

are not affected or adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated locality can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological 

resource values for which the locality was designated or the boundaries of the designated locality are 

changed. 

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

Resource – Soils, Slopes

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance on slopes 25 percent or greater, an engineering and reclamation plan must be 

approved by the AO. The plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist and how 

the following will be accomplished: 

o site productivity maintained or restored,

o surface runoff and sedimentation adequately controlled,

o on- and off-site areas protected from accelerated erosion by wind or water,

o surface-disturbing activities prohibited during extended wet periods, and

o the activity located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources.

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils; maintain soil 

productivity; provide a recovery mechanism for the entire ecosystem; provide necessary protection to 

prevent excessive soil loss; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems or those subject to 

slope failure, mass movement, or subsidence.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold or 

area includes slopes 25 percent or greater. 

 Exception – The exception can be applied if it is determined that the activity will not contribute to 

degradation of the soil resource. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include slopes 25 percent or greater. 

Resource – Soils, Sensitive

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance on sensitive soils, a reclamation plan must be approved by the AO. The plan 

must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist and how the following will be 

accomplished: 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-32

o site productivity maintained or restored,

o surface runoff and sedimentation adequately controlled,

o on- and off-site areas protected from accelerated erosion by wind or water,

o surface-disturbing activities prohibited during extended wet periods, and

o the activity located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources.

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils; maintain soil 

productivity; provide a recovery mechanism for the entire ecosystem; provide necessary protection to 

prevent excessive soil degradation; and avoid areas with excessive reclamation problems.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the leasehold or 

area includes sensitive soils. 

 Exception – This stipulation can be excepted if it is determined that the activity will not contribute to 

degradation of the soil resource. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include sensitive soils. 

Resource – Water, 100-year Floodplains

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface occupancy and use in 100-year floodplains, a plan must be approved by the AO that 

demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and demonstrates how the following will be 

accomplished:

o the unique biological and hydrological features associated with floodplains will be protected 

or restored;

o natural and beneficial values of floodplains will be preserved or enhanced;

o human safety, health, and welfare associated with the risk of flood loss will not be adversely 

affected;

o floodplains, streambanks, streambeds, waterbodies, and streams will be protected from 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation; 

o water quality and quantity will be at acceptable levels and in conformance with state and 

federal laws;

o native vegetation (including woody species) will be protected or restored in areas where 

appropriate;

o surface-disturbing activities will be prohibited during extended wet periods;

o soil compaction will be minimized; and

o the areal extent of surface-disturbing activities and native vegetation removal will be 

minimized.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with 

floodplains.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include floodplains. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project initiator submits a 

plan that demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and the activity can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the entire surface-disturbing 

activity will benefit floodplains.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include floodplains. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-33

 Resource – Water, Waterbodies and Streams

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface occupancy and use in waterbodies and streams, a plan must be approved by the AO that 

demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and demonstrates how the following will be 

accomplished:

o the unique biological and hydrological features associated with waterbodies and streams will

be protected or restored;

o floodplains, streambanks, streambeds, waterbodies, and streams will be protected from 

accelerated erosion and sedimentation; 

o water quality and quantity will be at acceptable levels and in conformance with state and 

federal laws;

o native vegetation (including woody species) will be protected or restored in areas where 

appropriate;

o surface-disturbing activities prohibited during extended wet periods; and

o the areal extent of surface-disturbing activities and native vegetation removal will be 

minimized.

 Objective – To protect water quality and the unique biological and hydrological features and functions 

associated with waterbodies and streams.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire surface-disturbing 

activity does not include waterbodies and streams. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project initiator submits a 

plan that demonstrates that no other practicable alternative exists and the activity can be adequately 

mitigated. An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the entire surface-disturbing 

activity will benefit waterbodies and streams.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include waterbodies and streams. 

Resource – Riparian and Wetland Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will avoid riparian and wetland areas. If avoidance is not 

possible, surface-disturbing or disruptive activities will be authorized within riparian and wetland areas 

with approved specialized design features (stabilization, location and timing) demonstrating how the 

following will be accomplished to improve or maintain riparian and wetland PFC:

o the unique biological and hydrological features associated with riparian and wetland areas 

protected or restored (or both);

o surface occupancy and use is prohibited during extended wet periods;

o riparian and wetland areas, streambanks, streams, and waterbodies protected from accelerated 

erosion (such as rilling, gullying, piping, and mass wasting) and sedimentation; 

o water quality and quantity kept to acceptable levels and conformance with state and federal 

laws; and

o native, woody species protected or restored (or both) where appropriate.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features associated with riparian and 

wetland areas. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include riparian or wetland areas. This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the surfacedisturbing or disruptive activity, will not adversely affect riparian and wetland resources.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-34

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts can be adequately mitigated to improve or maintain PFC. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include riparian or wetland areas. 

Resource – Designated Sport-fish Reservoirs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: BLMapproved mitigation is required for surface occupancy and use adjacent to designated sport-fish 

reservoirs to minimize impacts (such as a reservoir enclosure fence to offset impacts). Proposals for 

permanent facilities will be located on the leasehold or area so as not to affect the visual quality and 

solitude of the fishery. 

 Objective – To protect ecosystem functionality, fisheries, and recreational values of sport-fish 

reservoirs.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the reservoir is no longer capable 

of supporting a sport fishery. Because water levels fluctuate considerably, a reservoir that may not 

currently support fisheries will support fisheries under climatic conditions with more precipitation. If a 

reservoir is no longer capable of supporting fisheries (e.g., it has filled in with sediment) or if a 

reservoir dam is removed to allow the stream to reclaim the old channel, consideration must be given 

to the effects of surface-disturbing activities on prairie stream fish and aquatic wildlife upstream and 

downstream of the reservoir.

 Exception – None

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the lease area no longer contain sport-fish reservoirs or that the activities will not impact 

these reservoirs.

Resource – Big Game Crucial Winter Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use within 

crucial winter range to maintain the functionality of the habitat.

 Objective – To facilitate long-term maintenance of big game wildlife populations and protect whitetailed deer, mule deer, elk, antelope, moose, and bighorn sheep crucial winter range from disturbance 

during the winter use season. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains crucial winter range for big game wildlife.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain crucial winter range for big game wildlife.

Resource – Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use within 

2 miles of sharp-tailed grouse leks to maintain the functionality of the sharp-tailed grouse nesting 

habitat and lek site. 

 Objective – To protect sharp-tailed grouse lek sites and nesting habitats.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines the entire leasehold or area can be 

occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse lek sites, sharp-tailed grouse populations 

associated with the lek or the lek has not been active during at least 1 strutting season within the last 10 

years.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-35

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating the ways in which the action will be adequately mitigated or the ways in 

which the action can proceed without negatively affecting the lek and the birds associated with the lek.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sharp-tailed grouse lek sites.

Resource – Colonial Waterbirds (except interior least tern)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use in 

waterbird nesting colonies to minimize disturbance to colonial waterbirds.

 Objective – To protect waterbird nesting colonies from disturbance during spring and early summer to

maximize annual production of young and to protect nesting activities adjacent to nesting sites for the 

long-term maintenance of colonial waterbird populations in the area. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains waterbird nesting colonies. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain waterbird nesting colonies. 

Resource – Bighorn Sheep Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use within 

the Bighorn Sheep Range to maintain the functionality of the habitat. 

 Objective – To protect and maintain the functionality of habitat and avoid or minimize habitat loss in 

the limited area of the Bighorn Sheep Range in southeastern Montana.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains Bighorn Sheep Range.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain Bighorn Sheep Range.

Resource –Prairie Falcons

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use in and 

within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 2 years to minimize disturbance of 

the nest site and maintain functionality of the habitat. 

 Objective – To protect nest sites of prairie falcons. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area is no 

longer within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 2 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 2 

years.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-36

Resource – Special Status Species Raptors

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use in and 

within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 2 years to minimize disturbance of the nest 

site and maintain functionality of the habitat. 

 Objective – To protect nest sites of raptors that have been identified as species of special concern in 

Montana (burrowing owl, bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, peregrine 

falcon, and northern goshawk). 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area is no 

longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 2 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area are no longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 2 years.

Resource – Piping Plover Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed in wetlands identified as piping plover habitat if the functionality of the habitat 

can be maintained.

 Objective – To protect piping plover habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines the 

entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat crucial to the piping plover.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO 

determines the action can affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be 

required prior to final determination on the exception.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the piping plover.

Resource – Interior Least Tern Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed in wetlands identified as interior least tern habitat if the functionality of the 

habitat can be maintained.

 Objective – To protect interior least tern habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines the 

entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat crucial to the interior least tern.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the interior least tern or its habitat. If the AO 

determines the action can affect the interior least tern or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will 

be required prior to final determination on the exception.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the interior least tern.

Resource – Prairie Dog Colonies

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: in the 

absence of black-footed ferrets, surface-disturbing activities are allowed within black-tailed prairie dog 

colonies with specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) to maintain the functionality of the 

habitat. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-37

 Objective – To protect burrowing owls, mountain plovers, and other associated species that utilize 

prairie dog towns for nesting and breeding habitats.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if any associated special status species are not observed or if 

the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no longer contains prairie dog habitat.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to this stipulation if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action will not affect prairie dogs or any of the 

associated species.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting prairie dog colonies or the associated 

species.

Resource – Pallid Sturgeon Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed within 0.5 miles of rivers and streams identified as pallid sturgeon habitat if the 

functionality of the habitat can be maintained.

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, a threatened species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat essential to the pallid sturgeon or the pallid 

sturgeon is declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the pallid sturgeon or its habitat. If the AO 

determines that the action can affect the pallid sturgeon or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS 

will be required prior to final determination on the exception. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the pallid sturgeon. 

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (outside of Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities are allowed on and within 2 miles of leks if habitat functionality is maintained.

 Objective – To maintain the integrity of sage-grouse habitat and promote movement and genetic 

diversity to support sustainable sage-grouse populations.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if:

o after consultation with MFWP, it is determined significant portions of the General Habitat 

Area have been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer occupy the site and there is no 

reasonable likelihood of functional habitat being restored; 

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS; or

o no reasonable alternative development scenario to mitigate the impacts is possible.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to specific requirements of this stipulation if the action, as 

proposed or stipulated, will meet the goals for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the 

functionality of the habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if an EA finds a portion of the 

Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Area is nonessential or no longer sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: to 

minimize the impacts of surface-disturbing and disruptive activities associated with federal actions, 1 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-38

surface disturbance per 640 acres, with a cumulative disturbance of no more than 10 percent of the 

sagebrush habitat in the 640-acre area of land, can be authorized at a time (as long as functional sagegrouse habitat can be maintained). Disturbed areas will have to be fully reclaimed to pre-disturbance 

conditions or to a desired plant community before additional disturbance could be approved. 

 Objective – To maximize the integrity of the habitat to support maximum sage-grouse populations and 

manage habitats to ensure population trends follow the same magnitude of change as sage-grouse trend 

populations.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived, if:

o after consultation with MFWP, it is determined that significant portions of the Sage-grouse

Habitat – Protection Priority Area have been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer 

occupy the site and there is no reasonable likelihood of functional habitat being restored; or

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM Special Status Species and are not listed as threatened or 

endangered by the USFWS.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception if the action, as proposed or specified, will meet the goals 

for sage-grouse habitat and will not compromise the functionality of the habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if site-specific planning finds a 

portion of the Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Area no longer contains sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – VRM Classes II and III

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: all 

surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class II and III 

areas may require special design, including location, painting, and camouflage, to blend with the 

natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

 Objective – To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – None

 Modification – None

Resource – Cultural Resources, NRHP-eligible Properties and Districts, and TCPs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance, a surface use plan of operations (SUPO) and a cultural site mitigation plan for 

oil and gas activities must be approved by the AO for all activities in or within 300 feet of the 

boundaries of:

o sites or areas designated or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for designation 

for scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and 

experimental use; 

o the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for or included on the NRHP; and

o the boundaries of TCPs, or sites or areas designated, or sites or areas that meet the criteria for 

allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use). 

Activity is prohibited in or within 300 feet of the boundaries of cultural properties determined to be of 

particular importance to American Indian groups, TCPs, or sites designated for traditional use. (Such 

properties include, but are not limited to, burial locations, pictograph and petroglyph sites, vision quest 

locations, plant-gathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes.)

 Objective – To protect and avoid disturbance and inadvertent impacts to significant cultural properties, 

districts, and their settings; NRHP-eligible properties and districts; and those properties determined to 

be of particular importance to American Indian groups, designated TCPs, or those designated for 

traditional use and the settings in which they occur.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-39

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area. 

o The project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that there will

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual,

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant 

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy in the area will be prohibited. 

o The lessee or operator submits a plan demonstrating that operations will be designed or 

located in such a manner as to have a minimal impact to the natural setting and characteristics 

of the immediate area and demonstrating that adverse impacts to TCPs can be mitigated in 

consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, affected American Indian Tribes or American 

Indian groups.

 Modification – None

Resource – NHLs and Historic Battlefields 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance, a SUPO and a cultural site mitigation plan must be approved by the AO for all 

activities within the visible area of designated or NRHP-nominated NHLs and sites (including a 3.5-

mile radius of the Fort Union Historic Site NHL and 300-foot radius of the boundaries of NHLs and

historic battlefields).

 Objective – To protect national historic sites, NHLs, historic sites eligible for the NRHP, and the 

setting or viewshed in which they occur. 

 Waiver – None

 Exception –An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area. 

o The project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that there will

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant 

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy on that area will be prohibited.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-40

 Modification – None

Resource – Paleontological Resources (including the Powderville, Flat Creek Paleontological Area, Long 

Medicine Wheel, and Walstein ACECs)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: surface 

occupancy and use will be allowed as long as the activities will not impact or have an effect on the 

quality and setting of paleontological localities or areas that meet the criteria for designation as such. 

Prior to surface disturbance, a SUPO and a mitigation plan, which must be approved by the AO, will

be required for all surface-disturbing activities in or within 300 feet of designated paleontological 

localities or locality boundaries if the activities will impact or have an effect on the paleontological 

localities for future paleontological localities or areas that meet the criteria for designation as such. 

Surface-disturbing activities will be avoided whenever possible. If the surface-disturbing activity 

cannot be avoided, approved mitigation measures will be applied to minimize the impact to the 

paleontological resource.

 Objective – To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological localities.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project 

proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to paleontological localities can be 

mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources 

cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the surface management agency, surface occupancy on that 

area must be prohibited.

 Modification – None

Resource – Recreation 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

operations within developed and undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated public use must 

be conducted in a manner that minimizes encounters and conflicts with recreation users. Proposed 

activities may not alter or depreciate important recreational values located within these developed and 

undeveloped areas. 

 Objective – To protect developed recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas receiving 

concentrated public use such as the Powder River Depot, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch, 

Glendive Short Pine OHV, Terry OHV, Strawberry Hill, and Lewis and Clark Trail areas. 

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that the impacts to recreation values and recreation users are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the AO if the boundaries of 

the areas are changed.

Resource – Battle Butte Battlefield, Cedar Creek Battlefield, and Reynolds Battlefield ACECs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance, a SUPO and a cultural site mitigation plan must be approved by the AO for all 

activities within the visible area of designated or NRHP-nominated NHLs and sites.

 Objective – To protect national historic sites, NHLs, and historic sites eligible for the NRHP, and the 

setting or viewshed in which they occur. 

 Waiver – None

 Exception –An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-41

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area. 

o The project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that there will 

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant 

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy on that area will be prohibited.

 Modification – None

Resource – Yonkee ACEC

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance, a SUPO and a cultural site mitigation plan for oil and gas activities must be 

approved by the AO for all activities in or within 300 feet of the boundaries of:

o sites or areas designated or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for designation 

for scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and 

experimental use; 

o the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for or included on the NRHP; and

o the boundaries of TCPs, or sites or areas designated, or sites or areas that meet the criteria for 

allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use). 

Activity is prohibited in or within 300 feet of the boundaries of cultural properties determined to be of 

particular importance to American Indian groups, TCPs, or sites designated for traditional use. (Such 

properties include, but are not limited to, burial locations, pictograph and petroglyph sites, vision quest 

locations, plant-gathering locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes.)

 Objective – To protect and avoid disturbance and inadvertent impacts to significant cultural properties, 

districts, and their settings; NRHP-eligible properties and districts; and those properties determined to 

be of particular importance to American Indian groups, designated TCPs, or those designated for 

traditional use and the settings in which they occur.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area. 

o The project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter the 

characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the property's 

location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that there will 

be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's significant 

historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by some other 

method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative D

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-42

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy in the area will be prohibited. 

o The lessee or operator submits a plan demonstrating that operations will be designed or 

located in such a manner as to have a minimal impact to the natural setting and characteristics 

of the immediate area and demonstrating that adverse impacts to TCPs can be mitigated in 

consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, affected American Indian Tribes or American 

Indian groups.

 Modification – None

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative)

Controlled Surface Use

Resource – Soils, Slopes

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: surface 

use and occupancy will be controlled on slopes 25 percent or greater. Prior to surface disturbance on 

slopes 25 percent or greater, an engineering and reclamation plan must be approved by the AO. The 

plan must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist and how the following will be 

accomplished: 

o site productivity maintained or restored,

o surface runoff and sedimentation adequately controlled,

o on- and off-site areas protected from accelerated erosion by wind or water,

o surface-disturbing activities prohibited during extended wet periods, and

o the activity located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources.

 Objective – To prevent excessive soil erosion on steep slopes and avoid disturbing slopes subject to 

slope instability or those with potential reclamation problems. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that no part of the lease area 

contains slopes 25 percent or greater.

 Exception – An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate that the proposed action will

not contribute to unacceptable degradation of the soil resource or downslope resource conditions.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain slopes 25 percent or greater. 

Resource – Soils, Sensitive

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface disturbance on sensitive soils, a reclamation plan must be approved by the AO. The plan 

must demonstrate that no other practicable alternatives exist for relocating the activity. The plan must 

include a detailed description of how the following will be accomplished: 

o site productivity maintained or restored,

o surface runoff and sedimentation adequately controlled,

o on- and off-site areas protected from accelerated erosion by wind or water,

o surface-disturbing activities prohibited during extended wet periods, and

o the activity located to reduce impacts to soil and water resources.

The plan will consider avoidance, size limitations, timing restrictions (e.g., limited wet condition road 

usage), physical mitigation, and off-site mitigation (see the Soils Appendix for examples of possible 

mitigation by soil type). Sensitive sites are defined as those with severe erosion ratings (wind and 

water), high water content (hydric soils), poor reclamation suitability, and highly compactible soils.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-43

 Objective – To maintain the chemical, physical, and biotic properties of soils, which includes

maintaining soil productivity, soil stability, and soil biotic properties. This will prevent excessive 

erosion and avoid areas with the potential for excessive reclamation problems. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire lease area does 

not contain sensitive soils.

 Exception – An exception may be granted if the operator can demonstrate that the activity will not 

contribute to degradation of the soil resource or downslope resource conditions.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain sensitive soils.

Resource – Riparian and Wetland Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface-disturbing activities within 300 feet of riparian or wetland areas will require a plan with design 

features (stabilization, location, and timing) that demonstrate how all actions will maintain or improve 

the functionality of riparian and wetland areas. The plan will contain a detailed monitoring plan 

showing that the proposed use is compatible with riparian and wetland objectives (including habitat 

and water quality) and address: 

o potential impacts to riparian and wetland resources, 

o mitigation to reduce impacts to acceptable levels (including timing restrictions), and

o post-project restoration. 

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with 

riparian and wetland area and provide a buffer to protect these features. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire lease area does 

not contain riparian or wetland areas.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the operator can demonstrate that the proposed 

action will not adversely impact riparian or wetland function or associated water quality.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the lease area do not contain riparian or wetland areas.

Resource – Big Game Crucial Winter Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface occupancy or use, a plan to maintain crucial winter range habitats capable of supporting the 

long-term populations of wintering big game associated with this winter range will be required. The 

plan will be prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the AO. 

 Objective – To facilitate long-term maintenance of white-tailed deer, mule deer, elk, pronghorn, 

moose, and bighorn sheep crucial winter range habitats and minimize disturbance to wintering big 

game species. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains crucial winter range for those species identified above.

 Exception – None.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain crucial winter range for wildlife.

Resource – Sharp-tailed Grouse Leks and Nesting Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., siting or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use on and 

within 2 miles of sharp-tailed grouse lek sites and nesting habitats to protect breeding, nesting, and 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-44

brood-rearing habitats at a level capable of supporting the long-term populations associated with the 

lek.

 Objective – To protect sharp-tailed grouse lek sites and nesting habitats.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if sharp-tailed grouse leks have not been active for the past 5 

consecutive years.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits 

a plan demonstrating how the activity can proceed without negatively affecting the lek and the birds 

associated with the lek.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the leasehold are no longer within 2 miles of sharp-tailed grouse lek sites or not considered 

sharp-tailed grouse habitat. 

Resource – Colonial Waterbirds (except interior least tern)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) are required for surface occupancy and use in and 

within 0.25 miles of waterbird nesting colonies. 

 Objective – To protect waterbird nesting colonies from disturbance to maximize annual production of 

young and to protect nesting activities adjacent to nesting sites for the long-term maintenance of 

colonial waterbird populations. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains waterbird nesting colonies. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits 

a plan demonstrating how the objective will be met. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain waterbird nesting colonies. 

Resource – Bighorn Sheep Range

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities, a plan to maintain bighorn sheep habitat will be prepared 

by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the AO.

 Objective – To protect and maintain bighorn sheep habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold no longer 

contains bighorn sheep habitat.

 Exception – None

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the area no longer contain bighorn sheep habitat.

Resource – Prairie Falcons

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities will be allowed in and within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 

years if the habitat can be maintained so that prairie falcons are not precluded from using the nest site.

 Objective – To protect nest sites of prairie falcons.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold is no longer 

within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits 

a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the leasehold are no longer within 0.5 miles of prairie falcon nest sites active within the 

past 7 years. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-45

Resource – Special Status Species Raptors

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities will be allowed in and within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years if the 

habitat can be maintained so that raptors are not precluded from using the nest site.

 Objective – To protect nest sites of raptors identified as BLM Special Status Species (burrowing owl, 

bald eagle, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, Swainson’s hawk, peregrine falcon, and northern 

goshawk). 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold is no longer 

within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 years. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation can be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits 

a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be adequately 

mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the leasehold are no longer within 0.5 miles of raptor nest sites active within the past 7 

years. 

Resource – Piping Plover Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

activities will be allowed in wetlands identified as piping plover habitat when the habitat can be 

maintained at a level capable of supporting long-term piping plover populations associated with the 

habitat. 

 Objective – To protect piping plover habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines the 

entire leasehold no longer contains habitat crucial to the piping plover.

 Exception – An exception can be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the piping plover or its habitat. If the AO 

determines the action may affect the piping plover or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will be 

required prior to final determination on the exception.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the leasehold are no longer critical to the piping plover.

Resource – Black-tailed Prairie Dog Colonies (outside of the Black-footed Ferret ACEC)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

specialized design features (e.g., location or timing) that maintained habitat capable of supporting the 

long-term population levels of the wildlife species associated with this habitat are required for surface 

occupancy and use in active and inactive prairie dog colonies outside of the Black-footed Ferret ACEC

to maintain habitat. 

 Objective – To protect black-tailed prairie dog habitat for prairie dogs and associated species.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that entire leasehold no longer contains 

prairie dog habitat. 

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception to this stipulation if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action will not affect prairie dogs, their habitat, or 

obligate and associated species.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the leasehold are no longer prairie dog habitat. 

Resource – Pallid Sturgeon Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: prior 

to surface-disturbing or disruptive activities occurring in or within 0.5 miles of river or stream 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-46

shorelines identified as pallid sturgeon habitat, a plan to maintain pallid sturgeon habitat will be 

prepared by the proponent and implemented upon approval by the AO.

 Objective – To protect the habitat of the pallid sturgeon, a threatened species under the ESA. 

 Waiver – The stipulation can be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines that 

the entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat essential to the pallid sturgeon or the pallid 

sturgeon is declared recovered and no longer protected under the ESA. 

 Exception – None 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the pallid sturgeon. 

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – General Habitat Areas (outside of Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

and Restoration Areas)

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

surface occupancy and use will be permitted on sage-grouse leks and within a 2-mile buffer area 

around the leks in a manner that maintains sage-grouse habitat and the associated populations.

 Objective – To maintain the integrity of sage-grouse habitat and promote movement and genetic 

diversity to support sustainable sage-grouse populations. 

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if:

o sage-grouse are no longer a BLM special status species or threatened or endangered, 

o no reasonable alternative development scenario exists, or

o the habitat has been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer occupy the site and there is no 

likelihood of habitat supporting sage-grouse being restored.

 Exception – None

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if a portion of the leasehold is 

nonessential or no longer sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following operating constraints: surfacedisturbing or disruptive activities are allowed in a manner that provides for sage-grouse movement and 

genetic exchange, maintains leks, and ensures habitat altered as a result of the activities is restored to a 

point in which re-colonization is possible. 

 Objective – To maintain habitat for viable sage-grouse populations and maximize restoration efforts 

while allowing for the permitted uses. 

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if sage-grouse are no longer a BLM special status species or 

threatened or endangered, no reasonable alternative development scenario exists, or the habitat has 

been altered to the point sage-grouse no longer occupy the site and there is no reasonable likelihood of 

sage-grouse reoccupying the site.

 Exception – The AO may grant an exception if the proposed action will meet the goals for sage-grouse 

habitat and will not compromise the long-term habitat for sage-grouse.

 Modification – The AO may modify the area subject to the stipulation if a portion of the leasehold is 

nonessential or no longer sage-grouse habitat.

Resource – VRM Classes II and III

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: all 

surface-disturbing activities and semi-permanent and permanent facilities in VRM Class II and III 

areas may require special design, including location, painting, and camouflage, to blend with the 

natural surroundings and meet the visual quality objectives for the area. 

 Objective – To control the visual impacts of activities and facilities within acceptable levels.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

Controlled Surface Use

MIN-47

 Waiver – None 

 Exception – None 

 Modification – None 

Resource – Recreation 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy or use is subject to the following special operating constraints: 

operations within developed and undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated public use must 

be conducted in a manner that minimizes encounters and conflicts with recreation users. Proposed 

activities may not alter or depreciate important recreational values located within these developed and 

undeveloped areas. 

 Objective – To protect developed recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas receiving 

concentrated public use such as the Strawberry Hill area. 

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that the impacts to recreation values and recreation users are acceptable 

or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation may be modified by the AO if the boundaries of 

the areas are changed.

No Surface Occupancy

Resource – Water

 Stipulation –Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within perennial or intermittent streams (as 

indicated by obligate wetland species or hydric soils); lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; and floodplains.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with 

perennial or intermittent streams; lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; and floodplains.

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include these types of areas. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates that there are no practicable alternatives to locating facilities in these areas, that all 

practicable mitigation measures will be applied, and that the floodplain functions of these areas will be 

maintained or enhanced. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include these types of areas.

Resource –Riparian and Wetland Areas

 Stipulation –Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within riparian and wetland areas.

 Objective – To protect the unique biological and hydrological features and functions associated with 

riparian and wetland areas. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived by the AO if it is determined that the entire leasehold does not 

include these types of areas. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the operator submits a plan 

that demonstrates that there are no practicable alternatives to locating facilities in these areas, that all 

practicable mitigation measures will be applied, and that the riparian or wetland area functions of these 

areas will be maintained or enhanced. 

 Modification – The area affected by this stipulation can be modified by the AO if it is determined that 

portions of the area do not include these types of areas.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-48

Resource – Designated Sport-fish Reservoirs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.25 miles of sport-fish reservoirs. 

 Objective – To protect fisheries habitat and recreational values of sport-fish reservoirs.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO determines that the reservoir is not capable of 

supporting a sport fishery in the present or future. 

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the authorized activity will 

not compromise the fisheries habitat or recreational experience of those using the reservoir.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the leasehold or area no longer contain sport-fish reservoirs.

Resource – Interior Least Tern Habitat

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in and within 0.25 miles of interior least tern 

habitat. 

 Objective – To protect interior least tern habitat.

 Waiver – This stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with the USFWS, determines the 

entire leasehold or area no longer contains habitat crucial to the interior least tern.

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the proposed action will not affect the interior least tern or its habitat. If the AO 

determines the action may affect the interior least tern or its habitat, consultation with the USFWS will 

be required prior to final determination on the exception.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated areas may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

the USFWS, determines that portions of the area are no longer critical to the interior least tern.

Resource – Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in Sage-grouse Habitat – Protection Priority 

Areas.

 Objective – To maximize habitat to support enhanced sage-grouse populations.

 Waiver – The stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with MFWP, determines that the 

entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse populations, or sage grouse 

are no longer considered BLM special status species and not listed by USFWS.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulated area may be granted, if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action 

are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or portions of the area no longer have sage grouse or their habitat.

Resource – Sage-Grouse Habitat – Restoration Areas

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the entire source population area and on leks 

within the entire Sage-grouse Habitat – Restoration Area.

 Objective – To maintain habitat needed for the long-term connectivity and maintenance of existing 

sage-grouse populations or the restoration of sage-grouse populations to enable future translocations. 

 Waiver – The stipulation may be waived if the AO, in consultation with MFWP, determines that the 

entire leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse populations, or sage grouse 

are no longer considered BLM special status species and not listed by USFWS.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulated area may be granted, if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-49

populations or if the operator submits a plan that demonstrates that impacts from the proposed action 

are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated.

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area may be modified if the AO, in consultation with 

MFWP, determines that portions of the area can be occupied without adversely affecting sage grouse 

populations or portions of the area no longer have sage grouse or their habitat.

Resource – Significant Cultural Resources, NRHP-eligible Properties and Districts, and TCPs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in the site or within the site’s area of potential 

effect and in: 

o sites or areas designated or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for designation 

for scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and 

experimental use; 

o the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for or included on the NRHP; and

o the boundaries of TCPs, or sites or areas designated as such, or sites or areas that meet the 

criteria for allocation for designation for traditional use (socio-cultural use). 

Activity is prohibited in cultural properties determined to be of particular importance to American 

Indian groups, TCPs, or sites designated for traditional use. (Such properties include, but are not 

limited to, burial locations, pictograph and petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plant-gathering 

locations, and areas considered sacred or used for religious purposes.)

 Objective – To protect and avoid disturbance and inadvertent impacts to significant cultural properties, 

districts, and their settings; NRHP-eligible properties and districts; TCPs or those designated for 

traditional use and the settings in which they occur; and those properties determined to be of particular 

importance to American Indian groups.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area; or the project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter 

the characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the 

property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so 

that there will be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s 

visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's 

significant historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by 

some other method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy in the area will be prohibited. 

o The lessee or operator submits a plan demonstrating that operations will be designed or 

located in such a manner as to have a minimal impact to the natural setting and characteristics 

of the immediate area and demonstrating that adverse impacts to TCPs can be mitigated in 

consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, affected American Indian Tribes or American 

Indian groups.

 Modification – None
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-50

Resource – NHLs and Historic Battlefields

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within the visible area of NHLs and historic 

battlefields.

 Objective – To protect NHLs and historic sites eligible for the NRHP and the setting or viewshed in 

which they occur. 

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the conditions described 

below are met.

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that adverse impacts or effects 

to the cultural property can be avoided by project redesign or relocation within the buffer 

area; or the project is located so that it and any associated surface disturbance will not alter 

the characteristics of the cultural or historic property by diminishing the integrity of the 

property's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association; or so that 

there will be no destruction, damage, or alteration to all or part of the cultural resource’s 

visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that could diminish the integrity of the property's 

significant historic features (e.g., project placed behind a hill or screened from view or by 

some other method within the buffer area).

o The lessee or project proponent submits a plan demonstrating that the adverse impacts to 

cultural properties can be mitigated through data recovery and extensive recordation. Where 

impacts to cultural resources cannot be mitigated to the satisfaction of the BLM, surface 

occupancy in the area will be prohibited.

Modification – None

Resource – Paleontological Resources 

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited in designated paleontological localities or 

localities that meet the criteria for designation as such. 

 Objective – To preserve and protect significant vertebrate fossils and paleontological localities.

 Waiver – None

 Exception – An exception may be granted by the AO if the lessee or project proponent submits a plan 

demonstrating that the adverse impacts paleontological localities can be mitigated through data 

recovery and extensive recordation. Where impacts to paleontological resources cannot be mitigated to 

the satisfaction of the BLM, surface occupancy on that area will be prohibited.

 Modification – None

Resource – Recreation

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within developed recreation areas that are within 

a 2-mile viewshed of undeveloped recreation areas that receive concentrated public use, Montana state 

parks, and designated fishing access sites.

 Objective – To protect developed recreation areas and undeveloped recreation areas receiving 

concentrated public use such as the Powder River Depot, Dean S. Reservoir, Pumpkin Creek Ranch, 

Glendive Short Pine OHV, Terry OHV, Strawberry Hill, and Lewis and Clark Trail areas. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that the entire leasehold or area no 

longer contains developed recreation areas or undeveloped recreation areas receiving concentrated 

public use.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the project proponent 

submits a plan demonstrating that impacts from the proposed action are acceptable or can be 

adequately mitigated.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Lease Stipulations

Alternative E

No Surface Occupancy

MIN-51

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified by the AO if the recreation area 

boundaries are changed.

Resource – Cultural ACECs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within sites or areas designated for scientific 

use, conservation use, public use, or socio-cultural use. 

 Objective – To protect those cultural properties identified for scientific use, conservation use, public 

use, and socio-cultural use, including the Battle Butte Battlefield, Reynolds Battlefield, Cedar Creek 

Battlefield, Long Medicine Wheel, Walstein, and Yonkee ACECs. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated sites or areas within 

the leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource values for which such 

sites or areas were designated or all designated sites or areas within the leasehold are allocated for 

other uses.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that the cultural resource values forming the basis for designation will 

not be affected or that adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated site or area can be occupied without adversely affecting the cultural resource 

values for which the site or area was designated. 

Resource – Paleontological ACECs

 Stipulation – Surface occupancy and use is prohibited within designated paleontological localities, 

such as the Flat Creek, and Powderville ACECs (and the paleontological component of the Long 

Medicine Wheel and Walstein ACECs).

 Objective – To protect significant paleontological localities. 

 Waiver – This stipulation can be waived if the AO determines that all designated localities within the 

leasehold can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological resource values for which 

the localities were designated or all designated localities within the leasehold are allocated for other 

uses.

 Exception – An exception to this stipulation may be granted by the AO if the lessee or operator 

submits a plan demonstrating that the paleontological resource values forming the basis for designation 

are not affected or adverse impacts are acceptable or can be adequately mitigated. 

 Modification – The boundaries of the stipulated area can be modified if the AO determines that 

portions of the designated locality can be occupied without adversely affecting the paleontological 

resource values for which the locality was designated or the boundaries of the designated locality are 

changed. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF WAIVERS, EXCEPTIONS, OR MODIFICATIONS

WEMs provide an effective means of applying adaptive management techniques to multiple use activities to 

meet changing circumstances in land use planning. The goals and objectives for approval of WEMs are 

supported either by the NEPA analysis in the resource management planning process or by site-specific 

environmental review. Waivers are a permanent exemption from a lease stipulation that occurs when the 

resource does not require the protection of stipulation. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis. Each 

time the lessee applies for an exception, the resource objective of the stipulation must be met. Modifications are 

fundamental changes to the provisions of a lease stipulation either temporarily or for the term of the lease.

WEMs are based on the goals and objectives in this RMP. Management stipulations can be added, deleted, or 

modified within the RMP process through the plan maintenance or amendment processes. After the project or 

lease has been approved, changes to the requirements of the management stipulation are made through the 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-52

WEM process. The goals and objectives used for granting WEMs after approval are generally the same goals 

and objectives used for changing the stipulation in the land use plan prior to issuance of the lease.

Adding, Deleting, or Modifying an Existing Leasing Decision or Stipulation in the Land Use Plan

It may be necessary to add, delete, or modify management stipulations in the RMP as a result of lease parcel 

reviews, statewide lease stipulation consistency reviews, plan amendments, changed circumstances on the 

ground, or changed resource protection priorities. This is accomplished and documented through either the plan 

maintenance or the plan amendment process, which are explained below. 

Management stipulations changed through plan maintenance do not generally require public notification. Plan 

maintenance is easily documented in a RMP Plan Maintenance Tracking Log or other tracking system. Changes 

made through the more involved RMP amendment process require public notification as part of the plan 

amendment process. Public review of at least 30 days must also be provided for any waiver or modification of a 

management stipulation within the RMP that involved an issue of major concern to the public. 

The guidance provided in the Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Section VI (H), Maintenance and 

Section VII (B), Amendment, further explains how and when management stipulations may be added, deleted, 

or modified in the RMP. 

Reviewing and Approving an Exception to, Waiver of, or Modification to a Stipulation on an Existing Lease

or Project

Once the lease or project is issued, the following process is used if: 

 the exception, waiver, or modification criteria were analyzed and are specified in the RMP; 

 the criteria have been met; and 

 there is no significant new information bearing on the environmental effects (see BLM H-1790-1, 

Chapter III, Using Existing Environmental Analysis; and 2007 Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, 

XI. Waivers, Exceptions, or Modifications [BLM and USFS 2007a]).

The AO generally requires the project proponent to submit a written request for an exception, waiver, or 

modification as well as information demonstrating that:

 the factors leading to the inclusion of the stipulation have changed sufficiently to make the 

protection provided by the management stipulation no longer justified; or 

 the proposed operation would not cause unacceptable impacts. Requests from the operator 

should contain, at a minimum, a plan (including related on- or off-site mitigation efforts) to 

adequately protect affected resources; data collection and monitoring efforts; and timeframes 

for initiation and completion of construction, drilling, and completion operations. The 

operator’s request may be included in an application for permit to drill (APD), notice of 

staking (NOS), sundry notice (SN), or letter. The BLM may also proactively initiate the 

process. 

During the review process, BLM coordination with other state or federal agencies will be undertaken, as 

appropriate, and documented. For example, it may be appropriate to coordinate the review of wildlife WEMs

with the local office of the state wildlife agency. The BLM will also consult with the federal surface 

management agency (if it is an agency other than the BLM).

In areas where oil and gas development may conflict with other resources, the areas may be closed to leasing in 

accordance with decisions made from this document. Regulations at part 43 CFR 3100.0-3(d); the Secretary’s 

general authority to prevent the waste and dissipation of public property; and the Attorney General’s Opinion of 

April 2, 1941 (Vol. 40 Op. Atty. Gen 41) allow the BLM to lease lands that are otherwise unavailable for 

leasing if oil and gas is being drained from such lands. If the unavailable lands were under the jurisdiction of 

another agency, leasing of such lands would only occur following consultation, and consent if necessary, from 

the surface management agency.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-53

Unavailable lands for this RMP (see Table 2-1 in Chapter 2) would be leased only if a state or private well is 

proposed or completed within the same spacing unit, or if the lands are within a producing unit. These lands 

would be leased with an NSO and no subsurface occupancy stipulation without WEM provisions. There would 

only be a paper transaction with no physical impacts on the unavailable lands. There would be no exploration or 

development (drilling or production) within the unavailable lands. After issuance of a lease, the lease would be 

committed to a communitization agreement and the United States would then receive revenue in proportion to 

its acreage interest as it bears to the entire acreage interest committed to the agreements.

In addition to the resource-specific stipulations under each alternative (e.g., wildlife, recreation), stipulations 

recommended by the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) or Army Corps of Engineers would be used 

on BOR or United States Army Corps of Engineers lands (see Leasing Process and Stipulations).

The BLM staff’s review and recommendations will be documented, along with any necessary mitigation, and 

provided to the AO for approval or disapproval. The applicant is then provided with a written notification of the 

decision. Decisions on WEMs are subject to administrative review by the State Director and thereafter may be 

appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4. However, decisions on WEMs

submitted by the operator after drilling has commenced are final for the Department of the Interior and not 

subject to administrative review by the State Director or appeal pursuant to 43 CFR Part 4. 

After the project has commenced, the BLM may consider verbal requests for, and grant verbal approvals of, 

WEMs. However, the operator must submit a written notice within 7 days following the verbal request. The 

BLM must also confirm verbal approvals in writing. For minerals, this requirement is provided for in Onshore 

Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (BLM and USFS 2007a). 

Public notification (30-day public review) is generally not required for exceptions because an exception is 

seldom a substantial modification or waiver of a lease term or management stipulation (43 CFR 3101.1-4), 

particularly if the exception criteria is outlined in the lease or the RMP. Public review is not required for 

waivers or modifications that the AO determines not to be substantial and do not substantially waive or modify 

the terms of the lease. “Substantial” in this case would include the exception, waiver, or modification having a 

previously unconsidered “substantial” effect on the environment. However, the applicable RMP may contain 

additional notification requirements. The public notice, if required, should include identification of the modified 

lease or project terms and a description or map of the affected lands. 

When public notice is appropriate, the procedures described below may apply.

 For approval of a WEM with the project or APD approval: 

o a notice describing the modified lease terms, when required, may be posted for 30 days in the 

field or state office concurrently with the posting of the project plan, APD, or NOS posted on 

the BLM website; 

o posted in a local paper as a legal notice or incorporated into a newspaper article; or 

o the notice may be included as part of the NEPA document’s public review (if the NEPA 

document is offered for review). 

 For approval after the project plan or APD has been approved:

o public notice, if required, may take the form of a 30-day posting on the BLM website;

o a legal notice or article in the newspaper; or 

o a notice and associated public review conducted as part of the public review of a NEPA 

document. 

Unless specified in the RMP, it is unlikely public notification would be necessary for approval after project 

action or mineral drilling has commenced.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-54

According to 43 CFR 3101.1-4:

“A stipulation included in an oil and gas lease shall be subject to modification or waiver only if the 

authorized officer determines that the factors leading to its inclusion in the lease have changed 

sufficiently to make the protection provided by the stipulation no longer justified or if the proposed 

operations would not cause unacceptable impacts.” 

The process for adding, deleting, or modifying an existing leasing decision or management stipulation in the 

land use plan does not usually require a public review if the change occurs through the maintenance; however, 

the process might include a public review if the change occurs through amendment. The guidance provided in 

the Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1, Section VI (H), Maintenance, and Section VII (B), Amendment, 

further explains how and when leasing decisions or stipulations may be added, deleted, or modified in the RMP. 

OPERATING STANDARDS AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES

The following description is a summary of information from the publication Surface Operating Standards and 

Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (BLM and USFS 2007b), commonly referred to as 

the “Gold Book”. It contains information developed to aid the operator in permit approval and conduct of oil 

and gas operations on federal lands, from exploration through development and production to abandonment. 

Information is provided for preparation of the surface use and drilling plans. An array of laws, regulations, and 

orders govern the drilling and production of oil and gas. These include regulations in 43 CFR 3160, onshore oil 

and gas orders, notices to lessees (NTL), lease terms, COAs, and other written orders and instructions by the 

AO. In addition, a list of best management practices (BMPs) can be found at http://www.blm.gov/bmp. These 

provisions guide the approval process for APDs and conduct of operations. 

Initiating the Process

After lease issuance, the lessee may conduct lease operations with an approved permit. Proposed drilling and 

associated activities must be approved before beginning operations. The operator must file an APD or SN that 

must be approved according to lease stipulations, onshore oil and gas orders, and regulations and laws. Before 

drilling can begin, an APD must be approved. The APD includes information about both the downhole drilling 

and the associated surface-disturbing activities. Changes to an existing APD must also be approved before the 

new activities are conducted. The process of obtaining approval to drill is begun by filing either a NOS or an 

APD with the field office. The choice is the operator’s, but eventually a complete and acceptable APD must be 

filed. By filing the NOS, the operator triggers an on-site inspection prior to filing an APD and is furnished 

appropriate surface use and reclamation requirements for incorporation into the APD. This may result in a more 

complete APD that can be approved in less time. There is no required form for the NOS but the informational 

requirements are specific. If the APD option is selected, the on-site inspection is held after the filing of the APD 

with the BLM. If the lands involved are managed by a federal agency other than the BLM, the NOS must be 

filed with both the appropriate surface management agency and the BLM.

Whether the process begins with submission of the NOS or APD, the well location must be staked and planned 

access roads must be flagged prior to the on-site inspection. Except for lands used for military purposes or areas 

where significant surface disturbance is likely during the staking process, surveying and staking may be done 

without advance approval from the BLM or surface management agency.

Approval for a multiple-well, area-wide drilling and development program can also be initiated by submitting a 

formal proposal that may include a master development plan or plan of development (POD), which contains 

more detailed information about individual wells and associated facilities. Operators should check with the 

applicable BLM office about procedures to follow in such a situation. The procedural guidance provided here is 

applicable to both single-well and multiple-well projects.

The Gold Book describes the basic procedures used in the approval of most lease operations and summarizes

the requirements and responsibilities contained in Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 (BLM and USFS 2007a). 

The timeframe for each step of the approval process for both operator and BLM officials is also provided in the 

Gold Book.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-55

Applications for Permit to Drill

No drilling operations or related construction activities may be conducted without an APD approved by the AO 

in consultation with the appropriate surface management agency. A complete APD consists of the surface use 

plan and the drilling plan, evidence of bond coverage, and other information that may be required by applicable 

onshore orders and NTLs, such as H2S Contingency Plans. Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 1 describes the 

specific information requirements of the drilling and surface use plans (BLM and USFS 2007a).

As part of the approval, an EA is completed for each APD. Either the APD or NOS must be posted for public 

review in the BLM field office for a minimum of 30 days before approval. Approved APDs are generally valid 

for 2 years. The operator is required to contact the BLM and the appropriate surface management agency before 

beginning construction.

On-site Inspection – Environmental Review

The BLM normally conducts the on-site inspection within 15 days following receipt of the NOS or APD. The 

inspection team includes BLM and surface management agency representatives, the operator or agent, and other 

interested parties, such as the dirt work contractor or drilling contractor. When the location is on private surface, 

the surface owner is invited.

The purpose of the on-site inspection is to identify problems and potential environmental impacts associated 

with the proposal and methods to mitigate these impacts. Based on information from the on-site inspection and 

the APD, the BLM develops COAs for individual APDs. These measures are designed to protect surface and 

subsurface resources located at or near the drilling location. The results of the on-site inspection and all 

mitigating measures are documented in an EA.

When development begins on a new field containing federal minerals, the field office may prepare an EA. The 

EA process identifies the cumulative impacts of full-field development and specifies appropriate mitigating 

measures.

Unitization provides for the exploration, development, and operation of a geologically defined area by a single 

operator so that drilling and production may proceed in the most efficient and economical manner. A unit 

agreement is approved by the AO of the BLM and submitted by an operator on behalf of owners of oil and gas 

interests (over a potential oil or gas reservoir) that wish to unite with each other to facilitate the orderly and 

timely development of the oil and gas resources within the unit area. The agreement designates one party as the 

operator to conduct all activities in the unit area and commits that party to diligently pursue an exploration 

program to develop the oil and gas potential of the area on behalf of all committed interests. Approval of the 

unit agreement does not, in itself, authorize any on-the-ground activities. All such activities are permitted on a 

case-by-case basis through the APD and SN processes (see 43 CFR Part 3160 and the oil and gas onshore 

orders). An approved unit agreement establishes certain performance obligations, such as drilling an obligation 

well within 6 months of unit approval. Unitization serves the public interest by promoting the exploration of 

unproven acreage, and permits the BLM to exercise more effective control over drilling activity in a large area.

If commercial production is established, interest owners participate in production on the basis of their 

percentage of ownership of the proven area. The prospect must be defined within a 5-year period that can be 

extended as long as the operator continues to diligently drill new wells outside of the proven area, with each 

new well commencing within 90 days of the completion of the previous well. If no new wells are drilled, the 

unit contracts to the configuration of the proven area, and all other lands are eliminated from the unit. Separate 

participating areas are established for each producing horizon.

A discovery extends the terms of all leases committed to the unit agreement. A unit will terminate when 

production ceases from all producing areas. When a unit terminates, federal leases committed to the unit receive 

a 2-year extension from the date of termination.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-56

BLM approval of an APD does not relieve the operator of the responsibility for obtaining any other 

authorizations required for drilling or subsequent operations. These include requirements of other federal, state, 

or local authorities.

Producing Operations

Onshore oil and gas operations should be conducted in a manner that ensures the proper handling, measurement, 

and disposition of leasehold production. Site security for the location and protection of other natural resources, 

environmental quality, life, and property are also required. The objective is to maximize ultimate recovery of oil 

and gas with minimum waste and with minimum adverse effects to other resources.

Production reports must be submitted to the Office of Natural Resources Revenue (Form MMS 4054) as 

required by 43 CFR 3162.4-3.

A Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log (BLM Form 3160-4) is required to be filed within 30 days 

after completion of a well, for either abandonment or production. The completion report describes the 

mechanical and physical condition of the well, such as casings, perforations, and production status of the well. 

Required geologic information includes information on the completed interval and production rates if the well is 

a producer.

Subsequent Well Operations

Producing wells in active oil and gas fields periodically require repair and workover operations. Even if no new 

surface disturbance occurs, requests to redrill, deepen, and plug back require prior approval by the field office. 

Requests to perform other operations such as casing repairs, altering casing, performing non-routine fracturing 

jobs, recompletion in a different zone, completion of water shutoff, commingling production, or converting to 

injection or disposal well require the submission of the SNs and Reports on Wells, BLM Form 3160-5 (called

the SN) for prior approval by the AO.

Unless additional surface disturbance is involved, prior approval is not required for routine fracturing or 

acidizing jobs or recompletion in the same interval when applications conform to standard and prudent 

operating practices. However, a SN must be filed subsequent to these activities.

No prior approval or subsequent report is required for well cleanout work, routine well maintenance, bottomhole pressure surveys or for repair, replacement, or modification of surface production equipment as long as no 

additional surface disturbance is involved.

Approval Procedures

When prior approval is required, the operator must submit either an SN or an APD. A detailed written statement 

of the plan of work must be submitted with the appropriate form. When additional surface disturbance will 

occur, a description of any new construction or alteration of existing facilities must be submitted for 

environmental review and approval. An SN must be submitted and approved before conducting 

surface-disturbing activities. Emergency repairs may be conducted without prior approval as long as the district 

is promptly notified.

Operators are required to notify the AO no later than the fifth business day after any federally supervised well 

begins production or resumes production (in the case of a well that has been out of production for more than 90 

days).

As required in the COAs of an APD or a SN for the approval or modification of existing facilities, a standard 

color may be specified. Standardized color charts are available in the district or field office.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-57

Measurement of Production

If economically feasible, all oil and gas or other hydrocarbons produced from leased lands are to be put in a 

marketable condition.

Oil production is measured by tank gauging, a positive displacement metering system, or other methods 

acceptable to the AO. In the absence of prior approval from the district office, no oil is to be diverted to a pit 

except in emergency situations.

Gas production is measured by orifice meters or other methods acceptable to the AO. The flaring or venting of 

gas from leasehold operations must meet the requirements of NTL-4A, Royalty or Compensation for Oil and 

Gas Loss (BLM 1980b), or subsequent onshore oil and gas orders. Before approving any request to flare or vent 

gas from a federal well, a NEPA review is conducted by the district office to document the environmental 

effects of the proposal.

Produced water will be disposed of by subsurface injection, lined pits, or by other approved methods described 

in Onshore Order No. 7, Disposal of Produced Water (BLM 1993). Disposal of produced water in an injection 

or disposal well requires a permit or permits from the primacy state, tribe, or United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA). Primacy means that a state or agency has the ultimate responsibility for permitting 

and monitoring the underground injection control program for Class 2 wells (saltwater disposal and secondary 

recovery wells). Montana is a primacy state, and the Fort Peck Tribe has primacy for the underground injection 

control program within the exterior boundary of the Fort Peck Reservation. In some instances, an additional 

surface management agency authorization may be necessary. A NEPA review is conducted for all requests 

concerning disposal of produced water from federal wells.

All spills or leaks of oil, gas, produced water, toxic liquids, or waste materials as well as blowouts, fires, 

personal injuries, or deaths must be reported by the operator to the BLM and surface management agency in 

accordance with the requirements of NTL-3A, Reporting of Undesirable Events, or subsequent onshore oil or 

gas order (BLM 1979b). All Class 1 events (fatalities, spills exceeding 100 barrels of fluid, or release of more 

than 500 thousand cubic feet of gas) must be reported immediately.

All leases that produce significant quantities of oil and gas in any year or have a history of noncompliance are 

inspected at least once a year. Other factors such as health and safety, environmental concerns, and potential 

conflict with other resources also determine inspection priority. Inspections of lease operations are made to 

ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, lease terms, onshore orders, NTLs, and other written

orders.

Reclamation and Abandonment

A reclamation plan is part of the SUPO. Reclamation may be required for any surface previously disturbed that 

is not necessary for continued well operations. When abandoning a well and other facilities that do not have a 

previously approved reclamation plan, one should be submitted with a notice of intent to abandon, on BLM 

Form 3160-5.

Well abandonment operations may not be started without prior approval of the SN (BLM Form 3160-5). For 

newly drilled dry holes, failures, or emergency situations, oral approval may be obtained from the AO. The 

operator is required to submit a SN within 30 days of completion of work. The surface reclamation 

requirements are stipulated in the APD for newer wells. Additional requirements may be added if needed. The 

operator must contact the BLM prior to plugging a well to allow for approval and witnessing of the plugging 

operations. Guidelines for pit closure are found in the “Gold Book,” Surface Operating Standards for Oil and 

Gas Exploration and Development (Fourth edition) (BLM and USFS 2007b). The BLM will require pit closure 

to be in compliance with any stricter state requirements. The following items are generally part of any 

reclamation plan:

 pit reclamation,

 revegetation and noxious weed control,
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-58

 visual resources,

 pipeline and flowline reclamation,

 well-site reclamation, and

 road reclamation.

The operator must file a subsequent report of abandonment on Form 3160-5 following the plugging of a well. A 

final abandonment notice on Form 3160-5 must be filed upon completion of reclamation operations when the 

location is ready for inspection. After approval of the subsequent report of abandonment, the MCFO notifies the 

BLM field office or surface management agency office that the well has been plugged and that the location is 

ready for inspection. An initial site inspection is conducted within 1 year following approval of the subsequent 

report of abandonment and may be conducted prior to receipt of the final abandonment notice. Final 

abandonment will be approved when the required reclamation work is acceptable to the surface management 

agency. Abandonment inspections of BLM-administered lands are made by the appropriate field office. Other 

inspections are handled by the appropriate surface management agency.

If a well is covered by an individual lease bond, the liability period on the bond can be terminated once the final 

abandonment or phased bonding release has been approved. If a well is covered by a statewide or nationwide 

bond, termination of the liability period is not approved until final abandonment of all activities covered under 

the bond has been approved.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

APDs are approved for the MCFO by the Assistant Field Manager, Division of Mineral and Nonrenewable 

Resources. The approval letter includes the COA, which the operator must follow from site construction 

through abandonment. COAs are mitigatory measures that implement lease restrictions to site-specific 

conditions. In addition, the approval letter contains informational notices that cite the regulatory requirements 

from the CFR, Onshore Operating Orders 1 and 2 (BLM and USFS 2007a; BLM 1988), and other guidance.

Site-specific operating requirements are based on analysis of the proposed location for the well site. Operating 

requirements may affect the drilling program, access road, production facilities, water supply, waste disposal, 

well site layout, and surface restoration. 

The following mitigatory measures may be applied to approved permits as COAs. The listing is not all 

inclusive, but presents the most often used COAs in the planning area. The wording of the COA may be 

modified or additional COAs may be developed to address specific conditions. 

Access Road 

1. Prior to construction, a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil must be removed from the area necessary for 

road and ditch construction, including backslopes. Topsoil must be stored for use in reclamation. 

2. For drilling and production operations, the access road must be flat-bladed but sloped to provide 

drainage off the road. The access road width must not exceed 16 feet. 

3. For drilling and production operations, the access road must be crowned and ditched. The access road 

width must not exceed 16 feet. Ditches must have flat or rounded bottoms. 

4. The access road must be surfaced with and maintained with, at a minimum, a 3-inch layer of gravel. 

5. A minimum 18-inch diameter culvert (or culverts) must be installed in the designated drainage or 

drainages. The culvert or culverts must be installed on undisturbed ground and extend a minimum of 1 

foot beyond the toe of the fill slopes. Riprap material must be placed at the inlet and outlet ends of the 

culvert or culverts. 

6. A cattleguard must be installed at the designated fence crossing or crossings. 

7. A low-water crossing must be constructed at the designated drainage or drainages. A minimum 6-inch 

layer of gravel must be placed on the road in the crossing. 

8. The access road and associated structures must be maintained in a safe condition. Off-road vehicle 

travel is not authorized.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-59

Well Pad

1. Prior to construction, a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil must be removed from the area necessary for 

pad construction, including to the toe of the cut and fill slopes. Topsoil must be stockpiled separately 

from all other material. 

2. The reserve pit must be lined with an impervious plastic liner with a minimum 140 pounds per square 

inch burst strength and 30 pounds tear strength. The liner must be installed over material that will not 

puncture or tear the liner. 

3. The reserve pit must be fenced on three sides during drilling operations and the fourth side after 

completion of drilling operations. Netting may be required over the reserve pit. 

4. All storage tanks must be located on the well pad. Storage tanks must be surrounded with a dike or 

trench sloped to the reserve pit. 

5. All trash must be stored in an enclosed container and disposed of in an approved disposal facility. 

Trash or debris is not allowed in the reserve pit. 

6. Erosion control measures must be constructed or installed as prescribed.

Production Facilities 

1. Storage tanks and treater must be located on the cut portion of the well pad. 

2. The storage tanks and treater or the entire well pad must be surrounded by an earthen dike. The dike 

must be of sufficient size to contain 110 percent of the volume of the largest single tank in use. 

3. Production facilities such as storage tanks and the treater and pump unit must be painted a specific 

color from the Munsell Soil Color Chart. 

4. Fluid storage pits must be permitted, constructed, and maintained in accordance with state 

requirements. 

5. The well site and production facility site must be maintained in a safe and orderly manner. All trash 

and debris must be stored in an enclosed container and disposed of at an approved disposal facility. All 

unused equipment must be stored in an orderly manner or removed. All containers must be installed 

and maintained in accordance with the manufacturer’s and Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 

U.S.C. 651 et seq.) requirements. 

Reclamation 

1. Pit Reclamation

a. The pit must be closed properly to ensure protection of soil, water, and vegetation. 

b. The pit may not be cut or trenched. 

c. Prior to pit closure, free fluids must be removed and disposed of properly. 

d. Pit mud and sludge material may be buried on site after the material has been tested and has met 

the following criteria: 

o the range of pH is 6 to 9,

o the moisture content is less than 50 percent by weight,

o the oil and grease content is less than 3 percent by weight,

o the electrical conductivity is less than 12 mmhos (millimhos) per centimeter (unconfined 

compressive strength: greater than 20 pounds per square inch), and

o the total metals content must not exceed USEPA limits.

e. The liner may be cut off above the pit material or pushed over the pit material. 

f. The pit material must be covered with a minimum of 5 feet of native soil. 

2. Site Reclamation

a. For production, the unused portion of the pad must be recontoured with slopes not steeper than 

3:1. Proper drainage must be established. Erosion control measures may be required. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-60

b. For final abandonment, the site must be cleaned of all equipment, material, and debris. All 

surfacing material must be removed. 

c. For final abandonment, the site must be recontoured to blend with the adjacent terrain. 

d. Specific erosion control measures will be prescribed as necessary. 

e. For production or abandonment, recontoured areas must be scarified, mulched, and seeded. After 

scarification to a depth of 12 inches, topsoil must be spread evenly over the recontoured area. 

Weed-free straw mulch must then be applied evenly over the recontoured area at a rate of 1 ton per 

acre. The mulch must be crimped into the soil. The recontoured area must then be seeded with a 

prescribed seed mixture. Seed must be drilled on the contour with 6-inch drill row spacing at a 

depth of 0.5 to 0.75 inches. 

The most commonly prescribed grass species include: 

o western wheatgrass, 

o slender wheatgrass, 

o intermediate wheatgrass, 

o thickspike wheatgrass, 

o green needlegrass, 

o dryland alfalfa, and

o yellow sweetclover.

f. After seeding, the site must be fenced with four strands of barbed wire, metal line posts, and wood 

corner and brace posts. The fence must be maintained to exclude livestock until reclamation work 

has been approved. 

g. For final abandonment on privately owned surface, reclamation must be completed in accordance 

with the surface owner’s requirements unless the surface owner defers to BLM requirements. 

h. The reclamation work will be considered successful when the seeded area is stabilized, potential 

water erosion is effectively controlled, and the vegetative stand is established with at least a 60 

percent cover of the prescribed grass species. 

i. An interim reclamation plan may be required if the site has been constructed but no other work has 

been accomplished within 6 months after permit approval. 

3. Road Reclamation

a. For final abandonment, the surfacing material and structures (culverts, cattleguards) must be 

removed. 

b. For final abandonment, the road and ditches must be recontoured. Erosion control measures may be 

required. 

c. For final abandonment, the recontoured area must be scarified, mulched, and seeded in the same 

manner as well sites. 

d. For final abandonment, drainages must be restored to a free-flowing condition and the reclaimed 

area protected to prevent eroding and scouring. 

e. For final abandonment on privately owned surface, reclamation must be completed in accordance 

with the surface owner’s requirements unless the surface owner defers to BLM requirements. 

f. The reclamation work will be considered successful when the seeded area is stabilized, potential 

water erosion is effectively controlled, and the vegetative stand is established with at least 60 

percent cover of the prescribed grass species.

4. Pipeline Reclamation

a. The pipeline must be tested for leaks prior to backfilling the trench.

b. The trench must be backfilled immediately after completion of pipeline leak testing procedures. 

The fill material must be compacted. 

c. Topsoil must be spread evenly over the disturbed area. 

d. Erosion control measures must be installed as prescribed. 

e. Drainages must be restored to a free-flowing condition and the reclaimed area protected to prevent 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-61

eroding and scouring. 

f. The disturbed area must be seeded in the same manner as well sites. 

The following COAs in addition to any site-specific conditions are included with each approved APD. 

1. Verbal Notification

a. Notify this office verbally at least 48 hours prior to commencing construction.

b. Notify this office verbally at least 12 hours prior to spudding the well. (To be followed up in 

writing within 5 days.)

c. Notify this office verbally at least 12 hours prior to running any casing or blowout preventer tests. 

(To be followed up in writing within 5 days.)

d. Notify this office verbally at least 24 hours prior to plugging the well to receive verbal plugging 

orders. (Refer to Informational Notice Item 2, Drilling Operations, Onshore Order No. 2, for 

additional abandonment instructions.)

e. Notify this office verbally at least 24 hours prior to removal of fluids from the reserve pit.

f. Failure to comply within specified notification timeframes may incur an assessment under 43 CFR 

3163.1 and may also incur civil penalties under 43 CFR 3163.2.

2. A complete copy of the approved APD, including conditions, stipulations, and the H2S contingency 

plan (if required) shall be available for reference at the well site during the construction and drilling 

phases.

3. This drilling permit is valid for either 2 years from the approval date or until the lease expires, 

whichever occurs first.

4. Construction of access roads and well pads and installation of cattleguards, culverts, fences, and other 

structures shall be in accordance with the BLM and USFS document Surface Operating Standards for 

Oil and Gas Exploration and Development (2007), which is available for reference in this office.

5. The operator is responsible for informing all persons in the area who are associated with this project 

that they will be subject to prosecution for knowingly disturbing historic or archeological sites or for 

collecting artifacts. If historic or archeological materials are uncovered during construction, the 

operator is to immediately stop work that might further disturb such materials and contact the AO. 

Within 5 working days, the AO will inform the operator as to:

o whether the materials appear eligible for the NRHP;

o the mitigation measures the operator will likely have to undertake before the site can be 

used (assuming in site preservation is not necessary); and,

o a timeframe for the AO to complete an expedited review under 36 CFR 800.11 to 

confirm, through the State Historic Preservation Officer, that the findings of the AO are 

correct and that mitigation is appropriate. 

If the operator wishes, at any time, to relocate activities to avoid the expense of mitigation or the 

delays associated with this process, the AO will assume responsibility for whatever recordation and 

stabilization of the exposed materials may be required. Otherwise, the operator will be responsible for 

mitigation costs. The AO will provide technical and procedural guidelines for the conduct of 

mitigation. Upon verification from the AO that the required mitigation has been completed, the 

operator will then be allowed to resume construction.

6. It is the responsibility of the operator to control noxious weeds on lands disturbed in association with 

oil and gas lease operations. Lease-associated weed control strategies, when required by the BLM, are 

to be coordinated with any involved surface owners and local weed control boards. A pesticide-use 

proposal must be prepared and then reviewed and approved by the BLM, prior to any herbicide 

application on lands disturbed by federal oil and gas lease operations. A pesticide application record 

must be completed within 24 hours after completion of application of herbicides.

7. The abandonment marker shall exhibit the same information required for the well sign (refer to 

Informational Notice Item 6, Well Identification [43 CFR 3162.6]). The abandonment marker 

identified below must be installed when the well is plugged:
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-62

o a steel pipe (with a minimum 4-inch diameter, capped and a minimum of 4 feet 

aboveground) set in cement,

o a steel plate welded to surface casing at the recontoured ground level,

o a steel plate welded to surface casing and set belowground.

8. Additional requirements may be imposed if changes in operational or environmental conditions dictate.

9. These COAs are subject to the State Director review and appeals provisions of 43 CFR 3165.3 and 

3165.4.

INFORMATIONAL NOTICE

The following items are from the federal oil and gas regulations (43 CFR 3160, Onshore Orders Numbers 1 and 

2, NTLs, and other guidance). This is not a complete list of requirements but an abstract of some major 

requirements.

1. General Requirements

a. The lessee or designated operator shall comply with applicable laws and regulations; the lease 

terms, onshore oil and gas orders, NTLs; and other orders and instructions of the AO. Any 

deviation from the terms of the approved APD requires prior approval from the BLM (43 CFR 

3162.1(a)) 

b. If at any time the facilities located on public lands authorized by the terms of the lease are no 

longer included in the lease (caused by a contraction in the unit or other lease or unit boundary 

change), the BLM will process a change in authorization to the appropriate statute. The 

authorization will be subject to appropriate rental or other financial obligations determined by the 

AO.

2. Drilling Operations (Onshore Order No. 2)

a. Onshore Order No. 2 requires surface casing shall have centralizers on the bottom three joints of 

the casing (a minimum of one centralizer per joint, starting with the shoe joint) (BLM 1988).

b. If drill stem tests are run, the MCFO shall be notified at least 6 hours prior to testing. All 

applicable safety precautions outlined in Onshore Order No. 2 shall be observed (BLM 1988).

c. All indications of usable water (10,000 parts per million or less total dissolved solids) shall be 

reported to the MCFO prior to running the next string of casing or before plugging orders are 

requested, whichever occurs first.

3. Well Abandonment (43 CFR 3162.3-4, Onshore Order No. 1, Sec. V)

a. Approval for abandonment shall be obtained prior to beginning plugging operations. Initial 

approval for plugging operations may be verbal, but shall be followed up in writing within 30 

days. Subsequent and final abandonment notifications are required and shall be submitted on SNs

and Reports on Wells, Form 3160.5, in triplicate.

4. Reports and Notifications (43 CFR 3162.4-1, 3162.4-3)

a. Within 30 days of completion of the well as a dry hole or producer, a copy of all logs, core 

descriptions, core analyses, well-test data, geologic summaries, sample descriptions, or data 

obtained and compiled during the drilling, workover, or completion operations shall be filed with 

Well Completion or Recompletion Report and Log, Form 3160-4, in duplicate.

b. In accordance with 43 CFR 3162.4-3, this well shall be reported on MMS Form 4054, “Oil and 

Gas Operations Report, starting with the month in which any operations commence, including 

drilling, and continuing each month until the well is physically plugged and abandoned.

c. Notify this office within 5 business days of production start-up if either of the below conditions 

occur:
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-63

i. the well is placed on production (“placed on production” means shipment or sales of 

hydrocarbons from temporary tanks, production into permanent facilities, or 

measurement through permanent facilities); or

ii. the well resumes production after being off production for more than 90 days.

1. Notification may be written or verbal with written follow-up within 15 days 

and must include the following information:

a. operator name, address, and telephone number;

b. well name and number, county and state;

c. well location, “1/4-1/4, Section, Township, Range, 

P.M.;”

d. date well begins or resumes production;

e. the nature of the well’s production (crude oil, or 

crude oil casing gas, or natural gas and entrained 

liquid hydrocarbons);

f. the federal or Indian lease number;

g. as appropriate, the Unit Agreement name, number,

and Participating Area name; and

h. as appropriate, the Communitization Agreement 

number.

5. Environmental Obligations and Disposition of Production (43 CFR 3162.5-1, 3162.7-1 and 40 CFR 

302.4)

a. With BLM approval, water produced from newly completed wells may be temporarily disposed of 

into unlined pits for up to 90 days. During this initial period, application for the permanent 

disposal method shall be made to this office in accordance with Onshore Order No. 7 (BLM 

1993). If underground injection is proposed, a USEPA or state permit shall also be obtained.

b. Spills, accidents, fires, injuries, blowouts, and other undesirable events must be reported to this 

office within the timeframes in NTL-3A (BLM 1979b).

c. Gas may be vented or flared during emergencies, well evaluation, or initial production tests for a 

time period of up to 30 days or the production of 50 million cubic feet of gas, whichever occurs 

first. After this period, approval from this office shall be obtained to flare or vent gas in 

accordance with NTL-4A (BLM 1980b).

6. Well Identification (43 CFR 3162.6)

Each drilling, producing, or abandoned well shall be identified with the operator’s name, the lease 

serial number, the well number, and the surveyed description of the well (footages or the quarterquarter section, the section, township, and range). The Indian allottee lessor’s name may also be 

required. All markings shall be legible and in a conspicuous place.

7. Site Security (43 CFR 3162.7.5)

a. Oil storage facilities shall be clearly identified with a sign, and tanks must be individually 

identified (43 CFR 3162.6 (c)).

b. Site security plans shall be completed within 60 days of production startup (43 CFR 3162.7-5(c)). 

c. Site facility diagrams shall be filed in this office within 60 days after facilities are installed or 

modified (43 CFR 3162.7-5(d)(1)).

8. Confidentiality (43 CFR 3162.8)

All submitted information not marked “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION” will be available for public 

inspection upon request. The exception is Indian lease information, which is always considered 

confidential.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-64

Field Office Address and Contacts

The approval letter concludes with the complete address, phone number, and business hours for the MCFO. A 

list of staff members, their job titles, and home phone numbers is also provided for the company to use when the 

office is closed.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation measures are restrictions on lease operations, which are intended to minimize or avoid impacts to 

resources or land uses from oil and gas activities. The mitigation measures below would be applied to permits, 

leases, or approvals granted by the BLM. The list is not all inclusive. The wording of the mitigation measures 

may be modified or additional measures may be developed to address specific conditions. Mitigation measures 

would be included as appropriate to address site-specific concerns.

 Disturbed areas resulting from any construction will be seeded following the BLM seeding policy, 

state guidance, or surface owner’s requirements. Depending on surface ownership, seeding is usually 

required during the fall or late spring.

 To the extent practicable, vegetation will be preserved and protected from construction operations and 

equipment except where clearing operations are required to conduct oil and gas operations, such as for 

roads, well pads, pipelines, power lines, utility lines, and structures. Clearing of vegetation will be 

restricted to the minimum area needed for construction and equipment.

 Temporary and permanent access roads will be avoided on south-facing slopes within big game winter 

range, where practicable.

 To the maximum extent practicable, all maintenance yards, field offices, and staging areas will be 

arranged to minimize disturbance to trees, shrubs, and other native vegetation.

 Topsoil removed by construction activities will be stockpiled for reclamation. Sensitive habitat areas 

will not be used for topsoil storage.

 The planting of grasses, forbs, trees, or shrubs beneficial to wildlife will follow the BLM seeding 

policy. When needed, BLM will require installation of erosion and sedimentation control measures, 

such as riprap, erosion mats, mulch, bales, dikes, or water bars. Riprap material and placement must be 

approved by the appropriate agency.

 Erosion control and site restoration measures will be initiated as soon as a particular area is no longer 

needed for exploration, production, staging, or access. Disturbed areas will be recontoured to provide 

proper drainage.

 Topsoil piles may be required to be seeded following the BLM seeding policy.

 All aboveground electrical poles and lines will be raptor-proofed to avoid electrocution following the 

criteria and outlined in the most recent guidance from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, 

currently 2006 (APLIC 2006).

 Conduct three nesting habitat surveys for mountain plover in suitable habitat between May 1 and June 

15. Surface use may be deleted in accordance with 43 CFR 3101.1-2.

 The surface management agency is responsible for ensuring that the leased lands are examined to

determine the presence or absence of cultural resources and to specify mitigation measures. Guidance 

for application of this requirement can be found in NTL-MSO-1-85 (BLM 1985b).

 Cuts and fills for new roads will be sloped to prevent erosion and to facilitate revegetation.

 It is the responsibility of the operator to control noxious weeds on lands disturbed in association with 

oil and gas lease operations. Lease-associated weed control strategies, when required by the BLM, are 

to be coordinated with any involved surface owners and local weed control boards. A pesticide-use 

proposal must be prepared, and reviewed and approved by the BLM prior to any herbicide application 

on lands disturbed by federal oil and gas lease operations. A pesticide application record must be 

within 24 hours following completion of application of herbicides. Additional measures may be 

required to prevent the spread of noxious weeds.

 Activities such as stream crossings that could directly impact sensitive or protected fish species will be 

undertaken during non-spawning periods for these species. In the unlikely event that multiple, 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-65

sensitive, or protected fish species with back-to-back spawning periods are present in the same stream 

reach, one of the following options will be exercised:

o selection of a nearby, alternative stream-crossing site that does not provide suitable spawning 

habitat for the fish species of concern; 

o use of a nearby, existing stream crossing over the channel to avoid in-stream disturbances; or

o using shore-based equipment to position and extend the pipeline or other item (e.g., temporary 

bridge) across the stream, thereby avoiding in-channel activities.

 Operators must develop a spill prevention control and countermeasures plan to deal with accidental 

spills, which would include the strategic placement of berms and dikes.

 The road ditches would be flat bottomed and “V” ditches would not be allowed. Place water turn outs 

where appropriate to reduce the impacts of water upon the ditches.

Site Construction

After the APD is approved, the operator begins construction of the access road and well site. Location and 

construction are done in accordance with the lease stipulations and COA. The shortest feasible route is chosen 

to minimize haulage distances and construction costs while considering environmental factors and the surface 

owner’s wishes. The access roads are typically constructed using bulldozers and graders to connect the existing 

road or trail and the drill site. In some cases, the terrain drives installation of improvements such as cattle 

guards and culvert crossings.

The kind of drill rig and drilling depth in the planning area varies and is determined by the geologic province 

and expected product from the well (Table 1). The extent of surface disturbance necessary for construction 

depends on the terrain, depth of the well, drill rig size, circulating system, and safety standards. The depth of the 

drill test determines the size of the work area necessary, the need for all-weather roads, water requirements, and 

other needs. The terrain influences the construction problems and the amount of surface area to be disturbed. 

Well depth, drill rig size, or circulating systems may cause variations in reserve pit size. 

Access roads to well sites 

in the planning area 

usually consist of 

running surfaces 14 to 18 

feet wide that have 

ditches on one or both 

sides. Many of the roads 

constructed will follow 

existing roads or trails. 

New roads might be 

necessary because 

existing roads are not at 

an acceptable standard. 

For example, a road may 

be too steep so that 

realignment is necessary. 

Roads can be permanent 

or temporary, depending 

on the success of the 

well. The initial 

construction can be for a temporary road; however, it is designed so that it can become permanent if the well 

produces. Not all temporary roads constructed are rehabilitated when the drilling stops. A temporary road is 

often used as access to other drill sites. The main roads and temporary roads require graveling to be maintained 

as all-weather roads. This is especially important in the spring. Access roads may be required to cross public 

TABLE 1.

COMPARISON OF WELL CHARACTERISTICS IN PRODUCING

PROVINCES

Location

Maximum 

Common 

Depth 

(feet)

Product

Drill 

Site 

(acres)

Access and 

Ancillary 

Facilities 

(acres)

Central Montana Uplift 5,000 Oil with 

associated gas 2 1.5

South-central Montana 

Bighorn Basin 7,000 Oil with associated gas 2–3 1.5

Southeastern Montana 

Powder River Basin 

(PRB)

7,500 Oil and gas 2–3 1.5

Williston Basin 9,000 Oil with 

associated gas 3–4 1.5–3

Shallow gas wells and 

coal bed natural gas 

(CBNG) wells (across 

the planning area)

2,000 Gas 0.5–1 1.5
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-66

lands to a well site located on private or state lands. The portion of the access road on public land would require 

a BLM right-of-way (ROW).

Most conventional wells in the planning area are drilled from a fixed platform while the majority of CBNG 

wells are drilled using a truck-mounted rig. Site preparation generally takes about a week before the drill rig is 

assembled. For moderate depth oil wells in south-central Montana and the Central Montana Uplift, drilling 

generally takes 2 to 4 weeks, although geologic formations encountered in deeper wells in the Williston Basin 

may cause increase drilling time. Wells drilled from a platform require more surface preparation and cause 

disturbance over a larger area for the ancillary facilities. CBNG wells are usually drilled in under a week and 

site preparation is typically less than for conventional wells.

Approximately 1 to 4 acres are affected by well site construction. The area is cleared of large vegetation, 

boulders, or debris before the topsoil is removed and saved for reclamation. A level area from 1 to 4 acres is 

then constructed for the well site, which includes the reserve pit. 

The well pad is constructed by bulldozers and motor scrapers. The well pad is flat (to accommodate the drill rig 

and support equipment) and large enough to store all the equipment and supplies without restricting safe work 

areas. The drill rig must be placed on “cut” material (rather than on “fill” material) to provide a stable 

foundation for the rig. The degree of cutting and filling depends on terrain; the flatter the site, the less dirt work 

is required. 

Hillside locations are common, and the amount of dirt work varies with the steepness. A typical well pad will 

require a cut 10 feet deep against the hill and a fill 8 feet high on the outside. It is normal to have more cut than 

fill to allow for compaction, and any excess material is then stockpiled. Eventually, when the well is plugged 

and abandoned, excavated material is put back in its original place. 

Before an APD is approved for sites on slopes greater than 30 percent, the soils resource stipulation requires 

that an engineering and reclamation plan must be approved. This plan sets standards for operations on the 

location. Construction of water bars or other features may be needed to control surface runoff and erosion.

Reserve pits are normally constructed on the well pad. Usually the reserve pit is excavated in “cut” material on 

the well pad. The reserve pit is designed to hold drill cuttings and used drilling fluids. The size and number of 

pits depends on the depth of the well, circulating system, and anticipated downhole problems, such as excess 

water flows. 

Reserve pits are generally square or oblong, but may be irregular in shape to conform to terrain. The size of 

reserve pits for deeper wells can be reduced by the use of steel mud tanks. For truck-mounted drill rigs used in 

shallow gas fields, a small pit (called the blooie pit) is used. Most of the reserve pit, or the entire pit, is located 

in the cut location of the drill site for stability. When the drill site is completed, the rig and ancillary equipment 

are moved on location and drilling begins.

The reserve pit can be lined with a synthetic liner to contain pit contents and reduce pit seepage. Although not 

all reserve pits are lined, the BLM often requires a synthetic liner, depending upon factors such as soils, pit 

locations, groundwater, and drilling mud constituents. The operator can elect to line the reserve pit without that 

requirement. 

An adequate supply of water is required for drilling operations and other uses. The sources of water can be a 

water well at the drill site or remote sources such as streams, ponds, or wells. The water is transported to the site 

by truck or pipeline. Pipelines are normally small diameter surface lines. The operator must file for and obtain 

all necessary permits for water from the State of Montana. On public lands, an operator must have the BLM’s 

permission before surface water can be used.

Drilling Operations

Water for drilling is obtained from nearby sources such as rivers, wells, or privately owned reservoirs and is

trucked or piped onto location and stored in the reserve pit or storage tanks. Depending upon the geologic 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-67

conditions downhole, a number of additives can be used in the drilling mud. Bentonite is the basic ingredient in 

drilling mud. It creates a gel that serves several purposes during drilling: it coats the wellbore to seal off porous 

zones, cools and lubricates the drill bit, and carries cuttings to the surface. Other additives are used to adapt the 

drilling mud to special downhole conditions. Air is sometimes used as a drilling fluid. The decision to use air is 

related to downhole conditions, the kind of rocks being drilled, and the kind of well completion being 

attempted.

The drilling fluid is circulated down the wellbore through the drill pipe to the bottom of the hole. It passes 

through the bit and returns to the surface with the well cuttings in the annular space between the drill pipe and 

the borehole walls. Drilling fluid returned to the reserve pit is reused in the drilling process after cuttings settle 

out or are mechanically separated by a screen.

The unconsolidated nature of shallow formations generally allows quick completion of the initial stage of 

drilling, called spudding. A drill bit with revolving teeth removes fragments of rock as the weight of the 

drillstem carries the bit downward.

The rig structure and hoisting equipment are used to control the weight of the drillstem, which keeps the hole 

vertical or deviates from the vertical as needed. Samples of the cuttings from the reserve pit are collected at 

10-foot intervals to record the lithology of the rocks being drilled. Hydrocarbon content of the cuttings is also 

checked during this process.

The rotating motion of the drillstem is created by the drive mechanism of the rig. A square or hexagonal rod,

called the kelly fits through a large turntable, the rotary table, on the drilling rig floor. Drillstem sections fit 

through the rotary table and are turned by the kelly. As the drill string moves downward in the hole, more 

lengths of pipe are added until the well reaches the total depth. During the drilling process, the bit becomes 

worn and must be replaced. The entire string of drill pipe is lifted from the hole and the bit is changed. The pipe 

is reassembled, a new length is added, and drilling continues. Changing the bit is called “tripping”. Drilling 

operations run 24 hours a day until the well’s total depth is reached. During this process, BLM personnel, 

generally a petroleum engineering technician, may conduct periodic inspections to ensure compliance with the 

approved APD and COAs.

As drilling progresses for a vertical well, the hole is drilled and pipe is placed in the hole to maintain the 

integrity of the hole. The first string of pipe is the conductor pipe, which stabilizes the hole near the surface. 

The second string of pipe placed in the hole is for surface casing, which is set deep enough to reach an 

impervious layer of clay below the deepest usable freshwater aquifer. 

The surface casing is set and cemented in the hole by pumping cement between the casing and the hole wall. 

Surface casing acts as a safety device to protect freshwater zones from drilling fluid contamination. To prevent 

the well from “blowing-out” in the event the drill bit hits a high-pressure zone, blowout preventers are mounted 

on top of the surface casing. If high-pressure zones are encountered that cannot be controlled with mud 

additives, the blowout preventers can be closed to effectively seal the well. 

After the surface casing is set, a smaller drill bit that fits inside the surface casing is installed and drilling 

resumes. Depending on well conditions, additional strings of casing (called intermediate casing) may be 

installed and cemented into place. Conditions resulting in the need for intermediate casing include freshwater 

zones and sloughing formation zones. Casing prevents the flow of freshwater into the wellbore and, conversely,

prevents drilling fluids from infiltrating porous formations with low internal pressures. Casing also prevents 

mixing of waters from different formations (inter-formational mixing) where water within the formations is of 

differing quality. 

All cementing operation plans are reviewed to ensure cement is placed at the appropriate depths and a sufficient 

quantity is utilized to effectively seal all freshwater-bearing formations from contamination by inter-formational 

mixing or migration of fluids. 

If no oil or gas is encountered, the well is plugged with cement and abandoned in accordance with state and 

federal requirements. If the well is a producer, casing is set and cemented in place. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-68

Directional drilling may be used where the drill site cannot be located directly over the drilling target. There are 

limits to both the degree that the wellbore can be deviated from the vertical and the horizontal distance the well 

can be drilled away from the well site. 

Horizontal wells are drilled similarly to directional wells, except that the bottomhole location of the well is not a 

single point, but rather a lateral horizontal section. These wells are drilled to increase the recovery oil and gas 

reserves from vertically fractured reservoirs or reservoirs with directional permeability. In the Cedar Creek 

Anticline, operators have drilled horizontal wells to access oil reserves that might normally remain 

undeveloped.

PRODUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT 

Production 

Production begins when a well yields oil or gas in commercial quantities. If formation pressure is sufficient to 

raise oil to the surface, the well is completed as a flowing well. A pumping unit is installed if the formation 

pressure is not sufficient to bring the oil to the surface. 

When the well is completed as a free-flowing well, an assembly of valves and special connections known as a 

“Christmas tree” (because it contains many branch-like fittings) is installed on top of the casing to regulate the 

flow of the well. Later, when the natural pressure declines, the Christmas tree can give way to a simple 

wellhead arrangement of valves and a pumping unit to lift the oil artificially. Most pumping units in the 

planning area are “beam-style” pumps that are powered by electric or gasoline engines. 

The majority of gas wells produce by natural flow and do not require pumping. Surface use at a flowing well is 

usually a small area containing a gas well Christmas tree, a dehydrator, a produced water pit, and a meter house. 

Separators, condensate tanks, and compressors may be included. Some gas wells require continuous water 

pumping as water entering the well chokes off the gas flow.

For further discussion on oil or gas production, see the BLM’s Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Casper Field Office Planning Area, Volume 2, Appendix D, pages D11 through D-13 (BLM 2007e).

Development 

Development can take years and include from 1 to 2 wells to more than 100 wells per field. Roads to producing 

wells are upgraded to all-weather roads as necessary. Pipelines, electrical transmission lines, separators, 

dehydrators, sump pits, and compressor stations soon follow. Sometimes oil and gas processing facilities are 

built in or adjacent to the field. 

More detailed seismic work can be done to achieve better definition of the petroleum reservoir. Diagonal 

seismic lines can be required to tie the previous seismic work to the discovery well. The discovery well can be 

used to conduct studies to correct the previous seismic work and provide more accurate subsurface data. 

A well-spacing pattern must be established before development drilling begins (Table 2). Information 

considered in establishment of a spacing pattern includes data from the discovery well on porosity, 

permeability, pressure, composition, and depth of formations in the reservoir; well production rates and type 

(predominantly oil or gas); and the economic effect of the proposed spacing on recovery. The State of Montana 

establishes well-spacing patterns for both exploratory and development wells. The state specifies the minimum 

distance from lease lines or government survey lines for the bottomhole location of the wellbore, depending 

upon depth of the oil well and specifies a minimum distance for gas wells. The spacing regulations determine 

the acres assigned to each well.
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-69

Spacing unit size is established to provide for the most efficient and economic recovery of oil or gas from a 

reservoir. Well spacing ranges from 40 acres to 640 acres (Figures 1 and 2). Wells below 11,000 feet can be no 

closer than 1,650 feet to other producing wells below 11,000 feet. Only one producing well per formation in 

each 40-, 80-, 160-, 320-, and 640-acre unit is allowed. 

The procedures used in 

drilling development 

wells are the same as 

those used for wildcat 

wells, but usually with 

less subsurface 

sampling, testing, and 

evaluation. The rate at 

which development 

wells are drilled in a 

field depends on factors 

such as whether the field 

is developed on a lease 

basis or unitized basis, the probability of profitable production, the availability of drilling equipment, lease 

requirements, and the degree to which limits of the field are known.

Surface Requirements 

Field development activities that cause surface disturbance include access roads, well sites, production facility 

sites, flow-line and utility-line routes, and waste disposal sites. 

Because gas wells are usually drilled on larger spacing units, surface uses in a gas field will be less than in an 

oil field. The spacing pattern of 640 acres per well, which is common in gas fields, will require only 1 well per 

section and might require only 0.5 miles of access roads and pipelines. 

Production facilities include separation and storage equipment. Separation equipment is required when 

production includes a combination of oil, gas, or water, and storage equipment is required for holding liquids 

prior to sales. 

Oil and gas are transferred from the well to storage facilities through small diameter (less than 6 inches) flow 

lines. Flow lines can be on the surface, buried, or elevated. Produced water, gas, or polymerized liquid is 

transferred from storage facilities to injection wells for secondary recovery.

Some fields go through several development phases, the first resulting from the original discovery and others 

from later discovery. A field can be considered fully developed and produce for several years, and then a well 

may be drilled to a deeper or shallower pay zone. Discovery of a new pay zone in an existing field is a “pool” 

discovery (as distinguished from a new field discovery). A pool discovery may lead to the drilling of additional 

wells, often from the same drilling pad as existing wells.

Oil cannot be produced unless the reservoir pressure is great enough to drive the oil into the wellbore. Oil 

production declines as the formation’s natural pressure declines. Secondary recovery is initiated to increase 

reservoir pressures artificially and to maintain the oil recovery factor. This is done by injecting water (water 

flooding), gas, air, or polymerized liquid into the formation.

For further discussion on secondary recovery, see the BLM Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Casper Field Office Planning Area, Volume 2, Appendix D, pages D14 through D-16 (BLM 2007e).

TABLE 2.

GENERAL STATEWIDE SPACING RULES FOR MONTANA

Well Depth 

(feet)

Spacing 

(acres)

Nearest 

Boundary 

(feet)

Topographic 

Tolerance (feet)

Minimum 

Well 

Distance 

(feet)

0 to 6,000 40 and 

80

330 75 255

6,001 to 11,000 160 660 150 510

11,001 and 

greater

320 660 none none

For the 320-acre spacing (1,650 well tolerance) and the 80 acre spacing the drilling unit will be 

delineated either N-S or E-W
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-70

 3300' 990'

Source: Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation

FIGURE 1.

GAS WELL SPACING SECTION PLAT

640-Acre Spacing

The well should be drilled in the 

shaded area.

Well depth greater than 0 feet below 

ground surface should have a 

minimum distance of 990 feet from the 

section boundary.

Source: BLM 1995
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-71

Source: BLM 1995

Wells should be drilled in shaded areas

Inspections 

Geophysical operations and lease operations are inspected to determine compliance with approved permits, to 

resolve conflicts or correct problems, and to determine effectiveness and need of lease stipulations. All 

inspections are documented. Operators are required to correct problems or violations. Lease stipulations and 

permit conditions may be changed or eliminated as a result of an inspection. 

Separating, Treatment, and Storage

Any water or gas associated with produced oil is separated from the oil before it is placed in storage tanks. The 

treating facilities are located at a storage tank battery. Low-pressure petroleum that must be pumped from the 

well is treated in a single separation. High-pressure, flowing petroleum can require several stages or separation, 

with a pressure reduction accompanying each stage. 

Produced gas is sold when it is economical and there is sufficient volume, necessary transportation, and a 

market for the gas. Generally, if the volume of produced gas is too low for sales, it is used as fuel for well pump 

engines and heating fuel for the treaters. If the volume of produced gas exceeds fuel requirements on the lease 

but gas sales are not possible, the gas can be flared or vented into the atmosphere when authorized by permits in 

accordance with state and federal regulations. 

FIGURE 2.

OIL WELL SPACING SECTION PLAT
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-72

When water is produced with the hydrocarbons, it is separated before the gas is removed. In primary operations, 

where natural pressures or gravity cause the petroleum in the reservoir to flow to the wellbores, the degree of 

mixing is high enough to require chemical and heat treatment to separate the oil and water. In secondary 

production, where water injection or other methods are used to force additional petroleum to the wellbore, the 

oil and water often are not highly emulsified. In this case, the oil and water can be separated by gravity in a tall 

settling tank. Produced water can be disposed of through injection into the subsurface, surface evaporation, or 

beneficial purposes such as water for livestock or irrigation. 

Produced water from oil and gas operations is normally disposed of by subsurface injection or in surface pits. 

Regardless of the method of disposal, it must be acceptable to the BLM, in accordance with the requirements of 

Onshore Oil and Gas Order No. 7, Disposal of Produced Water (BLM 1993). Disposal of produced water by 

injection wells requires permits from the USEPA. When produced water is disposed of underground, it is 

introduced or injected, under pressure, into a subsurface horizon containing water of equal or poorer quality. In 

the oil- and gas-producing areas of the planning area, this disposal horizon is usually found within the Dakota 

Group formation or in the Judith River formation, although other formations have been used for disposal within 

the area. To stimulate oil production, produced water may be injected into the producing zone from which it 

originated. Oil and gas units within the planning area utilize this method of reinjection. Dry holes or depleted 

wells are commonly converted for saltwater disposal and occasionally new wells are drilled for this purpose.

The USEPA requires that all injection wells be permitted under the underground injection control program. 

Under the Underground Injection Control approval process, the disposal well must be pressure tested to ensure 

the integrity of the casing. The disposal zone must also be isolated by use of tubing and mechanical plug called 

a packer. The packer seals off the inside of the casing and only allows the injected water to enter the disposal 

zone. The tubing and packer are also pressure tested to ensure their integrity. These pressure tests confirm 

isolation of the disposal zone from possible usable water zones. The tests are repeated on a schedule set by the 

USEPA. 

The oil is transported to storage tanks through flow lines after separation from any water or gas. Storage tanks 

are usually located on the lease either at the producing well or at a central production facility. The number and 

size of tanks are dependent upon the type and amount of production on the lease. 

ABANDONMENT 

When drilling wells are unsuccessful or production wells are no longer useful, the well is plugged, equipment is 

removed from the well site or production facility site, and the site is abandoned. The wellbore is secured by 

placing cement plugs to isolate hydrocarbon-producing formations from contaminating other mineral or water 

bearing formations. The site and roads are then restored as near as possible to original contours. Topsoil is 

replaced and the recontoured areas are seeded. Reclamation of access roads and well sites on privately owned 

surface is completed according to the surface owner’s requirements. 

Rehabilitation requirements generally are made a part of the APD. Upon completion of abandonment and 

rehabilitation operations, the lessee or operator notifies the BLM district that the location is ready for 

inspection. Final abandonment will not be approved until the required surface reclamation work has been 

completed to the satisfaction of the BLM or surface owner. The period of bond liability for the well site is 

terminated after approval of final abandonment. 

Reclamation of the reserve pit is part of the well site reclamation process. Reserve pit reclamation includes 

removal of fluids to a disposal well or commercial pit and burial of solids in the pit. Although solids should be 

covered with a minimum of 6 feet of native soil, they should not be buried until dry. Any pit liner may be buried 

in place. Methods such as solidification or dewatering may be used to help dry the solids. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-73

REGULATIONS, LAWS, AND SPECIAL PROCEDURES 

Unit and Communitization Agreements 

Unit and communitization agreements can be formed in the interest of conservation and to allow for the orderly 

development of oil and gas reserves. 

A unit agreement provides for the recovery of oil and gas from the lands as a single consolidated entity without 

regard to separate lease ownerships. An exploratory unit is used for the discovery and development of the field 

in an orderly and efficient manner. Paying and nonpaying well determinations are made for each well drilled. If 

the well is nonpaying as defined by the agreement, the production is allocated on a lease basis. If the well is a 

paying unit well, a participating area is formed and the production is allocated to all interest owners in the 

participating area on the basis of surface area. 

A secondary unit is formed after the field has been defined and enhanced recovery techniques are being utilized. 

Secondary recovery techniques include water injection, natural gas injection, or carbon dioxide injection. 

Injection is initiated to maintain the reservoir pressure to maintain oil production. The agreement provides for 

the allocation of production among all the interest owners. 

A communitization agreement combines two or more leases that otherwise could not be independently 

developed in conformity with established well-spacing patterns. The leases within the spacing unit share in the 

costs and benefits of the well drilled in the spacing unit. Therefore, unit and communitization agreements can 

reduce the amount of damage to the environment and save dollars by eliminating unnecessary wells, roads, 

pipelines, and lease equipment. 

Drainage Provisions

Federal oil and gas leases include a clause that the lessee must protect the leased area from drainage by off-lease 

wells. If the BLM determines that federal oil or gas is being drained (physically removed) by an off-lease well, 

the federal lessee will be notified. The lessee has the option of drilling a protective well on lease or paying 

compensatory royalty for the lost oil or gas. The lessee also has the options of relinquishing the portion of the 

lease subject to drainage after payment of compensatory royalty for drainage that did occur or submitting data 

showing that drainage is not occurring. 

The objective of the drainage program is to prevent the loss of federal oil and gas due to drainage by requiring 

the drilling of protective wells and, where appropriate, to assess compensatory royalty for such losses. 

Drilling Access with NSO Stipulations on Oil Leases 

The NSO stipulations can restrict the development potential of a federal oil and gas lease and can limit the area 

that can be developed by restricting the amount of surface acreage available for occupancy. NSO restrictions 

often do not affect access to oil and gas resources unless there are blocks of contiguous land with NSO

stipulations or the drilling depth is presumed to be shallow. The drilling access area is that area under a NSO

lease or lease parcel that can be accessed by the wellbore from a surface location outside of the area (Figure 3). 

Directional drilling can theoretically develop lands near the outer boundary of a lease affected by a NSO 

stipulation. The BLM cannot assume that a prudent operator would use new technology such as horizontal 

drilling to access an entire lease area. Although the technology might allow exploration, the expense might 

make the venture uneconomical. However, the BLM can assume that an operator might be willing to drill wells 

directionally using equipment and drilling techniques that make the venture economical. For a directionally 

drilled well, a maximum deviation of approximately 5 degrees is a commonly used rule of thumb for how much 

a vertical hole can be deviated economically using a standard drilling rig. The BLM has estimated typical oil 

well depths for various parts of the MCFO based on drilling history and geologic data. Gas wells in this 

planning area probably cannot and will not be deviated for technical and economic reasons. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

MIN-74

A “directional drilling accessibility” concept has been developed for leases affected by NSO stipulations. 

Shallow wells in Montana (less than 6,000 feet deep) can be deviated up to an eighth of a mile and have the 

angle of deviation remain reasonably close to 5 degrees. This will place the bottomhole location in the center of 

a 40-acre tract. Because these wells are commonly spaced on a 40-acre basis, all spacing units within 0.25 miles 

of the outer boundary of the lease can be tested. Wells between 6,000 and 11,000 feet deep can also be deviated 

up to 0.25 miles. This will place the bottomhole location of the well the maximum allowable distance from the 

lease line for a well of this depth. Because these wells are spaced on a 160-acre basis, all spacing units within 

0.5 miles of the exterior boundary of the lease can be tested. 

The oil wells in Montana, with a total depth greater than 11,000 feet are normally spaced on a 320-acre basis. 

These wells can be deviated up to 0.25 miles using the above criteria. Using this distance, all spacing units

within 0.5 miles of the outer boundaries of an affected lease can be tested. An NSO stipulation has a greater 

effect in areas of blocked ownership than in scattered tracts because much of the blocked areas remain 

inaccessible from off-lease well locations. Usually four-blocked sections with NSO stipulations result in an 

inaccessible area of 640 acres. The area around the 640 acres would be accessible by directional drilling.

Source: BLM 1995

Subsurface Area Accessible to Drilling 

The angle of approach will result in a bottomhole location below the production horizon. The wellbore 

deviation concept would allow access to deeper production horizons via directional drilling. Directional drilling

will not allow all of the acreage covered by an NSO stipulation to be properly tested under the above conditions. 

In many cases, the most favorable location in a spacing unit will not be available for testing because it will not 

be economically or technologically possible to reach it through directional drilling from outside the lease. The 

best way to economically test a spacing unit is to allow surface occupancy to provide opportunities for vertical 

wellbores. Because it will be more expensive to explore a tract covered by NSO stipulations, some companies 

may not offer to lease these lands. 

FIGURE 3. 

DIRECTIONAL DRILLING ACCESSIBILITY CONCEPT
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-75

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FOR FLUID 

MINERALS

INTRODUCTION

The BLM’s Miles City Field Office (MCFO) manages approximately 2.8 million federal surface acres and 5.8 

million acres of federal oil and gas mineral estate land in the eastern portion of Montana. The main goal of this 

reasonably foreseeable development (RFD) projection is to technically analyze the oil and gas resources known 

to occur and potentially occurring within the planning area and to project future development potential and 

activity levels for 2011 through 2030. Historical and present oil- and gas-related development areas are 

presented for all lands, including American Indian Reservation lands. This RFD is based on, and incorporates 

sections of, the RFD (initial and revised) prepared for the North Dakota study area by the Reservoir 

Management Group of the BLM Wyoming State Office and published and unpublished data.

The RFD evaluation and projections presented below review and analyze past, present, and potential future 

exploratory, development, and production operations and activities. It also presents occurrence potential for oil 

and gas, CBNG, and deep oil and gas (at depths greater than 13,000 feet), as well as available estimates of the 

hydrocarbon resources that may be present within the planning area. Additional resources used to project future 

activities include (but are not limited to) a review of published oil and gas resource information (including a 

number of online databases) for the area, a review of petroleum technology research and development, 

geophysical activity, and access and infrastructure restrictions. It must be emphasized that the RFD projections 

presented are possible or likely to happen and should not be considered to be worst-case scenarios, but 

reasonable and science-based projections of the anticipated oil and gas activity that use logical and technically 

based assumptions to make those projections (BLM, USEPA, USFWS, NPS, and USFS 2004).

Total federal oil and gas mineral ownership (and managed by the BLM) in the planning area amounts to about

5.8 million acres, or about 23.2 percent of the total acres in the planning area. Approximately 2.6 million 

surface acres or about 10 percent of the total acreage is held in trust by the federal government for tribes or 

individual American Indians. The oil and gas resource on these lands are managed for the tribes and individual 

American Indians by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The remaining 16.6 million acres (66.8 percent) are owned 

by state and private interests. 

All BLM-administered oil and gas mineral lands will be covered by decisions made in this RMP. Other federal 

agencies, including the BOR and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, manage the remainder of the 

federal oil and gas mineral ownership within the planning area. Decisions made in this RMP will be made for 

lands managed by these federal agencies. However, the RMP will not change existing decisions for the United 

States Forest Service (USFS).

EXPLORATORY ACTIVITY AND OPERATIONS 

The petroleum industry in the United States has historically relied on continual improvements in technology to 

better understand the oil and gas resource in the earth and to find and produce it. Some of the biggest 

breakthroughs have been: 

• the anticlinal theory (1885) that oil and gas tend to accumulate in anticlinal structures, which allowed 

drillers to locate better drilling spots with improved opportunities to find oil and gas; 

• rotary drilling rigs (1900s), which became the chief method of drilling deeper wells; 

• seismograph (1914), which allowed one-dimensional subsurface imaging; 

• well logging (1924), which allowed measurement of subsurface rock and fluid properties; 

• offshore drilling (1930s), which allowed drillers to access new areas and basins; 

• digital computing (1960s), which allowed two-dimensional imaging of data; 

• directional drilling (1970s), which allowed more cost efficient management of reservoirs; 

• three dimensional seismic (1980s), which allowed more accurate subsurface imaging; 

• three-dimensional modeling and four-dimensional seismic (1990s), which allowed the prediction of 

fluid movement in the subsurface; 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-76

• identification of new types of reservoirs and improved exploitation methods (1990s to present), which 

allowed development of heavy oil, tight gas, shale gas, CBNG, and the use of carbon dioxide in the 

flooding process to increase recoveries; and 

• multi-discipline collaboration (2000s), which allows for better drilling decisions, higher success rates, 

improved risk assessment, and enhanced reservoir development. 

Exploratory activity includes: 

• studying and mapping of surface and subsurface geologic features to recognize potential oil and gas 

traps, 

• determining a geologic formation’s potential for containing economically producible oil and gas, 

• pinpointing locations to drill exploratory wells to test all potential traps, 

• drilling additional wells to establish the limits of each discovered trap,

• testing wells to determine geologic and engineering properties of geologic formation or formations 

encountered, and 

• completing wells that appear capable of producing economic quantities of oil and gas. 

A number of components can control and characterize potential oil and gas accumulations in the planning area. 

Those major components of accumulations can include those described below.

1. The Miles City RMP planning area is located along the eastern 

portion of Montana within the western part of the Great Plains 

Province (see Table 3 and Table 1-1 in Chapter 1). The Great 

Plains Province extends from the Dakotas into the eastern 

portions of Montana, Colorado, and Wyoming. The Great 

Plains Province is represented in the planning area at the 

surface by broad basinal features. The basins within the Great 

Plains Province have accumulated sediments several miles in 

thickness; these sands, shales, and limestones form the source 

and reservoirs of Montana’s fossil energy reserves of crude 

oil, natural gas, coal, and CBNG (ALL 2001b). There are two 

basins of particular interest in the Miles City RMP area: the 

Williston Basin and the Powder River Basin (PRB). Both 

basins are generally flat plains, dissected by the various 

streams and rivers that drain north and east across eastern 

Montana. The Williston Basin is bound on the east and 

southeast by the Canadian Shield and the Sioux Uplift and to 

the west and southwest by the Black Hills Uplift, Miles City 

Arch, Porcupine Dome, and Bowdoin Dome (J.A. Peterson 

1996). The PRB is bound to the west by the Bighorn Uplift; to 

the southwest and south by the Casper Arch, Laramie 

Mountains, and Hartville Uplift; and to the east by the Black 

Hills Uplift. The Miles City Arch and the Cedar Creek 

Anticline lie north of the PRB and separate the PRB and 

Williston Basin (Map 93). 

2. The northeastern portion of the Miles City RMP planning area 

lies within the Williston Basin, a structural-sedimentary 

intracratonic basin located on the western shelf of the Paleozoic North American craton (J.A. Peterson 

1996). Map 93 shows the location of the main anticlinal structures in the planning area’s portion of the 

Williston Basin. Many fields are concentrated along the major anticlinal structures of the planning area 

(Map 94). The Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (MBOGC) labels this the Northeastern 

area. The MBOGC separates drilling and production in the state into six areas, five of which are either 

wholly or partially within the planning area boundary.

TABLE 3.

APPROXIMATE ACRES BY

COUNTY IN THE PLANNING

AREA

County Total County 

Acres 

Big Horn 636,274

Carter 2,143,093

Custer 2,427,607

Daniels 912,751

Dawson 1,525,192

Fallon 1,038,500

Garfield 3,102,325

McCone 1,717,078

Powder River 2,110,893

Prairie 1,115,213

Richland 1,345,067

Roosevelt 1,516,468

Rosebud 3,217,234

Sheridan 1,090,439

Treasure 629,854

Valley 720,382

Wibaux 568,346
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-77

3. The southern portion of the planning area is located within the northern part of the PRB. The PRB totals 

approximately 12,000 square miles and extends northward from Wyoming into the following Montana

counties: Big Horn, Powder River, Custer, Rosebud, Treasure, and Prairie (ALL 2001b). The PRB 

formed as a result of Laramide tectonics that caused the surrounding area to the west to be uplifted,

which contributed sediments to the basin during the Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary. Sediment 

accumulation in combination with structural subsidence caused the PRB to develop into an asymmetric 

basin predominantly filled with the Tertiary Fort Union formation (ALL 2001b). The majority of this 

area is within the South Central area as defined by the MBOGC.

4. Accumulations of sandstones, carbonates, shales, and, locally, coal (potential source and reservoir rocks) 

exist in the planning area.

5. Burial and thermal histories that promoted the development and preservation of diagenetic pore throat 

traps and extensive oil and gas generation are present in the planning area. 

6. Structure traps have played a role in localizing oil and gas accumulations, particularly when coupled 

with favorable stratigraphy. 

7. Stratigraphic traps (e.g., the Red River formation horizontal play) and stratigraphic traps with fracturing 

exhibiting a significant influence on productivity (e.g., the Bakken formation horizontal play) have 

played a large role in exploration development in recent years (since 1994). 

8. Although over-pressuring can be important in increasing productive capacity (e.g., the Bakken 

formation), it also creates problems in drilling and completion, increasing the cost of both. 

9. Secondary porosity, produced by the dissolution of unstable grains and rock fragments, is important in 

both basin-wide and local accumulations. 

The BLM considers these components to be important in exploring for and developing new oil and gas 

resources in the planning area. Drilling activity (exploratory and development) has occurred in most of the 

counties in the planning area during the last 10 years but the majority has been concentrated in 3 counties 

(Fallon, Big Horn, and Richland). 

In the last 10 years (wells spud January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2010) 3,253 wells have been drilled 

within the planning area (MBOGC 2011b). Present status of those wells is: 

• 1 spud well,

• 2,411 producing wells, 

• 221 abandoned wells, 

• 486 inactive (shut-in 3 to 12 months) wells, 

• 17 temporarily abandoned wells, 

• 96 injection (permitted or active) wells, 

• 17 completed (no status) wells, and 

• 4 water wells.

Approximately 74 percent of the wells drilled and completed over the last 10 years are currently producing. 

Unsuccessful wells were completed as “abandoned” as reported by the MBOGC (2011b). This success rate is 

quite high and is attributable to the fact that most of these wells were drilled within field boundaries and most 

would be considered to be infill wells. About 35 percent of these wells were drilled along the Cedar Creek 

Anticline (Map 95), with most wells targeting the Red River and Eagle formations. Another 24 percent were 

drilled in Richland County, targeting the Bakken formation. About 30 percent of the wells have been drilled in 

Big Horn, Rosebud, and Powder River counties to target the coal beds of the Fort Union formation. 

Only 238 of the wells spud January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2010 were classified as wildcat wells drilled 

outside field boundaries (MBOGC 2011b). As of the date of this study, the present status of those wildcat wells 

is as follows:

• 1 spud well,

• 7 active wells, 

• 145 abandoned wells, 

• 72 inactive (shut-in) wells, 

• 4 temporarily abandoned wells,
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-78

• 7 active injection wells, and

• 2 released water wells. 

Only about 38 percent of the above wildcat wells drilled and completed over the last 10 years were successful. 

Unsuccessful wells were completed as “abandoned” as reported by the MBOGC (2011b). Historically, industry 

has considered a 10-percent success rate for wildcat wells to be the industry average. 

There are 52 companies operating the 3,253 wells drilled in the last 10 years (MBOGC 2011b). Ten of these 

companies operate 2,136 wells or 66 percent of the wells spud (Table 4). 

Recent innovative drilling and completion techniques 

have enabled the industry to drill fewer dry holes and 

to recover more oil and gas reserves per well. Smaller 

accumulations once thought to be uneconomical can 

now also be produced. In some cases, improvements 

have also allowed downspacing to occur. 

Downspacing or increased density of the presently hot 

Bakken play could begin to occur in the future, once 

the play’s limits are determined. Increased drilling 

success rates have cut the number of both wells drilled 

and dry holes (DOE 1999). Industry is drilling fewer 

dry holes and reducing the number of wells needed to 

fully develop each reservoir. The Energy Information 

Administration (DOE-EIA) (2007b) has projected the 

increase in percentage of wells drilled successfully 

will be 0.2 percent per year to 2030. From the early 

1990s to the present, activity has focused almost 

entirely on very low risk development drilling in and 

around known field areas, which helped to improve 

the overall success rate. As described previously, the 

success rate for the last 10 years was 74 percent for all 

wells drilled. More future exploratory drilling will be 

required to discover new resources in the planning area and to determine whether its CBNG resource is 

economic to produce. Since the risk of failure is higher for these types of activities, the recent, very high success 

rates could decline in the future. 

Advances in technology have boosted exploration efficiency, and additional future advances will continue this 

trend. Significant progress that has occurred and that will continue to occur is expected in the following areas: 

• computer processing capability and speed; 

• remote sensing and image-processing technology; 

• developments in global positioning systems; 

• advances in geographic information systems (GIS); 

• three-dimensional and four-dimensional time-lapse imaging technology that permits better 

interpretation of subsurface traps and characterization of reservoir fluid; 

• improved borehole logging tools that enhance understanding of specific basins, plays, and reservoirs; 

and 

• advances in drilling that allow more cost-efficient tests of undepleted zones in mature fields, deeper 

testing zones in existing fields, and exploration of new regions. 

New technologies will allow companies to target high quality prospects and improve well placement and 

success rates. As a result, it is likely that fewer drilled wells will be needed to find a new trap, and total 

production per well is expected to increase (DOE 1999). Additionally, drilling fewer wells will reduce surface 

disturbance and volumes of waste, such as drill cuttings and drilling fluids. An added benefit of improved 

TABLE 4.

TEN LARGEST OPERATORS OF WELLS

DRILLED BETWEEN 2000 AND 2010

Company Number of 

Wells

Fidelity Exploration & Production 

Company 1,614

Denbury Onshore, LLC 203

Enerplus Resources USA 

Corporation 198

Summit Gas Resources, 

Incorporated 193

Continental Resources, 

Incorporated 168

XTO Energy, Incorporated 142

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas 

Company, LP 112

SM Energy Company 58

Petro-Hunt, LLC 51

EOG Resources, Incorporated 43
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-79

remote sensing technology is the ability to identify oil and gas “seeps” to assist cleanup. These seeps can also 

help pinpoint undiscovered oil and gas resources. 

Technology improvements have also cut the average cost of finding oil and gas reserves in the United States 

(finding costs are the costs of discovering proven reserves of oil and natural gas via exploration and 

development activities). The United States Department of Energy (DOE) (1999) estimated that finding costs 

were approximately $2 to $16 per barrel of oil equivalent in the 1970s. Finding costs dropped to approximately 

$4 to $8 per barrel of oil equivalent in the 1993 to 1997 period. Since that time, finding costs have fluctuated 

around the higher end of this range. During the 2003 to 2005 period, finding costs were about $7.05 per barrel 

of oil equivalent, which increased by 60.9 percent to $11.34 per barrel of oil equivalent for the 2004 to 2006 

period (DOE-EIA 2007a). Most of this increase was reported to have come from a rise in exploration and 

development spending, which was amplified by a drop in reserves found. Producers have been willing to spend 

more to find oil and gas since prices received during this period have been higher.

Once hydrocarbons have been explored for, discovered, and developed for production, the expense of operating 

and maintaining wells and related equipment and facilities is tracked. This cost is referred to as a lifting or 

production cost. During 2006, average lifting costs in the United States were approximately $9.69 per barrel of 

oil equivalent, which was an increase of 22.0 percent from a 2005 cost of about $7.94 per barrel of oil 

equivalent (DOE-EIA 2007a). Lifting costs have increased in recent years because more producers are willing 

to spend more to produce oil and natural gas when selling prices are higher.

FEDERAL OIL AND GAS UNIT AGREEMENTS 

A federal unit agreement is an agreement or plan for the development and operation for the recovery of oil or 

gas from unit lands as a single consolidated entity without regard to separate ownerships and for the allocation 

of costs and benefits on a basis as defined in the agreement or plan (43 CFR 3186.1). Federal units are intended 

to facilitate the orderly and timely exploration, development, and operation of multiple leases under a single 

operator. Units may overlie a portion of, or an entire geologic structure. An approved agreement establishes 

performance obligations, promotes the exploration of unproven acreage or logical enhanced recovery 

procedures, and permits the controlled and orderly development of the unit. This process stimulates exploration 

or development of federal lands and encourages the drilling of the optimum number of wells needed to 

maximize resource recovery. 

As of the date of this document, federal oil and gas leases are incorporated into 29 unit agreement areas that lie 

wholly or partly within the planning area (Map 96). These units encompass lands totaling approximately 

253,522 acres in area, or 0.98 percent of the total lands in the planning area. These 29 unit agreements in the 

planning area target 20 different zones or formations. 

New units in the planning area could be established at any time in the future in response to evolving geological 

interpretations, improvements in exploration, drilling, and production technologies, or other factors. As the 

current Bakken play continues to grow and understanding of the geologic controls of oil production in the 

formation increases, it is expected that new exploratory units will be formed based around this reservoir. 

Additionally, as these wells and those in other productive intervals, such as the Red River formation and 

Madison Group formations, begin to reach their economic primary oil recovery limits, it is expected that new 

secondary recovery units will also be formed. Secondary or enhanced recovery projects not considered 

previously (because of a poor economic outlook) will be revisited by industry because of the recent rise in oil 

and gas prices (1999 through 2011), an increased knowledge base of the geology of the planning area (resulting 

from the associated spike in exploration activity), and improvements in secondary and enhanced recovery 

technologies. Enhanced recovery techniques using carbon dioxide are proposed to be used in the Belle Creek 

Consolidated unit (Muddy formation) and may also be used in the Cedar Creek Anticline (Red River and other 

formations). In addition, there have been studies (Wang, Luo, Er, and Huan 2010) that indicate that carbon 

dioxide enhanced oil recovery (EOR) practices could be used to recover more oil from the Bakken formation.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-80

Communitization Agreements 

Communitization agreements may be authorized when a federal or Indian Trust lease cannot be independently 

developed and operated in conformity with an established well-spacing or well-development program. The 

purpose of the communitization agreement is to protect the federal or Indian Trust mineral interests within the 

spacing unit and to provide a mechanism to ensure that the proper federal or Indian Trust royalties are paid. In 

Montana, the circumstances described below can constitute justification for communitization. 

• Communitization is required to form a drilling unit that conforms to acceptable spacing patterns 

established by state or BLM order. 

• Adequate engineering or geological data is presented to indicate that communitizing two or more 

leases or unleased federal, tribal, or allotted acreage will result in more efficient reservoir management 

of an area. 

• Communitization is required when the logical spacing for a well includes both unit and non-unit land.

As of October 17, 2011, there were 287 active communitization agreements lying within the planning area, 

encompassing approximately 110,700 acres (Map 96). Approximately 24 percent of these communitization 

agreements were established for communitized areas 640 acres or greater in size, and the remaining 76 percent 

were established for areas of less than 640 acres in size.

TYPICAL DRILLING AND COMPLETION SEQUENCE 

Before an oil or gas well is drilled, an APD must be approved by the MBOGC (http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/). If the 

well will be located on, or is designed to penetrate, federal or Indian Trust mineral lands, an APD must also be 

approved by the BLM. Not every approved application results in the drilling and completion of a well (because 

of possible change in an operator’s drilling plans). The drilling and completion sequence for a targeted reservoir 

in the planning area generally involves: 

• constructing the well pad and associated reserve pits and the access road prior to moving the drilling 

equipment on to the well location; 

• using rotary equipment, hardened drill bits, weighted drill pipe or collars, and drilling fluids to cool 

and lubricate the drill bit, which all result in easier penetration of the earth’s surface; 

• geosteering the drill bit to maintain correct hole trajectory for horizontal wellbores; 

• inserting casing to protect the subsurface and control the flow of fluids (oil, gas, and water) from the 

reservoir; 

• perforating the well casing at the depth of the producing formation to allow the flow of fluids from the 

formation into the borehole (many horizontal well completions do not contain casing in the horizontal 

part of the borehole); 

• hydraulically fracturing or acidizing the formation to increase permeability and the deliverability of oil 

and gas to the borehole; 

• inserting tubing into each well to allow for the controlled flow of fluids (oil, gas, and water) from the 

reservoir to the surface; 

• installing a wellhead at the surface to regulate and monitor fluid flow and prevent potentially 

dangerous blowouts; 

• reclaiming the portions of the well pad and access road that will not be used in the production phase of 

the well; and 

• reclaiming the entire pad and access road after the well has ceased production and is plugged and 

abandoned. 

The cost of developing conventional deposits of oil and gas in the Rocky Mountain region is higher than the 

average for the onshore 48 contiguous states (Cleveland 2003). Factors that may contribute to higher costs in 

the planning area could be: 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-81

• changes in rig availability, 

• changes in development priority as industry focus on certain plays evolves with new discoveries and 

changes in oil and gas price, 

• harsh environments (particularly cold temperatures), and 

• labor market conditions.

Drilling improvements have occurred in new rotary rig types, coiled tubing, drilling fluids, and borehole 

condition monitoring during the drilling operation. Improvements in technology are allowing directional and 

horizontal drilling use in many applications. New bit types have boosted drilling productivity and efficiency. 

New casing designs have reduced the number of casing strings required. The environmental benefits of drilling 

and completion technology advances include:

• smaller footprints , drilling multiple wells from a single pad (less surface disturbance), 

• reduced noise and visual impact, 

• less frequent maintenance and workovers of producing wells with less associated waste, 

• reduced fuel use and associated emissions, 

• enhanced well control for greater worker safety and protection of groundwater resources, 

• less time on site with fewer associated environmental impacts,

• lower toxicity of discharges, and 

• better protection of sensitive environments and habitat. 

DRAINAGE PROTECTION 

Producing oil and gas wells may cause drainage (migration of hydrocarbons toward the borehole) from nearby, 

off-lease lands. This drainage may result in the loss of oil and gas from those lands and result in loss of royalty 

revenues for affected mineral landowners. Drainage is most often avoided or reduced by the establishment of 

communitization agreements, paying of compensatory royalty, or by the drilling of a protective well. By 

protecting federal, tribal, and allotted mineral lands from drainage, the federal government may stimulate 

drilling and development activity in an area and help to ensure timely and more efficient management of the 

producing reservoir.

HISTORICAL DRILLING AND COMPLETION ACTIVITY AND TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED

Historically, the Cedar Creek Anticline and the Northeastern Montana Williston Basin area have experienced 

the majority of drilling and development activity in the planning area (Map 95). According to the MBOGC 

database, there were approximately 3,253 producing wells in the planning area as of October 2011. Of those 

3,253 wells, 83 percent or 2,966 of those wells are located within the Northeastern area (as defined by the 

MBOGC), which includes the Williston Basin geologic area and the Cedar Creek Anticline. 

The earliest drilling in the planning area occurred in 1901 in Rosebud and Carter counties (both of these wells 

were plugged and abandoned). In 1914 a gas well was drilled in Dawson County (Gas City Field), and two 

more gas wells were drilled in Dawson County in 1915. In 1916 gas wells were drilled in Dawson and Fallon 

counties (Gas City and Cedar Creek fields). By the late 1920s, every county in the field office area except 

Treasure and McCone had a well drilled within their boundaries (Map 95). A well was drilled in Treasure 

County in 1947 and in McCone County in 1952. 

PRODUCING ZONES

There are 205 recognized oil and gas fields in the planning area. They range in size from the 95,000-acre Cedar 

Creek field to numerous small fields of 160 to 640 acres. The fields are designated by the MBOGC which 

names the fields and establishes the spacing and other rules for the fields (Montana Code Annotated [MCA]

36.22.702).The field boundary for the current Bakken play in what is commonly known as the Elm Coulee field 

of Montana has not been established by the MBOGC as of October 2011. Although the spacing for the Bakken 

in Montana is commonly set for each individual spacing unit as either 640 or 1,280 acres, there have been a few 

2,560-acre spacing units established.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-82

Oil and gas has been produced in many of the geologic formations, or members of formations, within the 

planning area. These producing zones range in age from the oldest (Cambrian Deadwood formation), upward in 

time to the Tertiary Fort Union formation. Figure 4 illustrates the regional stratigraphic column and 

stratigraphic relationships of producing zones within the planning area. The MBOGC (2010) has reported that 

the top five cumulative oil-producing zones (2000 to 2010) by percentage were: 

• Siluro-Ordovician (42 percent),

• Bakken formation (23 percent),

• Red River formation (17 percent),

• Ratcliffe formation (3 percent), and

• Nisku formation (2 percent).

The MBOGC (2011b) reports cumulative gas production by formation. The top five gas-producing zones by 

percentage the 10 years from 2000 through 2010 were: 

• Eagle (34 percent), 

• Bakken (14 percent),

• Red River (11 percent),

• Siluro-Ordovician (9 percent), and

• Carney Coal (5 percent).

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 

“Technology has historically contributed significantly to the ability of the petroleum industry to find, develop, 

and produce natural gas resources” (National Petroleum Council 2003). The following types of technology are

expected to improve (with varying rates): 

• exploration well success rate,

• development well success rate,

• estimated ultimate recovery per well,

• drilling cost reduction,

• completion cost reduction,

• initial production rate,

• infrastructure cost reduction, and

• fixed operation cost reduction. 

The MBOGC (2011b) makes information available about all spud and drilled oil and gas wells for all counties 

within the MCFO planning area. This data was used to prepare Table 5, which shows wells drilled per year 

(2000 to 2010) by county lying within or partially within the planning area.

The National Petroleum Council (1999) suggested that access restrictions can add $25,000 to the average cost 

of drilling a well in the Rocky Mountains. The estimated average costs to drill a well as a result of access 

restrictions has likely significantly increased based upon today’s present-value dollars. The National Petroleum 

Council also suggested access restrictions delay drilling activity by an average of 2 years.

HISTORICAL DRILLING AND COMPLETION ACTIVITY 

There have been approximately 12,412 surface well locations (this number does not include permitted wells or 

permitted injection wells) spud or completed in the planning area through October 2011 (MBOGC 2011b). Of 

the 12,412 wells (including horizontal wells) drilled in the planning area, about 2,301 wells, or 18.5 percent, 

appear to have been drilled on BLM-administered oil and gas lands.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-83

Source: MBOGC 2011a

FIGURE 4. 

GENERALIZED STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN SHOWING THE STRATIGRAPHIC 

RELATIONSHIPS OF PRODUCING FORMATIONS WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-84

Table 5 shows that three counties within the MCFO planning area contain the majority all wells drilled between 

2000 and 2010 (Big Horn, Fallon, and Richland). The majority of the wells drilled in Big Horn County were 

CBNG wells, the majority of the wells in Richland County were horizontal Bakken formation wells, and the 

wells in Fallon County were predominately a mix of Eagle formation gas wells and horizontal Red River 

formation wells. 

The MBOGC separates drilling and production summaries in Montana into five areas: Northern Montana, 

Central, South Central, Northeastern, and Southeastern. Parts or all of these areas are within the planning area 

boundary. Table 6 shows the well numbers for the last 10 years (2000 to 2010) drilled in these areas.

Of the 12,412 wells drilled within the MCFO area, 940 have been drilled within the boundaries of an Indian 

Reservation.

About 50 percent (6,198 wells) of the 12,412 wells drilled have been plugged and abandoned (this includes 

wells within the boundaries on an Indian Reservation) and their surface locations have been reclaimed or are in 

the process of final reclamation. Wells have been abandoned because: 

• they were dry, which means that no hydrocarbons were encountered, hydrocarbons were not present in 

economic quantities, or mechanical difficulties within a borehole prevented economic oil and gas 

production; or 

• they initially were capable of producing hydrocarbons but became uneconomic to produce at a later 

date or were used in EOR projects (injection and dump flood wells) as salt water disposal wells or 

water source wells and were no longer needed for those purposes. 

As of the date of this study, approximately 52 percent (6,483 wells) of the 12,412 wells are still in use for 

different purposes. Approximately 85 wells (0.68 percent) have been spud but not completed, 2,102 (16.9 

percent) are producing oil wells, 1,027 (8.2 percent) are producing gas wells, 579 (4.6 percent) are producing 

TABLE 5.

WELLS DRILLED IN THE PLANNING AREA BY COUNTY

County

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total

Big Horn 77 41 22 188 43 163 325 70 72 19 5 1,025

Carter 3 1 2 4 6 1 0 1 3 0 0 21

Custer 1 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

Daniels 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 6

Dawson 0 0 9 3 7 9 4 0 0 4 2 38

Fallon 73 105 80 120 133 138 98 120 87 22 67 1,043

Garfield 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 6

McCone 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 8

Powder 

River 2 19 4 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 34

Prairie 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

Richland 6 24 22 47 98 144 161 123 71 14 42 752

Roosevelt 11 6 6 7 7 4 12 11 9 2 9 84

Rosebud 4 5 14 10 4 1 2 4 6 3 2 55

Sheridan 6 13 5 7 6 17 6 16 8 3 10 97

Valley 1 10 6 5 2 3 8 2 7 21 15 80

Wibaux 8 7 0 4 2 3 15 1 0 0 0 40

Total 194 236 180 399 313 489 635 352 263 89 153 3,303
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-85

CBNG wells, and 139 (1 percent) are being used for oil- and gas-related disposal. The rest of the wells are being 

used for other purposes, are shut-in, or are temporarily abandoned.

HISTORICAL DRILLING FOOTAGES AND RIG COUNTS 

The Land Rig Newsletter (RigData 2008a) reported that in 2007, the United States onshore achieved more than 

68 million feet of hole drilled, which was a record year. In 2007 in the Rocky Mountains, drilling footage was 

close to 15.5 million feet. The Land Rig Newsletter (RigData 2008a) also reported that, while conventional 

vertical footage dropped, non-vertical footage increased with directional and horizontal footage both exceeding 

11.5 million feet. Horizontal drilling was up 46 percent in 2007 with North Dakota contributing to that increase. 

The Bakken formation play in North Dakota and Montana was responsible for 801,421 feet of non-vertical 

drilling in the 4th quarter of 2007 (RigData 2008a). The Land Rig Newsletter (RigData 2008a) projected that the 

rig count in the United States would stay flat but show an increase in footage as much as 16 million additional 

feet drilled due to greater productivity per rig. Most of this footage increase was expected to be caused by nonvertical wells and pad drilling. The Land Rig Newsletter (RigData 2008a) reports that capacity constraints for 

equipment were a factor that tended to restrain activity in 2005 and 2006 while in 2007 an industry-wide 

bottleneck was tied to a lack of people at every level.

Nationwide, rig counts have been increasing since late 2002 (Schlumberger Ltd. 2008). Rig counts for the 

planning area generally have not followed the national trend (MPA 2011). The chart of rig counts shows that 

fewer than 10 rigs were working in Montana in January of 2000 and the overall trend since that time was 

upward to a high of more than 20 rigs in 2005 before falling to a count of 9 in November of 2011(MPA 2011) 

(Figure 5).

HISTORICAL PRODUCTION 

The DOE-EIA (2011) indicated that Montana’s crude oil production for 2010 amounted to about 1.3 percent of 

total United States production. Gas production in 2009 amounted to about 0.5 percent of total United States 

production (DOE-EIA 2011). 

Data from the MBOGC (2011b) was used to compile cumulative production by county (data from 1996 through 

August 2011) (Table 7). As of August 2011, more than 329,263,475 barrels of oil and more than 558,401,479 

thousand cubic feet of natural gas and associated gas had been produced (Table 7).

Oil and gas production for the last 10 years is shown in Tables 8 and 9 for the top five producing oil and gas 

fields in the planning area. The locations of those top five producing oil and gas fields are indicated in Map 97.

BAKKEN FORMATION PRODUCTION 

Additional production information for the Bakken formation, the current hot play in the planning area, is 

presented in this section. The Bakken formation is currently producing oil and associated gas in 28 of the 213 

fields within the planning area. Cumulative production through December 2010 is 107,216,812 barrels of oil 

and almost 83 billion cubic feet of gas (MBOGC 2011b). The MBOGC (2011b) reports 40 historic operators of 

Bakken formation production. In 2010 operators produced 11,882,564 barrels of oil from 785 active wells 

(MBOGC 2011b). 

Through August 2011, the five largest producers of Bakken formation oil accounted for 83.2 percent of total 

Bakken formation cumulative production in Montana. These companies’ cumulative Bakken formation 

production through August 2011 and percentage of cumulative production are in Table 10. The companies with 

the largest number of Bakken wells are shown in Table 11. 
MIN-86

TABLE6.

Development ScenarioFluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable MINERALS APPENDIX

TYPE OF WELLSDRILLED IN THE PLANNING AREA

Area Well Type Year Total 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Southeastern Area

CBNG3922211 20

Dry Hole1 142721 27

Gas3176722 28

Injection, Disposal1

1

Oil1

1

Stratigraphic Test4

4

Total7 249 15 11611511 81

Northern

Area

Dry Hole1111

4

Injection, Indian Lands1

1

Oil1132

7

Total11321211 12

Central 

Area

Dry Hole42241211 17

Gas1 138732 34

Injection, EOR1

1

Oil21211

7

Total64 16 104127522 59

South-central Area

Abandoned, Unapproved1

1

Active Injection5

5

Completed1121

5

P and A, Approved 2721121 34

Permitted Injection Well4

Producing 27 102 111 19 99 193 31 3591 537

Shut-in 22 286 80 22 61 118 3141 373

Temporarily Abandoned1215

9

Water Well, Released1

1

Total 76 418 192 45 163 323 70 40 101 969

Northeastern Area

Dry Hole54799788 1141 73

Gas 51 71 62 85 110 118 87 117 84 20 66 871

Gas Storage6

6

Injection, Disposal2232264 21

Injection, EOR8 136913623 51

Injection, Indian Lands2

2

Monitor/Observation1311

6

Oil 37 66 48 88 142 192 196 157 86 25 64 1,101

Water Source1

1

Total 104 159 130 195 264 322 304 288 186 49 131 2,132
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-87

COAL BED NATURAL GAS 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) coal map of North America identifies an area underlain by 

Cretaceous and Tertiary coal beds in the Williston Basin, which includes most of the northeastern portion of the 

planning area (USGS 2001b). However, no quantitative assessment of a potential CBNG resource associated 

with these coals has yet been performed.

Presently, there is no CBNG production in that part of the planning area nor are there any exploration activities. 

The Tertiary coals in the Fort Union have been pursued in only a very few wells across the Williston Basin, 

mostly in North Dakota. The coals rank from lignite to subbituminous and can be as thick as 105 feet. The 

depths of these coals targeted for CBNG production range from surface to approximately 750 feet. Three 

operators have drilled 12 CBNG tests in the Williston Basin in North Dakota. Several wells have had shows of 

CBNG but no production has occurred. The methane content was evaluated in only a few wells and has been in 

the 5 to 10 thousand cubic feet per short-ton range, which is approximately one-fifth to one-tenth of the 

methane content in PRB coal beds. Although CBNG is not believed to be widespread across the basin and its 

commercial potential is believed to be limited, this resource could be a future development in the Williston 

Basin.

Williston Basin CBNG development is still in the assessment stage with development over the next 20 years 

expected to include only limited drilling for testing purposes. The number of test wells to be drilled is expected 

to be between 1 and 5 per year; subsequently, between 20 and 100 CBNG test borings are expected over the 

next 20 years although none are expected to result in commercially producing wells. 

Currently, the Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership is evaluating the efficacy of carbon sequestration through 

injection of carbon dioxide into an unminable lignite coal bed in northwestern North Dakota (PCRP 2008; 

NETL 2007). A test pod of five wells was drilled in August of 2007 in Burke County, North Dakota, and are 

Rig count as of November 11, 2011

Montana: 9

North Dakota: 185

Wyoming: 52

FIGURE 5.

RIG COUNTS FOR MONTANA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND WYOMING

Montana Rig Count North Dakota Rig Count Wyoming Rig Count
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-88

classified by the North Dakota Industrial 

Commission (2008) as exploratory CBNG wells. 

If successful, the results of the study will likely 

provide future incentive to CBNG producers 

when and if CBNG reserves are discovered 

through more extensive exploratory drilling 

programs. 

The oil and gas development potential for the 

PRB area within the planning area was defined 

for the 2003 Final Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans and there have 

been no changes to CBNG resource assessments 

since that document was released. The level of 

CBNG development in the Montana portion of 

the PRB since the 2003 Final Statewide Oil and 

Gas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and 

Billings Resource Management Plans has 

increased at the CX Field from 258 wells on 

March 30, 2003, to 1,111 wells as of November 

2011. The 2003 Final Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings 

Resource Management Plans predicted that by 

year eight (2011), there would be 40 percent of the anticipated CBNG wells drilled (5 percent per year), which 

would be approximately 1,958 to 7,140 new CBNG wells. Although this level of development was based on 

four wells per location, current drilling practice is to drill mono-bore wells, which reduces the number of wells 

from four to one per location. In addition, the development of CBNG in Montana has been slowed by several 

lawsuits against state and 

federal agencies and 

operators, which have 

resulted in delays in 

approving PODs and 

APDs and changes in the 

methods allowed for 

handling of produced 

water. Based on the 

current level of CBNG 

activity and age of these 

wells (most are reaching 

10 years of age, and the 

average economic life of 

the wells was predicted to 

be 15 years) it is apparent 

that the level of predicted 

CBNG development stated 

in the 2003 Final

Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact 

Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder 

TABLE 7.

CUMULATIVE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION BY

COUNTY

County Oil 

(barrels)

Natural 

Gas 

(thousand 

cubic feet)

Associated 

Gas 

(thousand 

cubic feet)

Big Horn 1,050,078 119,116,699 0

Carter 192,352 338,609 0

Custer 0 2,303,953

Daniels 216,200 17,600

Dawson 6,777,769 2,905,598

Fallon 98,662,000 201,770,583 49,921,329

Garfield 294,414 28,324

McCone 217,228 0

Powder 

River 3,812,793 1,862,211 246,182

Prairie 1,394,249 16,018 158,488

Richland 149,027,629 253 123,353,349

Roosevelt 22,732,355 12,386,981

Rosebud 5,513,933 301,748

Sheridan 25,757,421 14,289,801

Valley 2,358,969 19,029,762 542,147

Wibaux 11,256,085 6,697,167 3,114,677

Total 329,263,475 351,135,255 207,266,224

Per day 60,139 64,134 37,856

TABLE 8.

TOP FIVE OIL-PRODUCING FIELDS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Year

Field and Production (barrels of oil)

Elm Coulee Pennel

Lookout 

Butte, East 

Unit

Pine Cabin 

Creek

2000 21,164 1,770,190 1,311,896 775,497 1,058,929

2001 277,784 2,055,601 1,271,163 885,723 1,138,964

2002 798,075 2,162,961 1,513,921 967,282 1,177,825

2003 2,765,074 2,387,645 1,829,382 1,175,582 1,145,014

2004 7,769,572 2,350,383 2,255,344 1,216,487 1,069,066

2005 15,929,115 2,291,314 2,484,127 1,186,271 988,559

2006 18,989,352 2,317,896 2,514,331 1,197,994 941,863

2007 18,188,363 2,193,817 2,211,706 1,076,639 897,818

2008 15,603,342 1,962,124 1,838,275 996,771 865,969

2009 13,307,391 1,767,334 1,485,643 922,775 836,364

2010 11,456,131 1,576,305 1,206,169 1,050,496 781,043

Total 105,105,363 22,835,570 19,921,957 11,451,517 10,901,414
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-89

River and Billings Resource Management Plans will not occur. A more reasonable prediction for the level of 

development over the next 20 years would be approximately 1,100 additional wells, for a total of approximately 

2,200 CBNG wells drilled.

MARGINAL WELLS 

Low-volume oil and gas wells, 

known as marginal or stripper 

wells, contribute an important 

percentage of the hydrocarbons 

produced in the United States. 

In 2006, about 29 percent of 

crude oil production and more 

than 10 percent of natural gas 

production was credited to 

marginal wells (Duda, Covatch, 

Remson, and Wang 2005). In 

2006, their contribution had 

decreased to approximately 18 

and 9 percent, respectively, 

which is still an important 

contribution to the nation's 

supply (Interstate Oil and Gas 

Compact Commission 2007). 

Producing oil or natural gas 

wells are considered to be 

marginal when their producing 

rate is at or near the limit of profitability. The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (2007) defines 

marginal or stripper wells as wells that are producing 10 or fewer barrels of oil per day and no more than 60,000 

cubic feet per day of natural gas. 

The majority of marginal wells are owned, maintained, and produced by independent operators rather than 

integrated exploration and production firms that operate globally. Operators of marginal wells account for a 

large proportion of the jobs and corresponding economic growth associated with the petroleum industry in this 

country (Duda et al. 2005). The Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (2007) estimates in that in 2006, 

nine jobs were created for every $1.26 

million of marginal oil and gas production. 

As long as these wells remain productive, 

there are additional opportunities to use 

advanced technology to enhance recovery.

In 2006, Montana received about 

$10,605,260 in marginal oil production tax 

revenue (Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission 2007). By contrast, North 

Dakota received $6,547,114 and South 

Dakota received $133,131 in marginal oil 

production tax revenue the same year. In 

2006, marginal gas production revenues 

(using the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission's definition of a marginal gas 

well) totaled approximately $535,702 for 

Montana, $53,359 for North Dakota, and 

$123,516 for South Dakota.

TABLE 9.

TOP FIVE GAS-PRODUCING FIELDS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Year

Field and 

Production (thousand cubic feet)

Cedar 

Creek CX Elm Coulee Pennel Pine Gas

2000 5,859,951 3,604,069 11,560 412,246 1,109,195

2001 7,010,882 8,089,123 164,027 502,204 986,364

2002 10,515,392 9,679,910 480,857 546,400 794,501

2003 13,310,664 7,229,945 1,379,061 568,703 690,760

2004 16,820,770 12,241,134 3,509,296 576,210 595,739

2005 21,288,100 11,629,937 9,257,236 618,801 520,017

2006 22,397,078 11,677,048 12,624,581 961,759 455,436

2007 21,665,317 12,579,287 14,549,683 3,193,095 409,259

2008 20,997,538 12,566,451 14,377,584 6,020,326 364,647

2009 18,096,858 10,914,757 13,872,361 6,195,816 332,761

2010 15,698,229 8,717,200 12,721,260 5,069,710 267,601

Total 173,660,779 108,928,861 82,947,506 24,665,270 6,526,280

TABLE 10.

BAKKEN FORMATION PRODUCTION OF THE FIVE

LARGEST PRODUCERS

Company

Cumulative 

Production (barrels 

of oil)

Percentage 

of 

Cumulative

Production 

(%)

Enerplus Resources 

(USA) Corporation 31,575,008 30

XTO Energy, 

Incorporated 22,967,053 22

Continental Resources, 

Incorporated 20,742,189 19

Burlington Resources 

O&G Company, LP 8,371,242 8

EOG Resources, 

Incorporated 5,044,923 5
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-90

SUMMARY OF CURRENT DRILLING TECHNIQUES 

Developments in drilling techniques have allowed for more widespread use of directional and horizontal drilling 

technology. Although directional drilling has many benefits, it also has limitations. For example, some benefits 

of horizontal drilling may include the avoidance of sensitive or inaccessible surface features (resulting in greater 

protection of sensitive environments), an increase in the area that a wellbore contacts a producing formation 

(resulting in greater recovery efficiencies), and, when multiple directional wells are drilled from the same 

vertical wellbore or from the same surface location, a reduction in drilling time and associated waste volumes 

and emissions.

There are currently 6,181 active wells 

in the planning area. The largest of the 

operators (by number of active wells) 

is Fidelity Exploration & Production 

Company (1,835 wells operated), 

followed by Denbury Onshore, LLC 

(1,405 wells), Burlington Resources 

(214 wells), and Enerplus Resources 

Corporation (203 wells) (MBOGC 

2011) (Table 12).

DIRECTIONAL AND 

HORIZONTAL DRILLING AND 

COMPLETION ACTIVITY 

Drilling and completion costs for 

directional and horizontal wells are 

typically significantly higher than for 

conventional vertical boreholes, even when the cost savings associated with reduced need for surface 

disturbance is considered. Eustes (2003) and Fritz, Horn, and Joshi (1991) identified the following specialized 

requirements and risk factors unique to horizontal and directional drilling that can affect drilling and completion 

costs for these types of wells: 

• specialized equipment (e.g., mud motors, measurement while drilling tools) and specially trained 

personnel;

• a larger drilling rig and 

associated equipment;

• casing and drilling string 

modifications to address 

problems associated with 

ovality and bending stresses; 

• increased risk of borehole 

damage due to unique 

tectonic stresses; 

• lengthened overall drilling 

time on location because 

more hole is drilled in Sshaped boreholes and 

horizontal boreholes 

compared to vertical wells; 

• increased torque and drag on 

borehole equipment; and, 

• lengthened overall drilling time on location compared to vertical wells because of slower penetration 

rates due to increased torque and drag in directional and horizontal wellbores (however, increased 

operator and driller experience with horizontal drilling has resulted in decreased drilling times in 

North Dakota over the past several years). 

TABLE 11.

NUMBER OF WELLS DRILLED BY COMPANY IN THE

BAKKEN FORMATION

Company Number 

of Wells

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation 200

Continental Resources, Incorporated 148

XTO Energy, Incorporated 137

Burlington Resources O&G Company, LP 59

Newfield Production Company 40

EOG Resources, Incorporated 40

SM Energy Company 37

Slawson Exploration Company, Incorporated 27

Petro-Hunt, LLC 17

Oasis Petroleum North America, LLC 10

TABLE 12.

LARGEST OPERATING COMPANIES IN

THE PLANNING AREA

Company Number of 

Wells

Fidelity Exploration & Production Company 1,835

Denbury Onshore, LLC 1,405

Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, LP 214

Enerplus Resources USA Corporation 203

TAQA North USA, Incorporated 200

Continental Resources, Incorporated 195

Summit Gas Resources, Incorporated 193

SM Energy Company 180

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company 179

XTO Energy, Incorporated 159
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-91

In addition to increased costs, the risk of losing the well because of geologic or mechanical failures is also 

greater in directional and, particularly, horizontal boreholes than in conventional vertical boreholes. As a result 

of these increased costs and risk, operators tend to prefer vertical over directional or horizontal boreholes unless 

special circumstances exist that make such drilling a necessity or economically attractive. For example, the 

geology of a reservoir may be such that a vertical borehole may only contact a few feet of the productive 

horizon, while a horizontal borehole may be able to contact tens to thousands of feet (depending on factors such 

as how the well is completed and the areal extent of the pool). In a case such as this, the operator must make the 

determination that the increased potential for productivity outweighs the increased drilling costs and inherent 

risks involved in directional and horizontal drilling.

The majority of oil and gas wells in the planning area have traditionally been drilled vertically. Of the 12,412

wells drilled (this number does not include permitted wells or permitted injection wells) in the planning area, 

10,794 were vertical wells and 1,581 

were drilled as horizontal wells or 

horizontal re-drills (MBOGC 2011b) 

(Table 13). Of the current producing 

wells in the planning area, 2,539 were 

vertical wells and 1,165 were drilled as 

horizontal wells or horizontal re-drills 

(MBOGC 2011b) (Table 14).

The vertical wells producing in the 

planning area are completed in a variety 

of formations for both gas and oil. To 

date, the most productive horizons 

completions have been those of the Red 

River, Eagle, Bakken, and Muddy formations (Table 15).

Vertical well depths in Montana range from a few hundred feet in the south-central portion of the planning area 

to over 13,000 feet in the Williston Basin in Richland County. The deepest currently producing well is the 

Bakken Larson 24-2 vertical well, which was drilled in 1979 to a depth of 13,400 feet in T. 21 N, R 58 E, sec. 2. 

The well reached a total vertical depth of 13,400 feet and is currently producing from the Duperow formation.

In the 10-year period from January 2000 

to December 2010, a total of 18 

directional wells and 996 horizontal 

wellbores were drilled in Montana 

(MBOGC 2011b). The majority of the 

currently producing horizontal wells in 

the planning area are producing oil from 

the Ordovician Red River formation and 

the Upper Devonian-Lower 

Mississippian Bakken formation, a 

horizontal play in North Dakota,

Montana, and Saskatchewan that 

recently has been the focus of drilling in 

the area. 

SUMMARY OF MOST RECENT 

HORIZONTAL BAKKEN FORMATION PLAY 

The Bakken formation is a Devonian- to Mississippian-age sedimentary unit consisting of organic rich shale in 

the upper and lower members (11 percent average total organic carbon) and a calcareous sandstone middle 

member (Sonnenberg 2007). The shaly facies is considered a world-class source rock and was once considered 

to be one of several hydrocarbon sources for the Mississippian oils in the Williston Basin. The formation's 

TABLE 13.

TYPE OF WELLS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Well Type Number of Well Type

Directional 35

Directional (Canceled Horizontal) 2

Horizontal 1,267

Horizontal Re-drill/Re-entry 314

Vertical 10,732

Vertical (Canceled Horizontal Redrill) 50

Vertical (Canceled Horizontal) 12

Total 12,412

TABLE 14.

TYPE OF CURRENT PRODUCING WELLS IN THE

PLANNING AREA

Well Type-Current Producing 

Wells

Numbers of Producing 

Wells

Directional 18

Horizontal 996

Horizontal Re-drill/Re-entry 169

Vertical 2,519

Vertical (Canceled Horizontal Redrill) 19

Vertical (Canceled Horizontal) 1

Total 3,722
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-92

thickness varies locally and throughout the Williston Basin but generally follows the expected trend of 

thickening toward the basin's depositional center, reaching a maximum thickness of 145 feet (Webster 1992).

The Elm Coulee Field, located in the Richland County portion of the 

western Williston Basin, has been informally named by the MBOGC to 

cover Bakken (Lower Mississippian/Upper Devonian) formation 

production in the county not located under previously designated field 

areas. Over 720 horizontal development wells have been drilled since 

the field’s initial horizontal producer was drilled in 2000 by LYCO 

Energy. Reservoir engineering decline curve analyses conducted by the 

MCFO suggest ultimate reserves for Bakken formation horizontal wells 

can exceed 1.5 million barrels of oil with an average of approximately 

300,000 barrels of oil per well. From wells drilled to date, the field is 

expected to produce in excess of 270 million barrels of oil from an area 

of over 550 square miles. The field is currently producing over 980,000 

barrels of oil per month (more than 33,000 barrels per day) and has 

produced over 100 million barrels of oil since its discovery in 2000 

(Figure 6). Current and planned exploratory drilling activity may expand 

the limits of the field dramatically.

One or two wells are currently drilled in each spacing unit in the field, 

which range in size from 320 to 1,960 acres, with most wells drilled on 

640- and 1,280-acre spacing units. Vertical drilling depths range from 

less than 8,500 feet in the northwest portion of the field to more than 

10,500 feet in the southeast portion. Up to three horizontal laterals are 

drilled from each vertical well to a lateral distance of from 1,600 feet to 

over 10,000 feet. Horizontal drilling and large fracture treatment 

stimulations are keys to developing economically viable reserves from 

this field, with prior Bakken production from vertical wells in the area 

having been generally very disappointing.

The field is primarily a stratigraphic trap developed in the Middle member of the Bakken formation with a 

variable and uncertain contribution of production from the overlying, fractured Upper Shale member of the 

Bakken. The Middle Bakken member appears to be the principal reservoir and is primarily a variably silty, 

dolomite with scattered pyrite and anhydrite and with increasing argillaceous content toward its base. The 

Middle Bakken reservoir appears to have developed diagenetically within a large and complex carbonate bar or 

bank accumulation that extends over 130 miles from northwest to southeast, ranging from 6 to 15 miles in width 

and up to 35 feet thick (thinner and narrower to the southeast). This field is complex and variably productive 

throughout its length and extends from northwestern Richland County, Montana, to southwestern Dunn County, 

North Dakota, parallel to and basin-ward of the southwestern margin of the Middle Bakken depositional basin. 

Structurally, in its length of more than 60 miles across Richland County, the Bakken pay zone dips about 2,000 

feet in vertical relief from northwest to southeast, traversing over a few small, local structural closures that often 

produce from deeper Devonian, Silurian and Ordovician reservoirs (Walker, Powell, Rollins, and Shaffer 2006).

The top 10 Bakken producers in Montana through 2010 are shown in Table 16 (IHS Energy 2010). 

The first oil produced from the Bakken formation in the state came from the Patrick Petroleum Corporation of 

Michigan’s COGC BN Number 1 well in the Enid North Field, Richland County (MBOGC 2011b). This was a 

vertical well completed July 9, 1981, in the Bakken formation that yielded an initial 46 barrels of oil per day. 

This well produced 40,687 barrels of oil in 9 years of production and was abandoned in 1993. The first 

producing Bakken well still producing is the Genesis ST Operating, LLC BN 9-27 vertical well in the Spring 

Lake Field of Richland County, which begin production in 1981 and has produced 292,466 barrels of oil 

through June of 2011.

TABLE 15.

TOP TWENTY PRODUCING

FORMATIONS

Formation Number 

of Wells

Red River 1,156

Eagle 1,098

Bakken 673

Muddy/Silt/Sh/Sd 551

Ratcliffe 435

Judith River 351

Mission Canyon 265

Carney 233

Monarch 232

Red River B Zone 224

Dietz 1 194

Stoney Mountain 144

Silurian 140

Madison 133

Nisku 130

Charles 116

Tyler 110

Dietz 3 108

Dietz 2 85

Dakota 83
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-93

The first horizontal drilling of the 

Bakken began in 1987, specifically 

targeting the upper shale member (IHS 

Energy Group 2008; LeFever 2005a). 

Most of this drilling was also 

concentrated in the Bakken Fairway, and 

like the previous drilling completed in 

the Bakken that area, successful wells 

relied heavily on encountering natural 

fractures. The difference between this 

and previous activity is that the 

horizontal wellbores allowed for greater 

contact with the productive upper shale 

member and associated fractures. 

Successfully completed wells typically 

produced high volumes of oil and little or 

no water and were capable of initial 

production exceeding 1,900 barrels of oil 

per day (LeFever 2005a). One 

particularly interesting development 

during this time was the discovery that the natural fractures were so well interconnected that the producing 

horizontal wells could affect production from vertical wells as much as 3,000 feet away (LeFever 2005a).

The biggest constraint on productivity for both vertical and horizontal wells located in the Bakken Fairway is 

reliance on encountering natural fractures in the reservoir. This reliance is influenced by two factors: first, the 

Bakken shale is an oil-wet reservoir and does not respond well to water-based fracture stimulation; and second, 

acidizing treatments will often react with the iron sulfide (pyrite) in the shales precipitating iron hydroxide, 

sufficiently choking production. 

TABLE 16.

TOP TEN BAKKEN OIL PRODUCERS THROUGH 2010

Company

Cumulative 

Production (barrels 

of oil)

Enerplus Resources (USA) Corporation 27,807,740

XTO Energy, Incorporated 20,615,631

Continental Resources, Incorporated 18,258,669

Burlington Resources O&G Company, 

LP 7,573,015

EOG Resources, Incorporated 4,500,927

SM Energy Company 4,319,287

Slawson Exploration Company, 

Incorporated 3,857,565

Newfield Production Company 3,149,578

Petro-Hunt, LLC 1,916,150

Denbury Onshore, LLC 1,389,519

2030

2000 2015 2020

100

2005 2010

Time

10

1

2035 2040 2045

10,000

1,000

FIGURE 6.

ELM COULEE BAKKEN DECLINE CURVE

Economic limit: 04/2036

Economic life: 428 mo

Future net revenue: $11,188,010

Present worth: $3,336,264

Rate of return: 23.937%

Return on invest: 2.60

Payout date: 02/2004

Oil at effective date: 4,929 barrels

Oil at economic limit: 68 barrels

Rem oil (decline): 273,140 barrels

Ult oil (decline): 315,359 barrels

Oil decline at effective date: 

24.96%

Cumulative oil at effective date: 

42,220 barrels

Water at effective date: 0 barrels

Water at economic limit: 0 barrels

Rem water (decline): 29,468 barrels

Ult water (decline) 36,473

Water decline at effective date: 

0.00%

Cumulative water at effective date: 

7,005 barrels

Inj at effective date: 0 barrels

Inj at economic limit: 0 barrels

Rem inj (decline): 0 barrels

Ult inj (decline): 0 barrels

Inj decline at effective date: 0.00%

Cumulative inj at effective date: 0 

barrels

Gas at effective date: 0 thousand 

cubic feet

Gas at economic limit: 26 

thousand cubic feet

Rem gas (decline): 206,079 

thousand cubic feet

Gas decline at effective date: 

0.00%

Cumulative gas at effective date: 

21,218 thousand cubic feet

Monthly Rate (barrels of oil)

2025
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-94

The reliance on encountering natural fractures for Bakken production changed with the latest Bakken drilling 

activity that began in Montana in 2000. Up to that time, interest in the Bakken as a reservoir had been limited to 

its organic-rich upper member shales. It is the calcareous sandstone middle member that is the current focus of 

industry. While previously known to be rich in hydrocarbons, its relative thinness prevented it from being a 

viable target until recent advances in horizontal drilling and fracture stimulation technology turned the middle 

member from a once overlooked unit into one of deep interest to operators in the region (Petzet 2006). In 

Montana, horizontal Bakken Middle member wells generally consist of two 4,000 to 5,000 foot laterals from a 

shared vertical wellbore (LeFever 2005b). To avoid complications with introducing water to the system, wells 

are drilled with saturated brine drilling fluid and the horizontals or laterals are fracture stimulated with a gelled 

water-sand (LeFever 2005a). Fracture proppant amounts are generally in the 600,000 to 1,400,000 pound range 

depending on the length of the lateral (Lantz and Wiley 2006). Drilling to the middle member of the Bakken 

formation in Montana has proven highly productive, often yielding wells producing an initial 500 to 700 barrels

of oil per day, dropping to 250 barrels per day with little water after a year or so of production. Resulting mostly

from this new Bakken play, cumulative annual oil production for the State of Montana more than doubled from 

a total of 15.9 million barrels in 2000 to 36.2 million barrels produced in 2006, but has since decreased to 

approximately 25 million in 2010, the latest year for which complete data is available (MBOGC 2011b).

Interest in the horizontal Bakken formation Middle member play by industry continues to grow. Oil and gas 

lease sales for the state (Richland, Roosevelt, and Sheridan counties) have increased from an average of $25.81 

per acre in March 2005, to $247.67 per acre in March 2010 (MDNRC 2011). BLM lease sales of oil and gas 

minerals show similar trends (Table 17). As of November 2011, there were 68 permitted horizontal locations 

staked for drilling by 19 different operators with the majority of the target formations listed as the Bakken 

(MBOGC 2011b).

SUMMARY OF MOST RECENT HORIZONTAL THREE FORKS FORMATION PLAY 

The Reservoir Management Group of the BLM in Casper, Wyoming, has recently revised their original 

predictions for horizontal development in North Dakota. Similar changes are expected in the Montana portion 

of the Williston Basin (see Revised Activity and Surface Disturbance Projections for the Reasonable 

Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil and Gas Activities on Bureau Managed Lands in the North Dakota 

Study Area, February 25, 2011). The final report of the Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario for Oil 

and Gas Activities on Bureau Managed Lands in the North Dakota Study Area (Final Report) was submitted to 

the Montana State Office on October 2, 2009, by the Reservoir Management Group. During the months that 

followed, new developments in well drilling and completion techniques allowed for operators to effectively 

target the Three Forks formation in a manner similar to that employed in the most recent Bakken play (see 

discussion in final North Dakota report). Since this Three Forks play was not predicted to be as productive or as 

attractive a drilling target as it later became, a supplement to the final report was made.

MULTIPLE WELLS FROM A SINGLE WELL PAD

Polling of active operators in North Dakota conducted in May 2010, indicated areas of activity in which 

development is expected to occur with an average of 1.5 wells per well pad. The areas are locations in which 

either the Bakken or Three Forks new exploratory oil well development is expected to include some multi-pad 

drilling for either Three Forks or Bakken oil, as well as areas in which existing or new Bakken wells will be colocated with Three Forks wells. It is important to note that 1.5 wells per pad is the anticipated average and that 

some well pads may have far more than the average (as many as eight according to one operator's estimate), but 

many more will be single-well pads. There is currently only one well in the planning area completed in the 

Three Forks formation. This play may spill over from North Dakota in the future. The well numbers would be 

part of the conventional well predictions. The multi-well pads may also be used in the future in Montana, which 

may reduce the surface impacts per well.

REVERSE CIRCULATION DRILLING 

Reverse circulation drilling uses a dual-wall drill string. Drilling fluid is carried to the bit between the outer and 

inner wall of the drill pipe and cuttings and fluid are returned to the surface in the inner part of the pipe. Reverse 

circulation drilling appears to be an ideal system for drilling and producing tight low- or under-pressured 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-95

formations that could be easily damaged by conventional drilling. K2 Energy of Calgary has applied this 

technology to successfully drill and test gas wells in the low-pressure (formation pressure estimated at 150 

pounds per square inch) Bow Island Formation on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation and in the Montana Thrust 

Belt (Mackay 2003). 

SLIMHOLE DRILLING AND COILED TUBING 

Slimhole drilling, a technique used to recover reserves in mature fields, has not yet been used much in the 

Rocky Mountain area. This technique has the potential to improve efficiency and reduce costs of both 

exploration and production drilling. Coiled tubing used effectively for drilling in reentry, underbalanced, and 

highly deviated wells is often used in slimhole drilling. Most coiled tubing rigs are limited to relatively shallow 

drilling. Most planning area oil wells have been historically drilled to depths greater than 5,000 feet and would 

not be as amenable to coiled tubing rigs. 

A review of coiled tubing intervention and drilling and its advantages, disadvantages, and limitations was 

presented for the DOE (2005). Most likely, future applications may be for drilling shallow development wells 

(including CBNG wells), reservoir data monitoring holes, shallow reentry wells, and deeper exploration holes 

(Spears & Associates, Inc. 2003). Brown (2006) has reported that slimhole drilling with coiled tubing may soon 

begin to replace conventional rotary drilling in the shallow depths across the United States. He reported that 

cost savings can range from 25 to 35 percent per hole and other advantages include: 

 good hole quality, 

 improved safety,

 minimal cuttings, and 

 reduced chance of damaging underpressured formations. 

Coiled tubing will most likely be first used in some workover situations in the planning area. The BLM expects 

that both of these drilling and completion techniques will be used more often in the future. The DOE (1999) has 

identified the environmental benefits of using these techniques, which include: 

• lower waste volumes, 

• smaller surface disturbance areas, 

• reduced noise and visual impacts, 

TABLE 17.

OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES FOR THE MILES CITY

FIELD OFFICE FROM 2000 TO 2011

Sale 

Date

Parcels 

Offered

Parcels 

Sold

Acreage 

Offered

Acreage 

Sold

Total Bonus 

Dollars ($)

Avg. Bonus 

Dollars per 

Acre ($)

2000 427 231 421,741 218,763 $1,462,889.50 $6.69

2001 481 178 648,808 235,855 $2,354,800.00 $9.98

2002 406 212 392,198 101,674 $626,315.00 $6.16

2003 387 68 328,968 48,166 $229,183.00 $4.76

2004 329 104 306,846 72,518 $1,003,530.00 $13.84

2005 183 66 124,994 39,464 $556,306.75 $14.10

2006 107 74 96,671 68,975 $761,115.50 $11.03

2007 339 149 521,153 159,742 $977,897.00 $6.12

2008 36 25 12,383 12,383 $707,759.50 $57.16

2009 60 59 38,297 37,537 $786,366.75 $20.95

2010 125 106 92,530 72,691 $4,521,376 $62.20

2011159 59 17,659 17,659 $3,842,666.50 $217.60

Total 2,939 1,331 3,002,248 1,085,427 $17,830,205.50 $16.42

Average 245 111 289,206 90,452 $1,485,850.45 $16.42

1Not complete 2011 year sales
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-96

• reduced fuel use and emissions, and 

• protection of sensitive environments. 

LIGHT MODULAR DRILLING RIGS AND PAD DRILLING 

Now in production, new light modular drilling rigs can be more easily used in remote areas and are quickly 

disassembled and moved. Rig components are made with lighter and stronger materials and a modular nature 

reduces the impacts of surface disturbance. Also, these rigs reduce fuel use and emissions. Use of this type of 

rig in Montana is more likely in the near future because it and other Rocky Mountain plays (western Wyoming 

and western Colorado) have a higher priority for new rigs since more prolific reservoirs are being developed in 

those locations. 

Light modular rigs also have potential for use in situations in which pad drilling is being used. Pad drilling 

refers to the drilling of multiple directional boreholes from one surface location. Pads are the flat, graded land 

surfaces that serve as the foundation for the drilling rig. Since modular rigs allow quicker breakdown and 

movement to new locations, they reduce time to drill and rig costs. Shallow drilling targets in the planning area 

are not conducive to the use of significant amounts of directional drilling so pad drilling would be unlikely in 

the area.

PNEUMATIC DRILLING 

Pneumatic drilling is a technique in which boreholes are drilled using air or other gases rather than water or 

other drilling liquids. This type of drilling can be used in mature fields and formations with low downhole 

pressures and where formations are sensitive to the fluids commonly used in drilling. Some fields in the 

planning area meet these criteria. It is an important tool that can be used when drilling horizontal wells, so it 

could be used in those types of situations in the future. This type of drilling significantly reduces waste, shortens 

drilling time, cuts surface disturbance, and decreases power consumption and emissions. 

MEASUREMENT-WHILE-DRILLING 

Measurement-while-drilling systems measure borehole and formation parameters during the actual drilling 

process. These systems allow more efficient and accurate drilling. They can reduce costs, improve safety of 

operations, reduce time on site, and reduce the number of wells that need to be drilled. At present, 

measurement-while-drilling is critical for use in drilling horizontal boreholes within the planning area. In the 

future, use of this type of drilling system may become more widespread and may be used when drilling other 

types of directional boreholes. 

IMPROVED DRILL BITS 

Advances in materials technology and bit hydraulics have yielded tremendous improvement in drilling 

performance. Latest-generation polycrystalline diamond compact bits drill 150 to 200 percent faster than similar 

bits of just a few years ago (DOE 1999). Environmental benefits of improved bits include: 

• lower waste volumes, 

• reduced maintenance and workovers, 

• reduced fuel use and emissions, 

• enhanced well control, 

• less time on site, and 

• less noise. 

Reducing time the rig is on the drill site reduces potential impacts on soils, groundwater, wildlife, and air 

quality.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-97

SUMMARY OF CURRENT COMPLETION TECHNIQUES 

Standard completion techniques for the planning area will be described below. Once the operator determines 

that a well should be completed for production, the first step is to place casing in the borehole and cement it in 

place. Since the potential producing zones are then sealed off by the casing and cement, perforations (holes 

made through the casing and cement and into the formation) are made in order for the oil or gas to flow into the 

borehole. The casing also serves to protect sources of groundwater from contamination by oilfield fluids. 

Some form of hydraulic fracturing is then usually used to improve hydrocarbon flow into the borehole. 

Hydraulic fracturing of reservoirs can enhance well performance, minimize drilling, and allow the recovery of 

otherwise inaccessible oil and gas resources. The flow of hydrocarbons is restricted in some low-permeability, 

tight formations and in nonconventional reservoirs, but can be stimulated by hydraulic fracturing to produce 

economic quantities of hydrocarbons. Fluids are initially pumped into the formation at pressures high enough to 

cause fractures to open in the reservoir rock. Sand slurry is pumped into the opened fractures, which keeps the 

fractures propped open, allowing hydrocarbons in the reservoir to more easily enter the borehole. Improvements 

such as carbon dioxide-sand fracturing, new types of additives, and fracture mapping promise more effective

fractures and greater ultimate hydrocarbon recovery.

New horizontal fracturing technology is now being used to stimulate the Bakken formation’s middle member. 

The DOE-EIA (2006c) has reported that prior to fracturing the Bakken formation, an uncemented, preperforated liner is installed in the borehole. For horizontal boreholes, a multi-stage fracture stimulation can be 

used. In some horizontal boreholes, 20 or more fracture stimulation stages have been used. 

The final completion step is to place producing tubing in the borehole to carry the hydrocarbons to the surface. 

At the surface it is connected to a “Christmas tree” (a collection of valves) used to control the well’s production. 

DRILLING AND COMPLETION COSTS 

Expenditures for exploration and development in the United States onshore increased 30 percent from 2005 to 

29 billion dollars in 2006 (DOE-EIA 2007b). This was more than three times the average annual expenditure 

level in the 1990s and the highest amount since 1982. Most of the expenditures in 2006 were for development 

($26 billion). 

The National Petroleum Council (2003) reported drilling and completion costs for vertical wells in the Williston 

and Northern Great Plains region. They reported that the average oil well drilling and completion cost for wells 

to depths of 5,000 feet was $280,000. Wells in the 5,000- to 10,000-foot range cost an average of $955,000 to 

drill and complete. All cost components such as permitting, location construction, mobilization, rentals and 

services, tangible items, and stimulations were assumed to be included in these costs. 

For gas wells, the National Petroleum Council (2003) reported an average cost for wells to depths of 5,000 feet 

was $83,000. Wells in the 5,000- to 10,000-foot range cost an average of $571,000 to drill and complete. Gas 

well drilling and completion costs are typically much cheaper than for oil wells in Montana.

The National Petroleum Council (2003) also reported dry-hole well costs of $100,000 for average wells to 

depths of 5,000 feet, and $506,000 for wells between 5,000 and 10,000 feet deep. 

Horizontal well drilling costs are much higher in the Williston Basin. Through June of 2008, EOG Resources,

Incorporated has reported an average drilling cost for 72 Bakken formation horizontal wells of $5 million per 

well (North Dakota Bakken Shale Formation News 2008). If multi-stage hydraulic fracturing is used to 

complete a horizontal borehole, the well can cost up to $8 million or more. Marathon Oil Company (Roberts, 

Behrman, and Hinchman 2008) reported that their average gross cost for drilling and completing a horizontal 

well is $5.4 million.

Operators in the Rocky Mountain region have recently been faced with increases in drilling and completion 

costs. Drilling rates have increased 20 to 50 percent (Rocky Mountain Oil Journal 2005a) and service costs have 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-98

also increased. Rig shortages have affected most areas of the region. New planning area wells may be more 

expensive to equip and operate because of the following factors: 

• remoteness and cold temperatures, which often requires dehydrators and line heaters, more expensive 

types of steel casing, and insulation of surface equipment; 

• workovers and preventive maintenance are more frequent, which minimizes shut-in days in the winter 

when well site access is difficult; and 

• lack of rig availability due to competition for rigs within the Bakken play. 

SUMMARY OF PRODUCTION AND ABANDONMENT TECHNIQUES 

Once production begins, application of reservoir management procedures are needed to ensure maximum 

hydrocarbon production at the lowest possible cost with minimal waste and environmental impact. In earlier 

days of the oil industry, recovery was only about 10 percent of the oil-in-place in a given field and sometimes 

the associated natural gas was vented or flared, resulting in a decrease in reservoir pressure and recovery 

efficiency. Newer recovery techniques have allowed the primary production of up to 50 percent of the oil-inplace. Also, 75 percent or more of the natural gas-in-place in a typical reservoir is now recovered. Operators 

have also taken significant steps in reducing production costs. The DOE estimated that costs of production had 

decreased from a range of about $9 to $15 per barrels of oil equivalent in the 1980s, to an average of about $5 to 

$9 per barrels of oil equivalent in 1999. 

Operating costs in the United States have been rising in recent years. Rocky Mountain annual operating costs 

rose to about $55,000 dollars for a 12,000-foot well in 2005 (Kim 2007). 

Since 1990, most reserve additions in the United States (89 percent of oil reserve additions and 92 percent of 

gas reserve additions) have come from finding new reserves in old fields (DOE 1999). Additionally, much of 

the reserve additions come from an increase in commodity prices that allow a company to book reserves from 

hydrocarbons that were previously known but not developable under the then current (old) commodity prices.

Recovering oil and gas from a geologic reservoir often occurs in a staged process using different recovery 

techniques (or a combination of techniques) as the reservoir is drained.

Traditionally, processes were referred to as primary, secondary, or tertiary depending on when the process was 

applied. However, as technology has improved and the price of oil and gas has gone up, reservoirs that had 

previously been bypassed are now being developed using secondary or tertiary processes from the outset. 

Therefore, the terms "secondary" and "tertiary" are used less or are more narrowly defined. Secondary recovery 

has become synonymous with waterflooding, and gas (not carbon dioxide) injection and enhanced recovery 

broadly encompasses any recovery techniques that are not part of primary recovery. The definitions described 

below will be used in this RFD. 

• Primary recovery produces oil, gas, or water using the natural pressure in the reservoir. Wells may be 

stimulated to improve the flow of oil and gas to the borehole. Other techniques, including artificial lift, 

pumping, and gas lift, help extend productive life when a reservoir’s natural pressure dissipates. 

• Secondary recovery is the stimulation of reservoir production via injection of water into the producing 

formation to drive oil to production wells or via injection of gas to expand the gas cap or regulate the 

reservoir pressure. 

• EOR is the injection of fluids (e.g., water, surfactants, polymers, or carbon dioxide) or sources of heat 

(steam or hot water) to stimulate hydrocarbon flow and move hydrocarbons that were bypassed in 

earlier recovery phases. 

According to the DOE, as much as 90 percent of the oil originally in place in an oil reservoir is left behind once 

primary recovery methods are completed (DOE 2008). Subsequently, the recovery factor (the percent of 

original oil in place removed from a reservoir) for primary recovery is typically around 10 percent. However, 

although the primary recovery factor varies depending on oil and reservoir characteristics, 15 to 20 percent is 

considered the norm (Sandrea and Sandrea 2007). Primary recovery relies on the natural pressure found in the 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-99

reservoir and artificial lift (generally some type of pumping method) to bring hydrocarbons to the surface for 

production. Once that pressure is depleted, the reservoir must either be abandoned or other methods for 

recovering additional hydrocarbons must be employed. Historically, many of these methods were cost 

prohibitive and a large percentage of the oil or gas in any given reservoir was left behind as non-recoverable. 

As new discovery volumes decline and demand (and consequently prices) for oil and gas continue to climb, 

methods for removing more of the oil and gas left behind by primary recovery methods are becoming 

increasingly utilized. These secondary and enhanced recovery methods all involve some form of artificial 

stimulation of the reservoir either through the regulation of reservoir pressure or gas cap or by physically 

pushing the oil toward production wells.

SECONDARY OIL RECOVERY 

The secondary recovery methods most widely used both historically and today, are waterflooding and gas 

injection (Sandrea and Sandrea 2007; Williams and Pitts 1997). In waterflooding, water is injected into the oilbearing formation to physically displace the oil toward the production wells. Waterflooding is an economical 

way to recover additional volumes left behind in the primary recovery process and is usually the first method 

considered after primary methods have ceased to be effective. Gas injection (as a secondary recovery method) is 

used to expand the gas cap and regulate the reservoir pressure of an oil reservoir or to displace oil immiscibly 

(i.e., physically pushing the oil toward production wells) (Green and Whillhite 1998). Once secondary recovery 

is no longer effective in improving recovery factors (or if they were deemed inappropriate because of reservoir 

and hydrocarbon characteristics), enhanced recovery methods must then be considered.

ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY

EOR projects are initiated because of the limited production efficiency of primary and secondary recovery 

projects (Williams and Pitts 1997). Green and Whillhite (1998) identified five general EOR categories: 

mobility-control, chemical, miscible, thermal, and "other" processes (e.g., microbial). With the exception of 

"other" methods (which is an inclusive, general term that refers to methods that do not fit the other categories), 

these methods all involve the injection of fluids (e.g., water, surfactants, polymers, or carbon dioxide) or 

sources of heat (steam or hot water) to stimulate hydrocarbon flow and move hydrocarbons that were bypassed 

in earlier recovery phases. As with secondary recovery injection methods, enhanced recovery injection causes 

an increase in pressure gradient between injection wells and production wells, increasing the tendency of oil in 

the reservoir to flow toward the production wells. Many injection fluids also have additional chemical or 

physical effects that help mobilize the oil and allow it to be swept towards production wells (Nummedal, 

Towler, Mason, and Allen 2003). 

Williams and Pitts (1997) reported that the location can also be important in enhancing oil recovery projects. 

For example, proximity to a carbon dioxide source is a factor in choosing a carbon dioxide project. A source of 

fresh or treatable water is needed for steamflood or chemical projects. Oil and gas prices play a very important 

role in determining whether an EOR project will be viable and deciding what type of recovery project would be 

appropriate. There are a large number of older oil fields within the planning area, and a number of different 

types of EOR projects have been used to increase production. Waterfloods have been the predominate method 

of increasing oil recovery and fewer floods of different types have been used.

SECONDARY AND ENHANCED RECOVERY PROJECTS IN MONTANA

Waterflooding and Gas Injection

In waterflooding the injected fluid is water. Waterflooding typically yields an extra 10 to 25 percent recovery of 

the original-oil-in place (Nummedal et al. 2003). Many Montana oil reservoirs are good candidates for 

waterflooding, and waterfloods have been the predominate method used to recover additional oil reserves in the 

planning area. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-100

Gas injection typically refers to the re-injection of produced natural gas into an oil-producing formation (as 

opposed to disposal injection into another formation). In today's market, most produced natural gas is sold 

rather than re-injected. Currently there are no active gas injection secondary recovery projects in the planning 

area.

Steamflooding 

Steamflooding uses heat to mobilize oil and is particularly applicable to heavy (viscous) oils that are not easily 

produced just by pumping. Steam injection into an oil reservoir under pressure thins the oil (lowering viscosity) 

and increases pressure, which helps push the oil toward nearby producing wells. There are no active 

steamflooding injection projects located in the planning area.

In-situ Combustion (High Pressure Air Injection) 

The terms in-situ combustion and high pressure air injection are used synonymously to describe the process by 

which pressurized air is injected into hot and deep reservoirs causing spontaneous oxidation or combustion of 

the oil (Manrique, Muci, and Gurfinkel 2006). The term "thermal process" is an inclusive, general term 

sometimes used to describe these processes, as well as hot-water and steam floods (Green and Whillhite 1998), 

but will not be used here because each recovery method is discussed separately. During in-situ combustion, 

oxygen (as atmospheric air or in a partially purified mixture) is continuously injected under pressure either by 

itself (dry) or with water (wet) into the reservoir in which spontaneous or artificially initiated combustion causes 

the lighter hydrocarbons to vaporize and be pushed away from the high-pressure injection site toward the 

producing wells. While not nearly as effective as carbon dioxide injection (another method in which a gas, in 

this case carbon dioxide, is injected into the reservoir), in-situ combustion is much more cost effective since the 

injected gas (usually atmospheric air) would be free.

Carbon Dioxide Injection 

At sufficiently high pressures, carbon dioxide is miscible with oil and, once dissolved, causes oil to swell and 

lowers the oil’s viscosity significantly, making it flow more easily. Carbon dioxide also reduces forces under 

miscible conditions, causing oil to stick to the reservoir rock, again allowing for more oil flow. 

Carbon dioxide enhanced recovery processes are typically employed in one of four ways: 

• the "huff and puff" method, in which the carbon dioxide is injected, allowed time to react with the oil, 

then pumped in three separate stages;

• injection of a carbon dioxide "slug" followed by water injection and then pumping;

• pulses of carbon dioxide alternated with water pulses (also known as the water-alternating-gas 

method); or 

• continuous carbon dioxide injection with concurrent pumping. 

There are currently no active carbon dioxide EOR projects in the planning area; however, Denbury Resources is 

in the process of beginning a carbon dioxide EOR project in the Belle Creek Field of Powder River County. The 

initial source of the injected carbon dioxide will come from the ConocoPhillips Lost Cabin gas plant located in 

central Wyoming. Approximately 50 million standard cubic feet per day of carbon dioxide is currently being 

vented to the atmosphere at the ConocoPhillips gas processing plant. Denbury is currently permitting the 

Greencore Pipeline designed to transport carbon dioxide from the Lost Cabin facility to the Belle Creek Field. 

In addition, EOG Resources has plans to begin a pilot carbon dioxide huff-and-puff program in Parshall field in 

Mountrail County, North Dakota (Rocky Mountain Oil Journal 2008). The pilot program will test the viability 

of the huff-and-puff method on the Bakken formation using horizontal injection and production wells. A 

successful test will likely spur development of similar projects throughout the planning area assuming a reliable 

source of carbon dioxide can be established.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-101

Carbon dioxide enhanced recovery projects are becoming increasingly used throughout the United States and 

are receiving attention as ways to also sequester carbon dioxide in geologic formations. Carbon sequestration 

(often a natural result of carbon dioxide enhanced recovery projects) is also being increasingly studied as it 

relates to reversing or slowing the anthropogenic effects on climate change. With this increased interest by 

industry and government entities, public concern over climate change, and the availability of reliable carbon 

dioxide sources and pipelines, it is likely that carbon dioxide enhanced recovery projects will receive increased 

consideration and implementation in the planning area as the oil fields age and are further depleted by primary 

recovery and waterflooding methods.

PRODUCTION-RELATED OPERATIONS

Acid Gas Removal and Recovery 

Before natural gas or oil can be transported safely, any hydrogen sulfide or carbon dioxide gas must be 

removed. Gas processing plants in the planning area are used to recover the unwanted gases and “sweeten” the 

hydrocarbon product for sale by removing impurities. Improvements in the process have made it possible to 

produce sour natural hydrocarbon resources, almost eliminate noxious emissions, and recover almost all of the 

elemental sulfur and carbon dioxide for later sale or disposal. 

Artificial Lift Optimization 

Artificial lift is used to produce oil once reservoir pressure declines and natural processes can no longer push 

the oil to the surface. Improvements in artificial lift have enhanced production, lowered costs, and lowered 

power consumption, which reduces air emissions. Artificial lift is used to recover oil from some of the fields in 

the planning area. 

Glycol Dehydration 

Dehydration systems use glycol to remove water from wet natural gas before the gas can be directed to a 

pipeline. During operation these dehydration systems may vent methane, other volatile organic compounds

(VOCs), and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). Improvements to these systems have allowed increased gas 

recovery and have reduced unwanted emissions. 

Produced Water Management 

Coproduction of a variable amount of water with oil and gas is unavoidable at most locations. Montana allows 

water produced with oil and gas to be disposed of by injection in a permitted disposal or enhanced recovery 

well or by discharge into a surface water source through an outfall permit. Montana has numerous commercial 

water disposal wells.

Vapor Recovery Units 

Vapor recovery can reduce a lot of the fugitive hydrocarbon emissions that vaporize from crude oil storage 

tanks, mainly from tanks associated with high pressure reservoirs, high-vapor releases, and large operations. 

The emissions usually consist of 40 to 60 percent methane, along with other VOCs and HAPs (DOE 1999). 

Where useable, this technology can capture over 95 percent of these emissions.

UNDERGROUND GAS STORAGE 

Produced gas can be stored in some existing good quality reservoirs that have already been depleted of their 

native gas content. The objective of gas storage is to allow lands to be used to store natural gas during periods 

of excess production so that those supplies can be made available to meet peak gas demands and to maximize 

the efficiency of the gas delivery system. Gas storage is presently being used in the Cedar Creek Anticline.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-102

ASSESSMENTS OF OIL AND GAS RESOURCES 

The DOE-EIA has recently provided forecasts of United States energy supply (DOE-EIA 2007a). Technically 

recoverable United States oil resources (as of January 1, 2005) were estimated to be 168.8 billion barrels. The 

technically recoverable natural gas resource was estimated to be 1,341 trillion cubic feet. The Rocky Mountains 

account for about 37 percent of the natural gas and 17 percent of the oil projections of the technically 

recoverable resource base on public lands in the lower 48 states (Humphries 2004). 

A number of recent assessments of technically recoverable gas resources have been made for the Rocky 

Mountain region (Maps 98 through 100). Each estimate has been prepared using somewhat different 

assumptions. They all show a large natural gas resource base for the Rocky Mountain region.

• The DOE-EIA (2003) estimates a natural gas resource base of 383 trillion cubic feet for the Rocky 

Mountain region. 

• The Potential Gas Committee (2003) estimated 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, including 50 

trillion cubic feet of proved reserves. 

• As part of a study done in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments 

of 2000 (USDI, USDA, and DOE 2003) the USGS estimated the technically recoverable gas 

resource for five basins in the Rocky Mountain region at 226 trillion cubic feet. Of that total, they 

estimated a conventional gas resource of 13 trillion cubic feet, 127 trillion cubic feet of tight gas 

sand and shale gas resources, 43 trillion cubic feet of CBNG, and 43 trillion cubic feet of proved 

reserves. 

• The National Petroleum Council (2003) estimated 284 trillion cubic feet of natural gas for the 

Rocky Mountain region. The Council also presented a comparative analysis of their estimates with 

those of the DOE-EIA Potential Gas Committee and the USGS to better understand the factors 

that influenced the differences among each estimate. 

The National Petroleum Council (2003) has divided remaining natural gas resources into proved natural gas 

reserves, proved growth reserves, and undiscovered resources. They further divided undiscovered resources into 

conventional and nonconventional (also known as unconventional) resource types. 

As of January 1, 2002, the National Petroleum Council (2003) estimated Rocky Mountain region proved natural 

gas reserves to be 50 trillion cubic feet. The DOE-EIA (2004) was able to separately assess proved tight sand 

gas reserves (26.8 trillion cubic feet) and proved CBNG reserves (14.8 trillion cubic feet) for the Rocky 

Mountain region. Growth to proved gas reserves in the Rockies was estimated at 26 trillion cubic feet (National 

Petroleum Council 2003). Finally, undiscovered resources for conventional gas were estimated to be 173 trillion 

cubic feet while nonconventional gas resources were estimated to be 209 trillion cubic feet (National Petroleum 

Council 2003). 

The DOE has reported that “as geologic knowledge and technology for finding and producing natural gas have 

improved, the estimated volume of natural gas resources in the Rocky Mountain States has grown” (2003, p. 3).

They assumed that as long as investment continued towards expanding the geologic knowledge base and 

technology progress, then there would be a continued upward trend in future resource assessment volumes and 

recovery would be expected to continue to increase at least through 2015. These potential reserve additions will 

be needed in the future to replace those that are being depleted through production and consumption. 

“The importance of natural gas as a primary energy source in the United States has grown considerably during 

the past decade” (Curtis and Montgomery 2002). Rising demand in this country will result in a 1.1 percent 

average annual increase in United States consumption of energy to 2030 (DOE-EIA 2007a). During that period, 

natural gas consumption is expected to rise from 21.08 trillion cubic feet in 2005 to 26.9 trillion cubic feet in 

2030 (DOE-EIA 2007a). Domestic production rose from 17.7 to 19.7 trillion cubic feet (an 11.3 percent 

increase) for the 1990 to 2000 period (Curtis and Montgomery 2002) and then dropped to 18.3 trillion cubic feet 

of gas in 2005. Domestic production is expected to rise to 20.6 trillion cubic feet in 2030 (DOE-EIA 2007a). 

North American producing areas are expected to provide 75 percent of long-term United States gas needs, but 

they will be unable to meet the entire projected demand (National Petroleum Council 2003). The gap between 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-103

consumption and production has necessitated a rise in imports and concern about future United States energy 

supply. 

Oil and gas produced within the planning area to date has helped supply a portion of United States demand. The 

planning area is anticipated to also continue to help meet rising national demand by supplying additional oil and 

gas that has not yet been discovered. A number of recent oil and gas resource assessments have been prepared 

that cover all or portions of the planning area. These assessments provide an indication of the range of 

undiscovered resource volumes that could be available for exploration, development, and production through 

the year 2029. 

The results of the USGS assessments as they relate to the planning area are described below. A discussion of 

oil-in-place and gas-in-place estimates will be followed by estimates available for proved oil and gas reserves. 

Finally, this RFD will review recoverable resource estimates that have recently been published by the USGS. 

The USGS estimates provide an estimate of the range of oil and gas resources that may be available for 

exploration and development in the planning area through 2029.

OIL-IN-PLACE ESTIMATES

No recent estimates of oil-in-place for all formations are available for the planning area. Oil-in-place estimates 

are available from sources such as the Montana Geological Society, various operating company prospectuses, or 

oil and gas conference papers (they are not detailed here) for many of the larger oil fields in the planning area.

GAS-IN-PLACE ESTIMATES

Gas-in-place estimates attempt to describe the gas resource in an area without considering its economic or 

technical viability (Boswell et al. 2002). Rakhit Petroleum Consulting Limited (2007) has projected 4.5 trillion 

cubic feet of shallow gas-in place in undiscovered gas reserves in the Western Plains area, which includes the 

planning area. There are no other known gas-in-place estimates that cover the planning area.

PROVED OIL AND GAS RESERVES 

In 2006, total United States (lower 48 states) onshore proved reserves of crude oil were 17.093 billion barrels, 

natural gas liquid reserves were estimated at 8.134 billion barrels, and dry natural gas reserves were 200.840 

trillion cubic feet (DOE-EIA 2007b). In the onshore, drill bit additions to crude oil and natural gas liquids 

reserves did not replace 2006 production (DOE-EIA 2007a). Only 26 percent of produced reserves were 

replaced by drill bit additions to crude oil and natural gas liquids reserves. Natural gas reserves were replaced at 

a rate of 122 percent (DOE-EIA 2007a).

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY RESOURCE ASSESSMENTS 

The USGS is responsible for preparing the National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment for all provinces within 

the United States. Their 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (Beeman, Obuch, 

and Brewton 1996; Charpentier, Klett, Obuch, and Brewton 1996; Gautier, Dolton, Takahashi, and Varnes 

1996b) presents information about discovered and potentially undiscovered accumulations of oil and gas in 71 

geologic or structural provinces within the United States. The Williston Basin covers part of the planning area 

and is one of the provinces assessed by the USGS. 

As part of a study prepared in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Amendments of 2000 

(USDI et al. 2003) the USGS prioritized oil and gas assessment studies for certain basins. An updated analysis 

of the Williston Basin province was completed (Anna et al. 2008; Pollastro et al. 2008; Williston Basin 

Province Assessment Team 2011). In these reports, the USGS updated their quantitative estimate of the 

undiscovered oil and gas resources for this province. A more complete discussion of the USGS assessment and 

its estimates of oil and gas resource volumes is presented in United States Geological Survey Assessments of 

Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the Planning Area section in this RFD.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-104

For the Williston Basin province assessment, the USGS estimated undiscovered technically recoverable 

resources for each assessment unit (AU) (Table 18). When preparing estimates of resource quantities for the 

province, the USGS used geology-based, well-documented estimates of quantities of oil and gas with the 

potential to be added to reserves. For the new assessment update, they used a future time frame (forecast span) 

of 30 years when estimating quantities of the potential undiscovered oil and gas resources. 

For each type of hydrocarbon, a mean undiscovered resource volume was estimated for each play or AU and a 

calculation of the portion lying within the planning area was made (Tables 18 and 19). This RFD estimates that 

the planning area potentially contains a mean undiscovered volume of 1.128 billion barrels of oil, 1.045 trillion 

cubic feet of gas, and 63.83 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Williston Basin province AUs. 

In addition, the BLM estimates that the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil resources within the planning 

area’s portion of the Williston Basin province could potentially range from 0.84 to 1.478 billion barrels, at 

respective probabilities of 95 and 5 percent. The undiscovered, technically recoverable gas resources are 

estimated to potentially range from 0.469 to 1.894 trillion cubic feet, and the natural gas liquids resources could 

potentially range from 27.16 to 120.61 million barrels, at respective probabilities of 95 and 5 percent (assuming 

fractile data used has a perfect positive correlation) (Table 19).

BIOGENIC AND SHALLOW GAS 

Twenty percent of the world’s discovered natural gas reserves are of biogenic origin (Rice and Claypool 1981). 

Biogenic gas is generated by anaerobic bacteria through the decomposition of organic matter in sediments. This 

can occur at temperatures between 0 and 65 degrees (°) Celsius (C) (32° and 150° Fahrenheit [F]), and such gas 

accumulations are known to accumulate in large quantities (Shurr 2001). Generally, the terms shallow gas and 

biogenic gas are used interchangeably; however, some occurrences of shallow gas are not known to be of 

biogenic origin. The North Dakota Century Code specifically defines shallow gas as: "Gas that is produced 

from a shallow gas zone, where shallow gas zone is defined as a strata or formation, including lignite or coal 

strata seam, located above the depth of five thousand feet below the surface, or located more than five thousand 

feet below the surface but above the top of the Rierdon Formation, from which gas may be produced."

Unless otherwise noted, the term shallow gas, as used in this RFD, will mean gas generated in thermally 

immature sediments (as discussed above), gas occurring at shallow depths (less than 2,000 feet), underpressured 

gas, and gas consisting of dominantly biogenic gas (Shurr 2001); CBNG shall be considered separately. Upper 

Cretaceous organic-rich shales underlying the planning area represent effective source rocks for biogenic gas 

generation. 

POWDER RIVER BASIN

The USGS oil and gas assessment for the 

entire PRB was performed in 1995 for 

conventional resources and continuous oil 

and gas resources (Gautier et al. 1996b). The 

continuous oil and gas resource assessment 

was added and an updated version of the 

PRB province assessment is available on the 

National Oil and Gas assessment website 

(http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/noga/) along 

with a summary of the 2003 USGS 

assessment. 

Beaver sign and chewed trees at Cedar Creek 

in the planning area
MIN-105

MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

TABLE 18.

USGS ESTIMATED UNDISCOVERED TECHNICALLY

RECOVERABLE RESOURCE QUANTITIES IN THE WILLISTON BASIN PROVINCE

Assessment Unit Name

Estimated Undiscovered Williston Basin Province Resource Quantities at 

Probabilities of Occurrence of 95 and 5 Percent and for the Mean Case Percentage of 

Unit within 

the Planning 

Area

Oil (million barrels of oil)

Gas (billion cubic feet 

of gas)

Natural Gas Liquid 

(million barrels)

95% 5% Mean 95% 5% Mean 95% 5% Mean

Elm Coulee-Billings Nose 374 450 410 118 332 208 8 29 17 54.45

Central Basin-Poplar Dome 394 589 485 134 403 246 10 35 20 44.45

Northwest Expulsion Threshold 613 1,182 868 224 754 440 16 64 35 72.18

Fort Union CBNG 368 1,701 882 0 0 0 33.30

Middle Sandstone Member 1 8 4 0 3 2 0 0 0 3.89

Lodgepole 2 18 8 1 11 5 0 1 0 32.38

Winnipeg-Deadwood 1 10 5 59 382 189 3 21 9 32.36

Red River Fairway 12 51 30 69 369 197 12 73 36 40.75

Red River East Margin 0 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.04

Interlake-Stonewall-Stony 

Mountain 9 44 24 8 47 24 1 5 2 40.75

Winnipegosis 4 22 11 2 14 7 0 1 1 13.47

Dawson Bay-Souris River 2 12 6 1 6 3 0 0 0 26.84

Duperow-Birdbear 13 44 27 9 38 22 1 4 2 26.84

Cedar Creek Structural 6 41 20 3 28 13 0 2 1 55.53

Mission Canyon-Charles 13 85 45 9 72 36 1 7 3 26.33

Tyler Sandstone 4 31 15 1 7 3 0 0 0 22.01

Shallow Biogenic Gas 48 1,091 475 0 0 0 7.07

Total Undiscovered Resources 3,130 4,689 3,842 1,592 6,788 3,706 91 374 202
MN-106

TABLE 19.

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development ScenarioMINERALS APPENDIX

USGS ESTIMATED UNDISCOVERED TECHNICALLY RECOVERABLE RESOURCE QUANTITIES IN THE WILLISTON BASIN

PROVINCE OF THE MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE PLANNING AREA

Assessment Unit 

Name

Estimated Undiscovered Planning Area Resource Quantities at Probabilities of 

Occurrence of 95 and 5 Percent and for the Mean Case1

Oil (million barrels of oil) Gas (billion cubic feet of gas) Natural Gas Liquid (million 

barrels)

95% 5% Mean 95% 5% Mean 95% 5% Mean

Elm Coulee-Billings 

Nose 203.64 245.02 223.25 64.24 180.77 113.26 4.36 15.79 9.26

Central Basin-Poplar 

Dome 175.13 261.81 215.58 59.56 179.13 109.35 4.45 15.56 8.89

Northwest Expulsion 

Threshold 442.46 853.17 626.52 161.68 544.24 317.59 11.55 46.20 25.26

Fort Union CBNG 122.54 566.43 293.71 0 0 0

Middle Sandstone 

Member 0.04 0.31 0.16 0 0.12 0.08 0 0 0

Lodgepole 0.65 5.83 2.59 0.32 3.56 1.62 0 0.32 0

Winnipeg-Deadwood 0.32 3.23 1.62 19.09 123.62 61.16 0.97 6.80 2.91

Red River Fairway 4.89 20.78 12.23 28.12 150.37 80.28 4.89 29.75 14.67

Red River East Margin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Interlake-StonewallStony Mountain 3.67 17.93 9.78 3.26 19.15 9.78 0.41 2.04 0.82

Winnipegosis 0.54 2.96 1.48 0.27 1.89 0.94 0 0.13 0.13

Dawson Bay-Souris 

River 0.54 3.22 1.61 0.27 1.61 0.81 0 0 0

Duperow-Birdbear 3.49 11.81 7.25 2.42 10.20 5.90 0.27 1.07 0.54

Cedar Creek Structural 3.33 22.77 11.11 1.67 15.55 7.22 0 1.11 0.56

Mission CanyonCharles 3.42 22.38 11.85 2.37 18.96 9.48 0.26 1.84 0.79

Tyler Sandstone .88 6.82 3.30 0.22 1.54 0.66 0 0 0

Shallow Biogenic Gas 3.39 77.13 33.58 0 0 0

Total Undiscovered 

Resources 843 1,478.04 1,128.33 469.42 1,894.27 1,045.42 27.16 120.61 63.83

1Potential resource is assumed to be evenly distributed across each assessment area.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-107

The USGS assessments evaluate the potential of oil and gas resources using a geology-based assessment 

methodology to calculate estimated undiscovered resources using a variety of geologic elements (USGS 2002). 

The combined assessments for the entire PRB estimated a mean undiscovered natural gas resource of 16.5 

trillion cubic feet, a mean undiscovered oil resource of 1.5 billion barrels, and mean undiscovered natural gas 

liquids of 86.5 million barrels (USGS 2002). The PRB is divided into the Wyoming portion (approximately 

57.3 percent of the surface) and the Montana portion (approximately 42.7 percent of the surface); sediment 

volume is probably approximately the same division. The 1995 PRB assessment identified 11 conventional oil 

and gas plays with estimated undiscovered resources (Dolton and Fox 1996). The 2003 version considered 

assessments as part of a total petroleum system (TPS). A TPS is the USGS’s integrated approach for geologic 

and geochemical studies that matches source rocks with reservoirs and migration paths, timing, reservoirs, 

sequence stratigraphy, traps, and structural elements, allowing greater precision in assessing reservoir rock 

quality, source rock potency, and migration efficiency. See the United States Geological Survey Assessments of 

Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources in the Planning Area section in this RFD for more information.

OIL AND GAS OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL 

All of the planning area lands have high potential for the occurrence of oil and gas (including biogenic and 

CBNG). This rating is based on guidance outlined in BLM Handbook H-1624-1, which states: 

"Due to the nearly ubiquitous presence of hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock use the following for 

classifying oil and gas [occurrence] potential: 

• HIGH: Inclusion in an oil and gas play as defined by the USGS national assessment, or, in the 

absence of play designation by the USGS, the demonstrated existence of: source rock, thermal 

maturation, and reservoir strata possessing permeability and/or porosity, and traps. Demonstrated 

existence is defined by physical evidence or documentation in the literature. 

• MEDIUM: Geophysical or geological indications that the following may be present: source rock, 

thermal maturation, and reservoir strata possessing permeability and/or porosity, and traps. 

Geologic indication is defined by geological inference based on indirect evidence. 

• LOW: Specific indications that one or more of the following may not be present: source rock, 

thermal maturation, and reservoir strata possessing permeability and/or porosity, and traps. 

• NONE: Demonstrated absence of (1) source rock, (2) thermal maturation, or (3) reservoir rock that

precludes the occurrence of oil and/or gas. Demonstrated absence is defined by physical evidence 

or documentation in the literature" (p. III-6).

All of the lands fall within one or more USGS oil or gas play boundaries as defined in the 1995 National Oil

and Gas Assessment or subsequent updates (see United States Geological Survey Assessments of Undiscovered 

Oil and Gas Resources in the Planning Area in this RFD).

PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE ACTIVITY 2011 TO 2030 

The DOE-EIA (2005) estimates that over the next two decades: 

• United States energy demand will grow at an average annual rate of 1.4 percent; 

• energy efficiency of the economy will increase at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent; 

• future natural gas supply growth will depend on nonconventional domestic production, natural gas 

from Alaska, and liquefied natural gas imports;

• United States oil imports will grow from 56 percent to 68 percent; 

• the price of oil and natural gas will be higher than in the past; 

• carbon dioxide emissions will grow at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent; and 

• industry emphasis will be on increasing oil supplies and searching for additional natural gas 

supplies in the planning area. Much of the planning area oil and gas supply growth is expected to 

come from production from existing reservoirs, with new reservoir discoveries potentially coming 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-108

from exploration of the Three Forks formation (Sanish sandstone), shallow gas and biogenic gas 

reservoirs, and CBNG. 

OIL AND GAS PRICE ESTIMATES 

Anticipated oil and gas prices are the single most important factor controlling the amount of future oil and gas 

drilling and production activity in the planning area. Boswell reported that “in today’s market the average 

unconventional resource play breaks even at $4/Mmbtu [million metric British thermal units] and requires in 

excess of $7/Mmbtu [million metric British thermal units] to achieve 20% rate of return at the wellhead (2006, 

p. 9).” The National Petroleum Council has projected that through 2025 “supply and demand will balance at 

higher price ranges than historical levels” (2003, p. 11) in the United States.

Gas Prices 

The trend in historical wellhead prices clearly show the recent (1999 and later) volatility that has occurred in 

natural gas prices in Montana. Prior to 1999, wellhead natural gas prices were relatively stable. The drop of 

nearly 30 percent from 1985 to 1986 represents only a modest fluctuation when viewed in context with the 

nearly 650-percent increase from 1986 to 2005 prices and the future price predictions outlined in Figure 7. 

Petak (2007) projected that Henry Hub (near the town of Erath in southern Louisiana) prices will average 

between $6 and $8 per thousand cubic feet in the long term (to 2025). Recent events and price volatility 

suggests such projections will be high. 

Data for Figure 7 (historical and projected future natural gas prices) were obtained from the DOE-EIA 

Administration (2009b and 2009e). Wellhead price data were not available for the calendar years 1994 to 1996. 

The DOE-EIA price projection reference case data is an average for lower 48 wellhead prices made in 2007 

dollars. Historical prices are in nominal dollars. 

The DOE-EIA projected that natural gas prices would fall sharply in 2009 from the spike in prices, which began 

in 2003 and likely culminated in 2008. Prices were then expected to begin a gradual and generally linear rise 

from $3.99 per thousand cubic feet (2007 dollars) in 2009 to 8.01 per thousand cubic feet in 2030 (DOE-EIA 

2009b and 2009c). The combination of a growing demand and limited supply has created market tightening and

led to higher gas prices and price volatility (National Petroleum Council 2003). However, the DOE-EIA 

projects that, in the long term, growth in domestic production will outpace growth in domestic demand leading 

to a decline in net imports and that the costs associated with natural gas drilling and development will decline as 

demand for drilling equipment and personnel is met (DOE-EIA 2009a). Consequently, their projections show 

lower future natural gas prices through 2030 than previous estimates. Most of the growth in natural gas 

production is expected to come from nonconventional sources, particularly from gas shale production.

The National Petroleum Council anticipates that price ranges will be determined by response to “increased 

efficiency, conservation, and alternate fuel use, the ability to increase conventional and nonconventional 

supplies from North American...and increasing access to world resources through LNG [liquefied natural gas] 

imports” (National Petroleum Council 2003). It is not known if liquefied natural gas imports will meet 

expectations nor if new pipelines will connect gas supplies in northern Canada and Alaska with United States 

markets. While both scenarios would not happen for years, they could decrease future gas prices. Consequently, 

the projection of future natural gas prices should be considered speculative. 

Natural gas exploration historically has been similar to oil exploration in the planning area, and in the past 

several years has increased, especially along the Cedar Creek Anticline in Fallon County, Montana. Most of this 

increased activity has likely been influenced by the spike in natural gas prices. These fields, producing from 

depths between 1,000 and 1,800 feet, have proven highly successful. If future gas price predictions hold true, it 

is likely that development of these formations will continue, although most known fields have already been 

fairly densely drilled and future activity will not likely continue at the current pace for more than a few years. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-109

The natural gas price projections allow some generalizations concerning future gas drilling and production 

activity in the planning area. If the DOE-EIA reference case gas price scenario is accurate, the recent increase in 

drilling activity to current levels will likely continue, even though prices are expected to drop sharply from their 

2008 high. Although prices were expected to fall on average in 2009 to 2003 to 2004 levels, prices are expected 

to rise again beginning in 2010 and at a sharper rate than seen during the 1990s. Furthermore, it is likely that 

gas production will continue to be mainly a function of the ability of industry to discover and economically 

develop gas accumulations and their ability to increase drilling, production, processing, and transportation 

efficiency.

According to the DOE-EIA (2009a and 2009c), United States demand for natural gas in 2008 was 23.2 trillion 

cubic feet, an increase of 1.3 percent from the previous year and is expected to continually increase through 

2030. Increases in future natural gas production to accommodate projected demand are projected to come partly 

from the Rocky Mountain area. Anticipated new production in the planning area is expected to come mainly 

from the addition of incremental production from existing natural gas fields and nonconventional shale gas 

plays.

Oil Prices 

Sieminski (2007) recently reported that West Texas Intermediate oil prices averaged $19.7 per barrels in the 

1990s. In documentation submitted in support of his June 2008 testimony before the United States House of 

Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Sieminski (2008) stated that 

"our [Deutsche Bank] forecast for 2009 is that oil prices should average about $105 per barrel" and that "for the 

longer term... prices will settle toward the cost of marginal supply, or $85/barrel...” (Sieminski 2008, p. 3).

Recent world events have seen oil prices fall from a high of nearly $146 per barrels (New York Mercantile 

Exchange, or NYMEX, light sweet crude futures price) in July 2008 to less than $43 per barrels in December

2008. While Sieminski's 2009 projection will not likely be met, his long-term projection of $85 per barrels is in 

line with the DOE-EIA's projected price average for the 10-year period beginning in 2009 (DOE-EIA 2009a). 

$0.00

$1.00

$2.00

$3.00

$4.00

$5.00

$6.00

$7.00

$8.00

19671970197319761979198219851988199119941997200020032006200920122015201820212024202720302033

Historical Prices

Price Projections

FIGURE 7.

MONTANA HISTORICAL GAS PRICES TO 2009 WITH ENERGY INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION FORECASTS FROM 2010 TO 2035

FIGURE 7.

MONTANA HISTORICAL GAS PRICES TO 2009 WITH ENERGY INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION FORECASTS FROM 2010 TO 2035
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-110

Indeed, even with the volatility seen in prices throughout 2008, the average price for light sweet crude in 2008 

was approximately $100 per barrels (DOE-EIA 2009d). 

Data for Figure 8 (historical and projected crude oil prices) were obtained from the DOE-EIA Administration 

(2009b and 2009e). The reference case data are projected averages of imported low sulfur light crude oil prices 

and are made in 2007 dollars. Historical prices are in nominal dollars and show the historic volatility that has 

occurred in crude oil prices in Montana. The significant climb seen in natural gas prices since 1999 has been 

just as prevalent in crude oil wellhead acquisition prices in the planning area and actually began rising a year 

prior. 

The DOE-EIA (2009b) projection of future prices predicts higher world oil prices for 2006 to 2030 than those 

presented previously. Domestic petroleum-based liquids consumption is expected to remain flat through 2030 

(approximately 20 million barrels per day) due to increased use of and reliance on biofuels. However, 

worldwide demand will continually increase during the same time, driving world oil prices to higher levels. The 

DOE-EIA reference case projects that world oil prices will decline to about $40 dollars per barrel in 2009, start 

rising again as production in non-OPEC regions peaks, and continue rising to $130 per barrels in 2030 (all 

prices in 2007 dollars). However, such projections have an inherent uncertainty that is demonstrated in their 

low- and high-price case projections. These cases reflect a wide band of potential world oil price paths, ranging 

from $40 to $50 per barrels in the low case to over $180 per barrels in the high case in 2020 (DOE-EIA 2009a).

If the DOE-EIA crude oil price projection is accurate, future oil drilling and production will likely return to 

levels similar to those seen from 2000 to 2004 after the horizontal development of the Bakken oil fields is 

completely realized.

Further drilling activity will likely continue at levels similar to those seen in the early 2000s as operators 

explore the fringes of the existing fields. Barring any significant new discoveries, however, it is unlikely that 

drilling activity will increase significantly beyond the recent (early 2006) peak.

LEASING

After initial fieldwork, research, and subsurface mapping (which frequently includes use of seismic data), 

leasing is often the next step in oil and gas development. Leasing may be based on speculation, with the most 

risky leases usually purchased for the lowest prices. 

Leases on lands in which the United States owns the oil and gas mineral rights are offered via a public auction 

at least quarterly. Maximum lease size is 2,560 acres and the minimum bid is $2 per acre. A $150 per parcel 

administrative fee is charged, and the successful bidder must meet citizenship and certain legal requirements. In 

addition to the lease bonus, a $1.50 per acre annual rental fee is charged for the first 5 years and a $2-per-acre 

annual fee thereafter. Leases are issued for a 10-year term and a 12.5-percent royalty on production is required. 

Leases that become productive are held-by-production and do not terminate until all wells on the lease have 

ceased production. Many private oil and gas leases contain a “Pugh clause,” which allows only the developed 

portion of the lease to be held-by-production. However, federal leases have no such clause, allowing one 

producing well to hold an entire lease past the initial 10-year lease term. 

For the MCFO, periodic federal oil and gas lease sales are usually held in Billings, Montana. Since August 

1996, only lands nominated by industry are offered for lease. Before that date, virtually all federal lands 

available for competitive leasing were offered at each sale. Each new lease contains restrictive stipulations that 

protect potentially affected, mainly surface, resource values.

Oil and gas prices, hydrocarbon prospectivity, and exploration success will, to a great extent, determine the 

amount of acreage leased and bonus bids received. Half of the money earned from oil and gas leases on public 

domain minerals goes to the State of Montana. The other half stays with the federal treasury, where it is split 

between the conservation fund and the general fund on a 4:1 ratio. 
MIN-111

MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

$0

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

Historical Prices

Price Projection

FIGURE 8.

MONTANA HISTORICAL OIL PRICES TO 2011 WITH ENERGY INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION FORECASTS FROM 2011 TO 2035 Dollars

Year

FIGURE 8.

MONTANA HISTORICAL OIL PRICES TO 2011 WITH ENERGY INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION FORECASTS FROM 2011 TO 2035
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-112

Within the jurisdiction of the MCFO, there were about 1,076,884 acres of leased federal oil and gas minerals 

and about 4,778,139 acres of unleased federal oil and gas minerals as of December 2011. About 22.5 percent of 

federal oil and gas minerals within the planning area were leased at that time.

SEISMIC SURVEYS 

Seismic surveys are a critical part of exploration for oil and gas resources. They are authorized on BLMadministered surfaces by approval of NOIs to conduct geophysical operations. Seismic surveys on surface not 

managed by the BLM do not have to be permitted with the BLM even though the surveys cover federal 

minerals.

The Montana Minerals Management Bureau’s website (http://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/MMB/Default.asp) has 

documented the permitting of geophysical exploration applications since 2000. Nineteen total permits were 

issued in the planning area since 2004. 

The energy sources utilized to create the transmission of acoustical waves in the subsurface are either dynamite 

in shotholes, dropped weights, or a number of vibroseis trucks working in tandem simultaneously. There are 

also two modes of acquiring the data, which are referred to in the literature as two-dimensional or threedimensional seismic. All three energy sources may be used in the two modes of acquiring seismic exploration 

data. Two-dimensional seismic data is a regional exploration tool and is acquired through a grid of intersecting 

seismic lines. Three-dimensional seismic generates an almost continuous acoustic image of the subsurface 

through a denser grid of intersecting seismic lines. The anticipated or inferred relief of the target structures at 

depth determines the lateral limits of the seismic program along with the grid size. A seismic program is 

designed via acquisition and processing parameters that will spatially image the target horizons at depth 

correctly.

Seismic surveys will continue to be run in the planning area and will generally be in or near areas and counties 

in which oil and gas activities have occurred. 

PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE DRILLING ACTIVITY 

It is difficult to accurately predict what will occur a few years into the future, but it is even more difficult to 

accurately predict 20 years ahead. A review of available technical data was made to help make these 

projections. Much of the data reviewed has been summarized above. 

Projected Oil and Gas Drilling Activity 

For a baseline, unconstrained RFD projection (BLM et al. 2004) this RFD estimates that during the 20-year 

planning cycle of 2011 to 2030, approximately 3,500 - 7,600 wells would be drilled in the planning area (Table 

20). Up to 1,200 of these wells would be CBNG wells, with 100 wells located in the Williston Basin and 1,100 

CBNG wells located in the PRB of Montana. Of the remaining 6,400 oil and conventional gas wells, 

approximately 3,100 wells are projected to be drilled in high development potential areas in and around existing 

fields in the deeper portion of the Williston Basin and along the Cedar Creek Anticline, and 3,300 wells (those 

that could be drilled in areas of medium or low potential) are projected for areas generally not proven 

productive by historical drilling but which still may contain hydrocarbons, based on USGS assessment data. 

Estimated acres, number of townships, and percentage of the planning area within each development potential 

classification type are summarized in Table 21.

The RFD well numbers were estimated using GIS. If a township was cut by the high potential, it was counted as 

high development but if it was also cut by medium, it was considered medium potential. This process could 

result in a township being “counted” twice and did result in a higher well number than if the high, medium, or 

low area acreages were divided by the average number of acres in a township.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-113

Development potential is classified as high, medium, and 

low. The development areas shown in Map 5 are based 

on geology and reserve evaluations from the most recent 

USGS assessments (2009, 2003, and 1995) for the 

relevant portion of the planning area. The following are 

the average drilling densities estimated to be drilled per 

township (one township is about 36 square miles) during 

the planning period: 

• high development potential criteria is 5 to

10 wells per township, 

• medium development potential criteria is 2 

to 5 wells per township, and 

• low development potential criteria is 1 to 2 

wells per township.

Many of the townships in the high category are already 

relatively densely drilled. Many new wells in townships 

identified as having high development potential will 

likely be drilled as infill or fringe wells, or as re-entries 

into existing wellbores. Many of these townships also lie 

within lands deemed in the USGS Bakken formation 

assessment to contain the majority of the BakkenLodgepole TPS undiscovered continuous oil reserves and 

have already begun to experience a marked increase in 

drilling permit applications and drilled wells (USGS 

2008). Well spacing in these townships is expected to be 

highly variable, depending in part on the play or plays 

driving the activity. For example, horizontal drilling in 

the Bakken formation generally is restricted to much 

wider spacing than vertical wells drilled to the Madison 

formation. Most horizontal Bakken formation wells are presently spaced at 1,280 acres, with smaller numbers 

of wells spaced at 640 acres. The present Bakken development in Montana has been drilling of additional wells 

within 1,280-acre spacing units, which is projected to allow for more horizontal infill wells to be drilled. 

TABLE 20.

PROJECTED ANNUAL WELLS SPUD

Year High Average Low

2011 380 260 220

2012 380 262 220

2013 380 265 220

2014 380 267 220

2015 380 270 220

2016 380 273 220

2017 380 276 220

2018 380 278 220

2019 380 281 220

2020 380 284 220

2021 380 286 220

2022 380 289 220

2023 380 291 220

2024 380 294 220

2025 380 297 220

2026 380 299 220

2027 380 302 220

2028 380 305 220

2029 380 307 220

2030 380 310 220

Total 7,600 5,696 4,400

TABLE 21.

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL AREAS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Development 

Potential Acres Townships

Range of 

New Wells 

per 

Township

Number of New 

Wells

Percentage 

of the 

Planning 

Area (%)

High 6,043,000 372 5-10 1,860 to 3,720 23

Medium 6,655,000 478 2-5 956 to 2,390 26

Low 13,120,000 707 1-2 707 to 1,414 51

Total 

(approximate) 25,000,000 1,557 3,500 to 7,600 100
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-114

Wells within townships identified as having medium development potential will likely be drilled as fringe wells 

in existing fields or as wildcat wells designed to discover entirely new fields. As with areas of very high and 

high well density, well spacing in areas of medium development potential is likely to be variable depending on 

the play or plays driving development.

In areas identified as having low development potential, very few new wells are expected be drilled and future 

well densities are expected to remain similar to present numbers, with isolated townships having a small 

potential for an increase in drilling density, most likely around the fringes of townships identified as having 

medium development potential, or within the Bakken-Lodgepole TPS assessment boundary. In areas identified 

as having low development potential, anticipated activity may be tied to exploration for new biogenic gas field 

discoveries. If a new field discovery is made in any of these areas of low development potential, subsequent 

drilling density could moderately increase. 

Drilling depths are not anticipated to change significantly during the planning period. Figure 9 shows historic 

well distributions by depth. There is likely to be some minor localized increases in depth if deeper reservoirs are 

locally encountered. While several deep wells (greater than 13,000 feet in true vertical depth) have been drilled 

in the study area, the majority of hydrocarbon-bearing rocks are at shallower depths. The majority of these deep 

wells have not produced from their deepest formations but have been plugged back to produce from shallower 

zones (IHS Energy 2008). It is therefore assumed that very few, if any, deep wells will be drilled in the planning 

area during the planning period. It is anticipated that most oil wells will be drilled to (vertical) depths ranging 

from 9,000 to 12,000 feet, with a smaller amount of drilling in the range from 5,000 to 9,000 feet. Gas wells 

will generally be drilled to a depth less than 5,000 feet. 

The majority of the anticipated activity will be additional drilling to grow identified reserves, exploratory 

drilling to define the limits of the most recent horizontal Bakken formation play, and exploratory drilling to 

explore the potential of the Three Forks formation (Sanish sandstone) play. Initial estimates of the ultimate size 

of new oil or gas fields are usually too low and, over time, revised estimates of the size and ultimate recovery 

contribute to reserve growth (Central Region Energy Resources Team 1996). Factors that contribute to reserve 

growth include: 

• physical expansion of fields by areal extensions and development of new producing intervals, 

• improved recovery resulting from application of new technology and engineering methods, and 

• upward revisions of reserve calculations based on production experience and changing relations 

between price and cost. 

Projected Coal Bed Natural Gas Drilling

Williston Basin

The USGS coal map of North America identifies an area underlain by Cretaceous and Tertiary coal beds in the 

Williston Basin, which includes a portion of the planning area (Wood and Bour 1988; USGS 2001b). However, 

no quantitative assessment of a potential CBNG gas resource associated with these coals in the Williston Basin 

has been performed. Presently, there is no CBNG production in the Williston Basin portion of the planning area, 

nor are there any exploration activities. One exploratory well has been drilled for coal bed gas in North Dakota, 

in Hettinger County in 2003. The well targeted CBNG from the Fort Union formation and reached a total depth 

of 8,541 feet. It was a dry hole. 

The strata in which the coals occur in the Williston Basin portion of the planning area generally lie at depths too 

deep to be mined economically with today's technology and current coal prices, and hence are potential 

candidates for CBNG exploration. The coals in the planning area lie within what is known as the Fort Union 

coal region, a wide-spread area containing Cretaceous- and Tertiary-age lignite-bearing strata. The Potential 

Gas Committee (2003) estimated 0.5 trillion cubic feet of potential recoverable CBNG resources may be found 

within the lignites in the Fort Union coal region. Limited exploratory CBNG drilling has occurred within the 

planning area. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-115

Approximately 20 - 100 wells, with low development potential are predicted in the Williston Basin. Areas of 

known coal strata within the Fort Union region are assigned low development potential. 

In order to assess potential impacts of some exploration and potential development of the CBNG resource in the 

Williston Basin, it is assumed that up to 100 new exploratory wells would be drilled during the planning period. 

Results from CBNG pilot drilling projects in Wyoming suggest that often too few wells have been drilled to 

adequately evaluate the economic viability of a particular area. Past history indicates that pilot projects should 

contain 16 (four interior wells) to 25 (nine interior wells) wells to adequately evaluate an area (Cook 2002; 

Likwartz 2002). History suggests that fewer than 16 to 25 wells may not adequately reduce pressure over a 

sufficient area and allow subsequent gas production. Also, heterogeneity in the coal may preclude the one 

interior well in a normal five- or nine-well pilot project from providing the data necessary to adequately 

evaluate economic viability. Therefore, it is assumed that any CBNG pilot projects in the planning area will 

contain 16 to 25 wells, which should provide a better chance of obtaining adequate data and thus avoiding 

duplicate projects. 

A projection of 100 new CBNG wells would allow some exploration activity and preliminary development if a 

newly discovered play is determined to be economical to produce.

Throughout the Fort Union coal region, much of the potential CBNG drilling is likely to only occur in one or 

two townships, not spread evenly over the area. 

1,255

1,530

443

202

1,262

1,195

852

811

630

1,036

331

441

623

39

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

0 - 1,000 1,000 -

2,000

2,000 -

2,999

3,000 -

3,999

4,000 -

4,999

5,000 -

5,999

6,000 -

6,999

7,000 -

7,999

8,000 -

8,999

9,000 -

9,999

10,000 -

10,999

11,000 -

11,999

12,000 -

12,999

13,000 -

13,550

Number of Wells

Depth of Wells (feet)

FIGURE 9.

VERTICAL WELL DEPTHS IN THE PLANNING AREA
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-116

Powder River Basin

Based on the current level of CBNG activity and age of existing wells (most are reaching 10 years of age, and 

the average economic life of the wells was predicted to be 15 years) it is apparent that the level of predicted 

CBNG development stated in the 2003 Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans will not occur. A more 

reasonable prediction for the level of development over the next 20 years would be approximately 1,100 new 

wells drilled.

PRODUCTION

Natural gas production from the Rocky Mountains has grown steadily since 1992 (National Petroleum Council 

2003). The Rockies are currently the largest producing region in the onshore lower 48 states. Much of this 

growth has been from nonconventional resources, although conventional production has also been increasing. 

When the DOE-EIA studied past United States gas production they found that:

“Just a few years ago, it was believed that natural gas supplies would increase relatively easily in response 

to an increase in wellhead prices because of the large domestic natural gas resource base. This perception 

has changed over the past few years. While average natural gas wellhead prices since 2002 have generally 

been higher than during the 1990’s and have led to significant increases in drilling, the higher prices have 

not resulted in a significant increase in production. With increasing rates of production decline, producers 

are drilling more and more wells just to maintain current levels of production. A significant increase in 

conventional natural gas production is no longer expected. Drilling deeper wells in conventional reservoirs 

is expected to slow the overall decline...” (2004, p. 33).

More recent analysis has confirmed this trend. Foss (2007) found that gas production in the United States has 

been lower than the recent high of 20.5 trillion cubic feet reported in 2001. This decline in total production for 

the United States has occurred even while drilling has reached an all-time high. Foss indicated that “with a 

maturing resource base and unconventional plays increasingly the target of drilling, the production of new wells 

does not match historical results, nor is it expected to” (2007, p. 17). In general, it is expected that new gas 

wells drilled within the planning area will follow this trend of reduced per well production from new wells 

completed unless a new shallow or biogenic gas play develops. 

Onshore oil production in the lower 48 states has been declining since the late 1980s and is expected to continue 

into the future (DOE-EIA 2006a). New oil reservoir discoveries are likely to be smaller, more remote, and 

increasingly costly to exploit. In the planning area, recent horizontal drilling emphasis in the Bakken and Red 

River formations has resulted in increased oil production and increased production of associated gas. 

ESTIMATED FUTURE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION 

As indicated above, a maximum of 7,600 wells, including CBNG wells, are projected to be drilled within the 

analysis period of 2011 through 2030. A table projecting wells spud by year for the 2011 through 2030 period

was calculated (Table 20). These values were determined using the available historical drilling and production 

data constrained by oil and gas futures prices and projected drilling activities to generate the values in this table. 

The number of new wells in 20 years (7,600) is based on the potential productivity map and the highest number 

of wells per township while the lowest well numbers are based on the potential productivity map and the lowest 

number of wells per township. Although Table 21 projects a range of new wells that could be drilled each year, 

the average value projected should be considered the most likely scenario for new drilling in any given year and 

cumulatively for the 20-year period (the average well numbers are based on historical drilling data) (Figure 10). 

Annual drilling projections are provided for analysis purposes only. The likelihood that the well projections in 

any given year will match actual activity is low. 

Table 22 is the forecast of hydrocarbon production for 20 years beyond 2011. Both gas and oil production will 

increase during the period. The cumulative values listed are only for the 2011 through 2030 projection period 

and do not include historical production. Of the 585,401,965 barrels of forecasted cumulative oil production, 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-117

about 134,642,452 barrels are projected to come from BLM-administered oil and gas minerals. Of the 

5,544,835,450 cubic feet of forecasted cumulative gas production, about 1,275,312,154 cubic feet are projected 

to come from BLM-administered oil and gas minerals.

Shale Gas 

Although natural gas resources are known to be present in shales in the planning area, presently there are no 

known shale gas resource plays being developed in North Dakota. The Bakken shale play (discussed in detail 

previously) occurs throughout a large area in the Williston Basin (Pollastro et al. 2008). Although the Bakken 

formation (middle sandstone member or the upper and lower shale members) has historically been an oilproductive play, the USGS estimates that as much as 1.848 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas resources 

may be present in the Bakken shales, (as well as an additional 2 billion cubic feet in the middle sandstone 

member) (USGS 2008). However, gas produced from the Bakken is considered "associated gas" (gas produced 

in addition to oil in a ratio of less than 5,300 standard cubic feet of gas per 1 barrels of oil). Subsequently, 

although the undiscovered gas resource is quite large, it is unlikely that Bakken formation drilling trends will be 

influenced by the shale gas; rather, oil exploration will drive drilling to the Bakken formation in the planning 

area, and gas will be produced in association with the oil. Several other carbonaceous shales are present within 

the planning area but their potential for containing economic gas resources is unknown. At present, with the 

exception of the Bakken shale, there is little information available to characterize shale gas plays that may be 

present within the planning area. 

y = 2.5399x

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1901191519181921192419271930193319371940194319461949195219551958196119641967197019731976197919821985198819911994199720002003200620092012201520182021202420272030

Number of Wells

Year

FIGURE 10.

PLANNING AREA WELL NUMBERS BY YEAR (1901 THROUGH 2010)
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-118

Carbonaceous shale is expected to be an important future source of natural gas in the United States. Presently, 

technology and completion methods are not available under current gas prices to economically produce natural 

gas that may be contained in shales in the planning area. However, this important future gas source could 

become viable before the end of the planning cycle.

OTHER POTENTIAL FUTURE 

OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES 

When and if future significant shale 

gas plays are characterized for the 

planning area and technology and 

well completion methods are 

developed along with favorable gas 

prices, this potential energy source 

could become important. Future 

development of such plays would 

depend heavily on their location 

relative to plays already developed 

or developing in the planning area. 

If adjacent to or overlapping existing 

plays, development would likely 

commence at a faster rate than if 

found to be geographically separated 

from such areas. The preceding is 

the most likely scenario as much of

the planning area has already been 

developed with existing plays, and 

these areas have a significant 

amount of infrastructure already in 

place. Existing wellbores may also 

be utilized if the plays overlap 

aerially. However, the nature of 

shale gas plays would likely require 

drilling of horizontal wells, so the 

existing wellbores would likely have 

to be re-entered and a horizontal 

lateral drilled into the zone of 

interest using the existing wellbore 

as a pilot hole. Additional new 

horizontal wells would also likely be 

drilled. Shale has very low 

permeability and large hydraulic 

fracture stimulations will probably be necessary to liberate the gas (Bereskin and Mavor 2003). This production 

may be accompanied by significant volumes of water. Also, well spacing may be dense: one well per 40 acres 

could be expected for vertical wells and 80- to 160-acre spacing could be expected for horizontal wells. 

Opportunities for development of any shale gas resource in the planning area, other than the aforementioned 

Bakken play, appear to be very low for the planning period.

Coal Gasification 

Underground coal gasification may be a potential future process that is applied to coal deposits within the 

planning area. This process burns the coal in situ, producing a combustible gas with a low heating value that 

may be used in industrial processes and gas turbines. Air or oxygen commingled with steam is injected into the 

coal seam, which results in the coal being burned outward from the injection well. The combustion products 

react with the non-burned coal to form hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and pyrolysis products that are produced at 

TABLE 22.

FORECAST OF PLANNING AREA ANNUAL AND

CUMULATIVE OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FOR 2011

THROUGH 2030

Year

Annual Production Cumulative Production

Oil 

(barrels)

Gas1 

(thousand 

cubic feet)

Oil 

(barrels)

Gas1 (thousand 

cubic feet)

2011 20,671,739 13,294,906 20,671,739 20,671,739

2012 21,576,829 13,989,428 42,248,568 62,920,306

2013 22,481,920 14,683,950 64,730,487 127,650,793

2014 23,387,010 15,378,472 88,117,497 215,768,290

2015 24,292,101 16,072,994 112,409,598 328,177,888

2016 25,197,191 16,767,516 137,606,789 465,784,676

2017 26,102,282 17,462,038 163,709,070 629,493,746

2018 27,007,372 18,156,560 190,716,442 820,210,188

2019 27,912,463 18,851,082 218,628,905 1,038,839,093

2020 28,817,553 19,545,604 247,446,458 1,286,285,550

2021 29,722,644 20,240,126 277,169,101 1,563,454,651

2022 30,627,734 20,934,648 307,796,835 1,871,251,486

2023 31,532,825 21,629,170 339,329,660 2,210,581,146

2024 32,437,915 22,323,692 371,767,575 2,582,348,720

2025 33,343,006 23,018,214 405,110,580 2,987,459,300

2026 34,248,096 23,712,736 439,358,676 3,426,817,976

2027 35,153,187 24,407,258 474,511,863 3,901,329,839

2028 36,058,277 25,101,780 510,570,140 4,411,899,978

2029 36,963,368 25,796,302 547,533,507 4,959,433,485

2030 37,868,458 26,490,824 585,401,965 5,544,835,450

1

Includes associated gas production
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-119

a production well. There is also evidence that combustion gases preferentially absorb to the coal cleat faces and 

displace CBNG from the coal, which would increase the heating value of the produced gas. The heat of reaction 

of the burned coal heats the unburned coal in front of the combustion front and drives off the hydrocarbon 

volatile matter contained in the coal. The removal of volatile matter is essentially the same process that coal 

goes through in the geologic process of changing lignite to anthracite by adding geothermal heat (increasing 

burial depth) through geologic time.

Presently, the underground gasification technology involving deep coal beds does not appear to be economic 

and there is no known research activity into future development in the planning area. There are coal beds in the 

Williston Basin portion of the planning area at depths too deep for mining but which are good candidates for 

underground gasification (e.g., Williston Basin Cretaceous and Tertiary coals) however, considering the 

relatively experimental status of underground coal gasification and the abundant coal found elsewhere in the 

region, there is a low probability that this process will be utilized in the Williston Basin portion of the planning 

area in the planning period.

Carbon Dioxide Sequestration 

Carbon dioxide sequestration is a method of storing captured carbon dioxide gas, a greenhouse gas. The primary 

industrial sources for carbon dioxide include electric power plants, oil refineries, chemical refineries, 

agricultural processing plants, cement works, and iron and steel mills. In the planning area, power and industrial 

plants, agricultural processing, chemical processing, and petroleum and natural gas processing (including 

refineries and sources associated with pipeline infrastructure) have been identified as the major industrial 

sources of carbon dioxide (NETL 2007). Of these sources, electrical power plants produce the most carbon 

dioxide by a substantial margin. Capturing and storing this carbon dioxide has been proposed to reduce the 

environmental effects caused by releasing the gas to the atmosphere. Three types of geologic features have been 

identified as potential carbon dioxide sequestrations sites and each occur in the planning area (NETL 2007). 

Those formation types are described below.

• Oil and gas reservoirs have hosted natural accumulations of oil or gas and could, in the future, be 

used to store carbon dioxide. The entrapment of hydrocarbons indicates that a containment seal is 

present and any associated water is assumed to be non-potable. The planning area is host to the 

most and largest oil and gas reservoirs in the Williston Basin and each may potentially be 

considered for future sequestration efforts. According to the NETL (2007), the Williston Basin 

may potentially store over 455 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. The majority of this 

potential lies within the planning area limits. Carbon dioxide injected into a mature oil reservoir 

can enable incremental oil to be recovered, a process known as EOR. Typically, an additional 10 

to 15 percent of original oil-in-place can be recovered when carbon dioxide is injected. While 

there are presently no active carbon dioxide enhanced recovery projects in the planning area, EOG 

Resources recently announced plans to begin a pilot carbon dioxide "huff and puff" program in 

Parshall field in Mountrail County, North Dakota (Rocky Mountain Oil Journal 2008). If the 

project proves successful and a source of usable carbon dioxide (i.e., of sufficient quantity, 

quality, and proximity) were readily available on a large scale, it is likely that additional carbon 

dioxide injection enhanced recovery projects will follow during the planning cycle. This may be 

another secondary recovery option that would further enhance recovery. However, due to the fact 

that the known oil and gas reservoirs in the planning area are currently being developed or 

produced, it is unlikely that carbon dioxide injection for sequestration purposes only (i.e., not as a 

benefit of carbon dioxide EOR) will be pursued prior to the end of the planning cycle. 

• Unminable coal beds are considered to be those that are too deep or too thin to be economically 

mined. Such coals are found in Tertiary- and Cretaceous-age formations in the deeper portions of 

the Williston Basin of the planning area. If methane contained in planning area coal beds becomes 

economically producible, then there could be a future opportunity to inject carbon dioxide, which 

could sweep additional methane from the coal beds and allow adsorption by the coals of the 

carbon dioxide. Since coal beds preferentially adsorb carbon dioxide, they provide excellent 

storage sites. However, at present there are no existing plans to develop coals within the planning 

area for CBNG production. It remains a possibility, however, that during the course of the 

planning cycle, limited exploration and production of CBNG will commence. Evaluation of coal 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-120

beds for carbon sequestration potential does not necessarily need to be tied to CBNG exploration. 

The Plains CO2 Reduction Partnership is evaluating the sequestration potential of Fort Union 

lignite coals in the North Dakota portion of the Williston Basin (Nelson, Steadman, and Harju 

2005). Initial data have confirmed that the target lignite bed has sufficient thickness to support a 

full test of its carbon dioxide sequestration potential (PCRP 2008). Depending on the results of the 

study, future carbon dioxide sequestration tests may commence in other lignites or deeper coals 

within the planning area. Future project development will depend greatly on successful pilot tests 

within the area. It is difficult to predict what the outcome of such tests will be; however, recently 

increased interest in carbon sequestration, positive initial results of the Plains CO2 Reduction 

Partnership test mentioned above, and the substantial areas of land that may contain unminable 

coal beds suggest that continued testing for carbon sequestration in these coals will occur in the 

planning area during the course of the planning period.

• Saline formations suitable for carbon sequestration were defined in the NETL (2007) atlas as 

porous and permeable rocks containing water with total dissolved solids greater than 10,000 

milligrams per liter that have the capacity to store large volumes of carbon dioxide. Two geologic 

units containing substantial areas of saline formations meeting these criteria have been identified 

in the planning area: the Cretaceous Newcastle formation and the Mississippian Madison group. 

These two formations are thought to have the potential to store up to 39 billion metric tons of 

carbon dioxide within the greater Williston Basin. It is expected that pilot studies of the viability 

of these formations to effectively sequester carbon dioxide will likely occur in the planning area 

during the planning period. Future development of such projects will depend on a number of 

factors, including the results of any such pilot tests. 

Carbon sequestration has been proposed in the Porcupine Dome area of the planning area. This proposal would 

inject carbon dioxide from sources such as coal-fired power plants into Mississippian-age formations. The 

carbon dioxide would be transported to the project area via pipelines and sequestered in the formation through 

injection wells. 

There is also a proposal to bring carbon dioxide from Wyoming and inject it into the Muddy formation in the 

Belle Creek unit for enhanced recovery of oil and possible future carbon sequestration.

PIPELINE INFRASTRUCTURE

Shortfalls in pipeline capacity have been common in the Rocky Mountain region in recent years. These 

shortfalls appear to be the result of rapid growth in supply, which has outstripped construction of new pipelines. 

The National Petroleum Council (2003) projects that significant new infrastructure will be needed in the Rocky 

Mountain region through 2013 and then decrease.

In the planning area of Montana, 30 percent of the gas produced is associated gas produced in conjunction with 

oil. The remaining 70 percent is gas produced from dedicated gas wells drilled mostly along the Cedar Creek 

Anticline or the CX field in Big Horn County. 

MCFO oil production has recently increased dramatically through the current success of the most recent Bakken 

horizontal play. The DOE-EIA projects that oil from Montana accounts for approximately 1.7 percent of the 

nation’s crude production (DOE-EIA 2009a). The MBOGC produced a map showing oil and gas pipelines of

Montana in 1987 (http://bogc.dnrc.mt.gov/annualreviews.asp). The crude oil pipelines currently in place are not 

able to handle all the production from the Bakken producing wells in northeast Montana. Additional pipelines 

and an increase in existing pipeline capacity would allow an increase in drilling and production from this area.

POTENTIAL SURFACE DISTURBANCE 

Tables 23 and 24 project short-term and long-term disturbance associated with existing wells and projected 

drilling activity for 2011 through 2030 (the projected well numbers are the highest numbers from Table 23). 

The method used to determine the number of new wells drilled during this period has been previously 

discussed. In addition, it is assumed that:
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-121

• the success (wells not immediately plugged and abandoned) rate of new CBNG wells is estimated 

to be 96 percent (based on historical rate),

• the success rate of new non-CBNG wells is estimated to be 79 percent as determined by drilling 

history,

• the success rate of new oil wells is estimated to average 78 percent,

• the ratio of oil wells to gas wells is based on the last 10 years (55 percent oil to 45 percent gas), 

and

• the ratio of BLM-administered wells is based on the percentage of federal minerals in the planning 

area (23.2 percent).

Determining a forecasted success rate for oil wells was slightly more complicated than it was for gas and CBNG 

wells because of the skewed historic data caused by the relatively high success rates associated with the current 

Bakken horizontal drilling efforts. The overall historic success rate for oil wells in the planning area has been 

approximately 48 percent. However, in the most recent 10-year period (2000 to 2010), the success rate for all 

wells drilled (development and wildcat wells combined) has climbed to approximately 88 percent. The MCFO 

expects the current success rate to continue for the first 4 years of the planning period (the length of time current 

activity levels on the horizontal Bakken play are expected to last). For the remaining 16 years of the planning 

period, the rate is expected to drop to 50 percent (based on the pre-Bakken historic success rate) with a gradual 

increase over time as technology and reservoir knowledge advance. These assumptions provide an average 

success rate of about 78 percent.

Table 23 shows projection of new exploratory and development wells (7,600 wells with 1,762 of those wells 

managed by the BLM) that could be drilled in the planning area from 2011 to 2030. There are an additional 

5,168 existing active wells (1,112 gas; 1,064 CBNG; and 2,992 oil) (MBOGC 2011). Of those 5,168 existing 

and projected wells, 930 total wells (378 gas, 179 CBNG, and 373 oil wells) lie on BLM-administered oil and 

gas lands. Table 23 also shows associated acres of total surface disturbance (short-term disturbance) directly 

associated with all new and existing wells. Approximately 21,654 acres of new and existing short-term surface 

disturbance (4,597 acres of disturbance on BLM-administered lands) could occur if all 7,600 projected wells 

were drilled.

Table 24 estimates new producing wells remaining in production after all new exploratory and development 

wells are drilled and all dry holes are abandoned and reclaimed (5,854 total new producing wells with 934 of 

those new producing wells on BLM-administered oil and gas lands). There are an additional 5,168 existing 

wells (930 active wells occur on BLM-administered oil and gas lands) that remain active. Table 24 also 

estimates unreclaimed associated acres of total surface disturbance (long-term disturbance) directly associated 

with all remaining wells. Approximately 6,401 acres of new unreclaimed surface disturbance (1,486 acres of 

unreclaimed BLM-administered lands) could remain in the long term. Total unreclaimed long-term surface 

disturbance (for all well types) would be 12,255 acres, with 2,420 of 

those acres on BLM-administered lands.

SUMMARY

For baseline projection, this RFD analyzed the oil and gas resource 

within the planning area, discussed types of future development that 

may occur, estimated the development potential for each type of 

resource, and projected baseline activity levels for the period 2011 

through 2030. For analysis of the baseline projection, it was assumed 

that the only land use restrictions on future oil and gas resource 

development would be those that have been legislatively imposed. 

Projections of future well numbers, oil and gas production, and surface 

disturbance were prepared.

Fuzzy-tongue penstemon in the planning area
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-122

USGS ASSESSMENTS OF UNDISCOVERED OIL AND GAS RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING 

AREA 

Introduction 

The USGS has published a number of resource assessments of undiscovered oil and gas resources that cover 

parts of the planning area. Their 1995 National Assessment of United States Oil and Gas Resources (Beeman et 

al. 1996; Charpentier et al. 1996; Gautier et al. 1996a) estimated the amount of crude oil, natural gas, and 

natural gas liquids that could be added to proved reserves in the United States, assuming existing technology. 

Those studies presented information about potential undiscovered accumulations of oil and gas in 71 geologic 

or structural provinces within the United States. One of those provinces, the Williston Basin province, covers 

the planning area. 

Recently the USGS revised their methods of preparing oil and gas resource assessments. They have used their 

new method to update their quantitative estimate of the undiscovered oil and gas resource for the Williston 

Basin province (Anna et al. 2008; Pollastro et al. 2008; Williston Basin Province Assessment Team 2011). In 

the following analysis, the newest assessment is used to describe the potential undiscovered technically 

recoverable oil and gas resources lying within the Williston Basin province. Map 93 shows the location of the 

Williston Basin province in relation to the planning area.

Williston Basin Province Assessment 

The Williston Basin province occupies the northeastern portion of the planning area and extends into eastern 

North Dakota, eastern Montana, and northwest South Dakota. It is a structural-sedimentary intracratonic basin 

in a generally flat lying, moderately dissected plain with minimum topographic relief. The main province 

geologic features are the Nesson, Cedar Creek, Little Knife, and Billings anticlines in the planning area. The 

TABLE 23.

DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH NEW DRILLED WELLS, EXISTING WELLS, AND

PROJECTED ACTIVE WELLS FOR THE BASELINE SCENARIO (SHORT-TERM

DISTURBANCE)

Type

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Total BLMadministered

Access 

Roads

Well 

Pad Total BLMadministered

New Exploratory and 

Development of CBNG 

Wells (2011 to 2030)

1,200 278 0.25 0.25 600 139

New Exploratory and 

Development Gas Wells 

(2011 to 2030)

2,880 668 0.5 0.5 2,880 668

New Exploratory and 

Development Oil Wells 

(2011 to 2030)

3,520 816 0.5 3 12,320 2,856

Total New Exploratory 

and Development Wells 7,600 1,762 15,800 3,663

Existing Active Gas Wells 1,112 378 0.5 0.25 834 284

Existing CBNG 1,064 179 0.25 0.25 532 90

Existing Active Oil Wells 2,992 373 0.5 1 4,488 560

Total Existing and 

Projected Wells 5,168 930 5,854 934

Total Wells 12,768 2,692

Total 

Short-term 

Disturbance

21,654 4,597
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-123

largest planning area oil-producing formations in 2007 were the Ordovician Red River formation (41.6 percent), 

Mississippian Madison/Lodgepole/Mission Canyon (28.4 percent), and Bakken formation (16.5 percent) (North 

Dakota Industrial Commission 2008). The largest planning area gas-producing formations in 2007 were the 

Mississippian Madison/Lodgepole/Mission Canyon (44 percent), Ordovician Red River formation (17.4 

percent), and Bakken formation (9.2 percent) (North Dakota Industrial Commission 2008).

Summary of Assessments

The PRB is divided into the Wyoming portion (approximately 57.3 percent of the surface) and the Montana 

portion (approximately 42.7 percent of the surface); sediment volume is probably approximately the same 

division. The 1995 PRB assessment identified 11 conventional oil and gas plays with estimated undiscovered 

resources (Dolton and Fox 1996). 

The USGS defines a TPS as:

"The total petroleum system constitutes the basic geologic unit of the oil and gas assessment. The total 

petroleum system includes all genetically related petroleum that occurs in shows and accumulations 

(discovered and undiscovered) that (1) has been generated by a pod or by closely related pods of 

mature source rock; and, (2) exists within a limited mappable geologic space, along with the other 

essential mappable geologic elements (reservoir, seal, and overburden rocks) that control the 

fundamental processes of generation, expulsion, migration, entrapment, and preservation of petroleum. 

The minimum petroleum system is that part of a total petroleum system encompassing discovered 

shows and accumulations along with the geologic space in which the various essential elements have 

been proved by these discoveries” (Pawlewicz 2005, p. 1).

The 2003 USGS assessment of the PRB identified four TPSs that embrace six continuous AUs and one 

conventional AU (Table 25). The USGS defines an AU as follows:

"An assessment unit (AU) is a mappable part of a total petroleum system in which discovered and 

undiscovered fields constitute a single, relatively homogeneous population such that the chosen 

methodology of resource assessment based on estimation of the number and sizes of undiscovered 

TABLE 24.

DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH NEW PRODUCING WELLS FOR THE BASELINE

SCENARIO (LONG-TERM DISTURBANCE)

Type

Wells Acres of Surface Disturbance

Total BLMadministered

Access 

Roads

Well 

Pad Total BLMadministered

New Producing CBNG 

Wells (2011 to 2030) 1,152 267 0.25 0.25 576 134

New Producing Gas 

Wells (2011 to 2030) 2,275 528 0.5 0.25 1,706 396

New Producing Oil 

Wells (2011 to 2030) 2,746 637 0.5 1 4,119 956

Total New Producing 

Wells 6,173 1,432 6,401 1,486

Existing Active Gas 

Wells 1,112 378 0.5 0.25 834 284

Existing CBNG 1,064 179 0.25 0.25 532 90

Existing Active Oil 

Wells 2,992 373 0.5 1 4,488 560

Total Existing and 

Projected Wells 5,168 930 5,854 934

Total Wells 11,341 2,362

Total 

Short-term 

Disturbance

12,255 2,420
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-124

fields is applicable. A total petroleum system may equate to a single assessment unit, or it may be 

subdivided into two or more assessment units if each unit is sufficiently homogeneous in terms of 

geology, exploration considerations, and risk to assess individually” (Pawlewicz 2005, p. 1).

Of the 11 conventional oil and gas plays identified in the 1995 assessment, six plays (Upper Minnelusa, Lakota 

sandstone, Fall River sandstone, Muddy sandstone, Sussex-Shannon sandstone, and the Mesaverde-Lewis) 

extend into the Montana portion of the PRB. Of the four TPSs identified in the 2003 assessment, three TPS and 

four AUs (the Upper Fort Union formation AU and Lower Fort Union-Lance formation AU in the TertiaryUpper Cretaceous Coal-Bed Methane TPS, the Mowry TPS, and Cretaceous Biogenic Gas TPS) extend into the 

Montana portion of the PRB.

There are two AUs from the TertiaryUpper Cretaceous Coal Bed Methane 

TPS that fall within the RMP planning 

area: the Upper Fort Union formation 

AU and the Lower Fort Union-Lance 

formation AU (Maps 98 through 100). 

These AUs are located in the 

southwestern portion of the planning 

area, in eastern Big Horn, southern 

Rosebud, Powder River, eastern 

Treasure, and northern Carter counties in 

Montana. The two AUs represent CBNG 

plays in which the coals act as both the 

source rock and the reservoir. The 

natural gas contained in the coals is 

methane generated by thermogenic (heatdriven) and biogenic (microbial-driven) 

conditions and trapped within the coal 

seam by the pressure of groundwater. 

The methane is believed to be 

predominately of biogenic origin within 

the Montana portion of the PRB. The 

amount of the CBNG contained in the 

coal beds is primarily determined by the 

gas adsorptive capacity of the coal, coal composition, depth of burial and related pressure, and the coal volume.

The USGS estimates of the total CBNG resources contained within the Tertiary-Upper Cretaceous Coal Bed 

Methane TPS within the PRB vary from 8.2 trillion cubic feet to more than 22.4 trillion cubic feet, and the 2003 

USGS assessment estimated a mean of 14.3 trillion cubic feet. Of the 14.3 trillion cubic feet of CBNG resources 

estimated by the USGS in 2002, 12.1 trillion cubic feet are estimated to be in the Upper Fort Union formation 

AU (of which approximately 32.7 percent of the area is located in the planning area in Montana) while the 

Lower Fort Union-Lance formation AU is estimated to contain 200 billion cubic feet of gas (of which 

approximately 49.9 percent is located in Montana within the MCFO planning area). The remaining 2 trillion 

cubic feet of CBNG resources is estimated for the Wasatch formation AU, of which approximately 1.57 percent 

of the AU area falls within the Montana portion of the PRB (USGS 2002).

The Tongue River member of the Fort Union formation is the primary coal- and CBNG-producing stratigraphic 

unit in the Upper Fort Union formation AU. The Tongue River varies in thickness across the AU but can be 

more than 1,700 feet in thickness, with as many as eight to ten coal beds. Individual coal bed thicknesses also 

vary and range from 5 feet to as much as 190 feet, with laterally continuous beds commonly occurring in 

thickness within the 20- to 90-foot range (Dolton and Fox 1996). 

TABLE 25.

SUMMARY OF 2003 USGS RESOURCE ASSESSMENT OF

THE POWDER RIVER BASIN, MONTANA PORTION ONLY

Play

Mean Oil 

Resources 

(million 

barrels)

Mean Gas 

Resources

(trillion cubic feet)

Continuous Resource Reservoirs

Upper Fort Union 

(Tertiary) CBNG 0.0 3.96

Lower Fort Union Lance 

(CBNG) 0.0 0.1

Wasatch CBNG 0.0 0.03

Mowry TPS 0.48 0.0

Cretaceous Biogenic Gas 0 0.18

Conventional Reservoirs

Fall River Sand 51.8 0.03

Upper Minnelusa 89.8 0.005

Muddy Sand 23.5 0.12

Sussex-Shannon Sand 1.1 0.005

Mesa Verde-Lewis 3.48 0.003

Lakota Sand 15.26 0.006

Total 185.42 4.439
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-125

At the end of 2010 in the Montana portion of the PRB, there were approximately 540 CBNG-producing wells 

with natural gas production (in 2010) of approximately 8.7 million cubic feet (MBOGC 2010). Montana CBNG 

production was occurring in two areas: the CX Ranch Field and wildcat wells in Big Horn County (the CX 

Ranch Field is also located in Big Horn County near the Wyoming state line).

The Mowry TPS consists of the Mowry Continuous Oil AU, an unconventional oil play in which the Mowry 

fractured shale is both the source rock and reservoir (Dolton and Fox 1996). The 2003 USGS assessment of the 

Mowry TPS estimated mean undiscovered resource volumes of 198 million barrels of oil, 198 billion cubic feet 

of gas, and 12 million barrels of natural gas liquids within the PRB. The majority of the Mowry Continuous Oil 

AU is predominantly located in the Wyoming portion of the PRB (greater than 99 percent), with only a small 

piece (approximately 0.23 percent) of the AU extending into the southern portion of Big Horn County in the 

area of the Decker Mine (USGS 2003). The USGS assessment of this play identifies the Mowry TPS as a 

hypothetical play with only limited production from the Mowry shale, which is typically associated with 

production from the Muddy sandstone. Although there has been production from the fractured Mowry shale, the 

USGS identified no known purposeful exploration into the Mowry shale exclusively; generally, exploration of 

the Mowry is coupled with activity in another formation.

The Cretaceous Biogenic Gas TPS consists of the Shallow Continuous Biogenic Gas AU and is a natural gas 

play in which biogenically generated gas has been trapped by conventional structural and stratigraphic traps in 

the Tertiary and Cretaceous sediments. The 2003 USGS assessment of the Shallow Continuous Biogenic Gas 

AU estimated average natural gas resources of 787 billion cubic feet of gas, of which approximately 23.53 

percent of the AU is located in Montana within the planning area. The AU is believed to include nearly all of 

the Cretaceous and Fort Union sequence in Montana, and the play rises to higher stratigraphic formations 

toward the south into the uppermost Cretaceous and Tertiary beds. Reservoirs include the sandstones from the 

Early Cretaceous to the Eocene, specifically the sandstones from the Frontier, Sussex, Mesaverde, Bearpaw, 

Lance, and Fort Union formations (Dolton and Fox 1996). The natural gas from this play is sourced from the 

coal beds and fine-grained humic-rich rocks of the Tertiary and Cretaceous periods. This gas is contained by 

stratigraphic traps, combination traps, and small structural closures. The play has been developed from the East 

Belle Creek, Hammond, Pumpkin Creek, Hardin, and Toluca fields, but none of these accumulations are 

believed to contain more than 6 billion cubic feet of gas (Dolton and Fox 1996). 

Conventional Oil and Gas Assessments

The 1995 USGS PRB assessment identified six conventional oil and gas plays with occurrences within the 

planning area, including the Upper Minnelusa sandstone, Lakota sandstone, Fall River sandstone, Muddy 

sandstone, Sussex-Shannon sandstone, and the Mesaverde-Lewis play (Dolton and Fox 1996). Of these six 

plays, all but the Lakota sandstone have been explored and developed in the PRB; the Minnelusa, Fall River, 

and Muddy sandstones have well-established histories of over 30 years of exploration (Dolton and Fox 1996). 

The Upper Minnelusa sandstone play, a conventional oil play, is the result of oil stratigraphically trapped by 

paleotopography, reservoir truncations, and pinchouts at the top of the Minnelusa formation. The play extends 

northward from Wyoming into Montana (through western Carter County into eastern and southern Powder 

River County). The oil is believed to be sourced from the Pennsylvanian-age (Desmoinesian stage) marine 

shales that underlie the Upper Minnelusa sandstone, trapped in a complex of cyclic sequences of carbonates and 

sandstones overlain by the Opeche shale (Dolton and Fox 1996). The depth to these traps ranges from 5,000 to 

15,000 feet. As of 1990, there were approximately 160 fields in the PRB within only one Montana field (outside 

of the planning area) reporting production from the Minnelusa, with total discoveries for the PRB estimated to 

contain 500 million barrels of oil. The 2003 USGS assessment estimates the mean undiscovered resources to be 

522 million barrels of oil and 31.3 billion cubic feet of gas. Approximately 17.2 percent of the AU area is 

located within the planning area (USGS 2002). 

The Lakota sandstone play, a conventional oil and gas play, is the result of stratigraphic traps of the Cretaceousage basal Lakota sandstone. The play extends into the southeastern portion of Montana through southwestern 

Carbon County, southern Powder River County, southern Rosebud County, and southeastern Big Horn County. 

The oil and gas present in the play are attributed to the overlying Mowry shale, with other possible source rocks 

including the marine Skull Creek shale and the shales of the Fall River sequence. The reservoirs are fine- to 

coarse-grained sandstones, with average thicknesses between 6 and 13 feet. The traps are stratigraphic in nature, 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-126

with some associated with local structure elements. The stratigraphic traps are the result of sandstone pinchouts 

of alluvial channels. Overlying seals include the Fall River and Skull Creek shales (Dolton and Fox 1996). The 

depths of the traps range from 2,000 to 13,000 feet.

The 1995 USGS assessment of the play notes only light exploration due to the small size, unpredictability, and 

difficulty of finding accumulations of oil or gas (Dolton and Fox 1996). The 2003 USGS assessment estimated 

mean undiscovered resources of 54 million barrels of oil, 21.5 billion cubic feet of gas, and 1.5 million barrels

of natural gas liquid. Approximately 27.5 percent of the AU is located within the planning area.

The Fall River sandstone play, a conventional oil and gas play, is the result of resources trapped within a 

regressive clastic wedge stratigraphic trap in the Fall River formation. The play extends into Montana through 

western Carter County, across most of Powder River County, and into the southern portion of Rosebud County. 

The source rocks are most likely the overlying Mowry shale but other possible sources include the Skull Creek 

and Fall River shales. The reservoir rocks are the fine-grained sandstones of the Fall River Dakota sandstone, 

which is overlain by the Fall River shale and underlain by the Skull Creek formation, which provide 

stratigraphic traps for the resources (Dolton and Fox 1996). The depth to these traps range from 4,000 to 14,500 

feet. As of the 1995 USGS assessment, there were approximately 30 fields or pools identified in the Wyoming 

portion of the PRB estimated to contain 170 million barrels of oil and 110 billion cubic feet of gas, but there are 

no fields in Montana reporting production from the Fall River sandstone play (Dolton and Fox 1996). The 2002 

USGS assessment estimates the mean undiscovered resources to be 192 million barrels of oil, 115 billion cubic 

feet of gas, and 8 million barrels of natural gas liquid. Approximately 25.9 percent of the AU is located within 

the planning area (USGS 2002).

The Muddy sandstone play, a conventional oil and gas play, is the result of stratigraphic traps of the Cretaceous 

Muddy sandstone. The play extends into the southeastern portion of Montana through western Carbon County, 

Powder River County, southern Rosebud County, and eastern Big Horn County. The oil is likely sourced from 

the overlying Mowry shale but other possible sources include the underlying Skull Creek shale. The reservoirs 

are generally fined-grained sandstone, with varying thicknesses resulting from the unconformity existing on top 

of the Skull Creek shale. Average reservoir thicknesses are between 10 and 25 feet (Dolton and Fox 1996).

The reservoirs are stratigraphically bounded by finer-grained sediments from the Skull Creek, Muddy, and 

Mowry shales, which act as traps for the hydrocarbons. These traps range in depth from 3,000 to 14,000 feet 

(Dolton and Fox 1996). The 1995 USGS assessment noted that more than 170 individual accumulations had 

been discovered with estimates of at least 500 million barrels of oil and 940 billion cubic feet of gas; within the 

planning area, there are five fields (three oil and two gas) with reported production from the Muddy formation 

(Dolton and Fox 1996). 

The 2003 assessment estimates the Muddy sandstone in an oil play and a gas play. The Muddy sandstone oil 

play is estimated to contain mean undiscovered resources of 59 million barrels of oil, 177 billion cubic feet of 

gas, and 12.4 million barrels of natural gas liquid. The gas play is estimated to contain mean total undiscovered 

resources of 272 billion cubic feet of gas and 16.3 million barrels of natural gas liquid (USGS 2002).

Approximately 26.8 percent of the AU is located within the planning area. 

The Sussex-Shannon sandstone play, a conventional oil and gas play, is the result of stratigraphic traps of the 

Sussex and Shannon sandstone members of the Eagle formation. The play extends into the southeastern portion 

of Montana through southwestern Powder River County, southern Rosebud County, and southeastern Big Horn 

County. The oil is attributed to the underlying Niobrara and Carlisle formations, with secondary accumulations 

from Upper Cretaceous shales from the Frontier and Steele formations. The reservoirs are marine shelf 

sandstones, which are relatively narrow and sinuous, and thicknesses range from 5 to 32 feet. The traps are 

stratigraphic in nature where the narrow and sinuous shelf sandstones have updip pinchouts overlain by shales. 

Depths to the traps range from 7,000 to 11,000 feet (Dolton and Fox 1996).

The 1995 USGS assessment of the play identified 22 existing fields with 1 field located in the planning area 

with reported production; estimated discoveries for all of the PRB were 180 million barrels of oil and 90 billion 

cubic feet of gas (Dolton and Fox 1996). The 2003 USGS assessment estimated mean undiscovered resources 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-127

of 68 million barrels of oil, 54 billion cubic feet of gas, and 4.3 million barrels of natural gas liquid. 

Approximately 10 percent of the AU is located within the planning area.

The Mesaverde Lewis play, a conventional oil and gas play, is the result of stratigraphic traps of marine 

sandstones in the Cretaceous Mesaverde formation and Lewis shale. The play extends into the southeastern 

portion of Montana through southwestern Powder River County and into southeastern Big Horn County. The oil 

and gas present in the play are attributed to the source rocks of the Niobrara formation and the Carlile shale, 

with secondary oil amounts from the Frontier formation and Steele shale. The reservoirs are porous, feldspathic 

sandstones in the Teapot and Parkman sandstone members of the Mesaverde formation and the Teckla 

sandstone of the Lewis shale. Average thicknesses of the reservoirs are between 10 and 150 feet. The traps are 

stratigraphic in nature, a result of updip pinchouts from erosional surfaces and facies changes from shallow 

marine sandstones to offshore siltstone and shale. The depth to these traps range from 5,000 to 9,500 feet near 

the basin axis (Dolton and Fox 1996).

The 1995 USGS assessment of the play identified 60 existing fields, none of which are located within the 

planning area, with estimated discoveries of 110 million barrels of oil and 180 billion cubic feet of gas (Dolton 

and Fox 1996). The 2003 USGS assessment estimated mean undiscovered resources of 58 million barrels of oil, 

58 billion cubic feet of gas, and 4.1 million barrels of natural gas liquids. Approximately 5.6 percent of the AU 

is located within the planning area.

Non-USGS Oil and Gas Resource Assessments

The 1995 USGS assessment of plays in the Williston Basin does not include an assessment of CBNG. However, 

coal research has been performed by the USGS, North Dakota Geological Survey, and Montana Bureau of 

Mines and Geology to assess the coal deposits present in the Williston Basin. The USGS has assessed the coals 

of the Fort Union formation in the Williston Basin of North Dakota (Ellis et al. 1999; Flores and Keighin 1999). 

The North Dakota Geological Survey assessed the potential for CBNG development from lignites in the North 

Dakota portion of the Williston Basin (Murphy and Goven 1998). R.W. Specht reported additional analysis of 

the CBNG potential of the Williston Basin in North Dakota in a series of papers and presentations, The 

Williston Basin: the Premier “Next Generation” Coalbed Methane Play in the Rocky Mountain/Great Plains 

and Coalbed Methane Potential of the Williston Basin, North Dakota, in Emerging Coalbed Methane Plays of 

North America. 

The coals of the Williston Basin are subbituminous to lignite in grade and are present in the Paleocene Fort 

Union formation (Specht 2002). The North Dakota side of the Williston Basin has more published research 

relative to the presence and differentiation of the coal units and CBNG development potential than is currently 

available on the Montana portion of the basin. Although environmental differences resulted in thinner and less 

widespread accumulations in the Williston Basin, the deposition of the coal-bearing strata across the Williston 

Basin coincided with deposition of the PRB coal-bearing strata (Specht 2002). Similar to the coals of the PRB, 

the Williston Basin coals act as both source rock and reservoir, with much of the gas derived from biogenic 

generation. The coals of the Williston Basin tend to be shallower than coals in the PRB, with depths ranging 

from 0 feet at the surface outcrop to 750 feet. The North Dakota Geological Survey surveyed coal and other 

drilling-related industry personnel regarding instances of gas shows when drilling wells in lignites across North 

Dakota. Although there were several reports of gas blowing out the wellbores in various parts of North Dakota

(including the northwestern part near the Montana state line), there has not been sufficient analysis to indicate 

the gas present was methane (Murphy and Goven 1998). Specht (2002) proposes the presence of up to 13 

trillion cubic feet of methane gas reserves in the Williston Basin of North Dakota, a value based on the 

estimated volume of subbituminous and lignite coal and gas-sorption values from biogenic methane-producing 

basins nearby.

The Judith River-Eagle sandstone play is classified as an unconventional gas play with very low permeability. 

The Cedar Creek Anticline is a structural trap of the Judith River and Eagle sandstone members of the Upper 

Cretaceous. The Eagle was deposited as beach and barrier facies during regression of an inland sea that covered 

the central area of the North American Continent during the Cretaceous Period. The formation derives its name 

from, and is located on, Eagle Creek at its confluence with the Missouri River. The Judith River formation was 

formed as a lagoonal deposit when there were many river deltas and tidal flats on the edge of the regressing
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-128

Bearpaw Sea during the late Cretaceous Epoch. The play extends throughout the planning area portion of 

Montana, including Fallon, Carter, Wibaux, and Powder River counties; north to Dawson, McCone, Richland, 

Roosevelt, Daniels, and Sheridan counties; and west through Prairie, Garfield, Custer, and Treasure counties. 

The reservoirs are marine offshore silty mudstones, and thicknesses range from 50 to 600 feet. The traps may be 

structural or stratigraphic in nature. Depending on location in the planning area, depths to this formation range 

from 800 to 2,500 feet.

USGS Assessment Unit Summaries

In their newest assessment, the USGS (Anna et al. 2008; Pollastro et al. 2008; Williston Basin Province 

Assessment Team 2011) divided the Williston Basin province into TPSs and AUs rather than plays as they had 

done in previous assessments. “The total petroleum system approach is designed to focus the geologic studies 

on the hydrocarbon source rocks, processes that create hydrocarbons, migration pathways, reservoirs, and 

trapping mechanisms” (USDI et al. 2003). In the Williston Basin, two total petroleum systems are associated 

with continuous oil and gas resources and nine total petroleum systems are associated with conventional oil and 

gas resources. Continuous accumulations can include tight reservoirs, shale reservoirs, unconventional 

reservoirs, basin-centered reservoirs, fractured reservoirs, coal beds, oil shales, and shallow biogenic gas. 

All continuous (Bakken-Lodgepole and CBNG) and conventional (Bakken-Lodgepole, Winnipeg-Deadwood, 

Red River, Winnipegosis, Duperow, Cedar Creek Paleozoic Composite, Madison, Tyler, and shallow biogenic 

gas) TPSs lie at least partly within the planning area. These total petroleum systems and their associated AUs 

are listed below (see the RFD producedfor the North Dakota Field Office at http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/nor

th_dakota_field/rmp/RFD/appfigures.html for more information), and include the:

• Bakken-Lodgepole continuous TPS–Elm Coulee-Billings Nose, Central Basin-Poplar Dome, 

Nesson-Little Knife Structural, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold 

AUs;

• Coalbed Gas continuous TPS–Fort Union Coalbed Gas AU;

• Bakken-Lodgepole conventional TPS–Middle sandstone member, and Lodgepole AUs; 

• Winnipeg-Deadwood conventional TPS–Winnipeg-Deadwood AU; 

• Red River conventional TPS–Red River Fairway, Interlake-Stonewall-Stony Mountain, and Red 

River East Margin AUs; 

• Winnipegosis conventional TPS–Winnipegosis AU;

• Duperow conventional TPA–Dawson Bay-Souris River and Duperow-Birdbear AUs; 

• Cedar Creek Paleozoic Composite conventional TPS–Cedar Creek Structural AU; 

• Madison conventional TPS–Mission Canyon-Charles AU; 

• Tyler conventional TPS–Tyler sandstone AU; and

• Shallow Biogenic Gas Conventional TPS–Shallow Biogenic Gas AU. 

The USGS has not yet made statistical information publicly available for these AUs.

Assessment Unit Resource Results 

Anna et al. (2008) estimated undiscovered technically recoverable resource quantities of oil and gas that could 

be added to the proved reserves within each AU, using a forecast span of 30 years. A 30-year forecast span 

affects the minimum undiscovered accumulation size, the number of years in the future that reserve growth is 

estimated, economic assessments, the accumulations chosen for consideration, and the assessment of risk. 

Below, the MCFO summarizes the estimated volumes of hydrocarbons in the eight conventional and one 

continuous AUs, which lie at least partly within the planning area. 

In Tables 18 and 19, the USGS resource estimates for three types of hydrocarbons (oil, gas, and natural gas 

liquids) are shown for the conventional and continuous AUs in the Williston Basin province, together with the 

BLM’s projection of the amount of those hydrocarbons that could be present within the planning area. To 

determine the potential resource within the planning area, the BLM: 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-129

• assumed a homogenous distribution of each hydrocarbon type within each AU, 

• calculated the percent of each AU that lies within the planning area, and 

• multiplied that percentage by the USGS resource value estimates for each entire AU to calculate 

planning area resource values. 

Estimates of recoverable resources for each AU within the Williston Basin province and within the planning 

area are presented as a probabilistic range of possibilities: a low case having a 95-percent probability of that 

amount or more occurring, a high case having a 5-percent probability of that amount or more occurring, and a 

mean case representing an arithmetic average of all possible outcomes. The BLM estimates that the planning 

area contains a mean undiscovered volume of 1.128 billion barrels of oil, 1.045 trillion cubic feet of gas, and 

63.83 million barrels of natural gas liquids in the Williston Basin province AUs. 

In addition, this RFD estimates that the planning area’s oil resource in the Williston Basin province could range 

from 0.843 to 1.478 million barrels, the gas resource could range from 0.469 to 1.894 trillion cubic feet, and the 

natural gas liquids resource could range from 63.83 to 120.61 million barrels (assuming fractile data used has a 

perfect positive correlation).

Table 25 presents the 2003 USGS estimates of recoverable resources for the Powder River Basin portion of the 

planning area. 

In 2009, the USGS completed an update of the 1995 assessment (USGS 2002) of the potential for undiscovered 

resources in conventional oil and gas accumulations of the Powder River Basin Province of northeastern 

Wyoming and southeastern Montana. The 2002 assessment of continuous (unconventional) oil and gas 

accumulations were not reassessed. The current assessment of conventional oil and gas resources, based on 

geologic elements such as hydrocarbon source rocks (source rock maturation and hydrocarbon generation and 

migration), reservoir rocks (sequence stratigraphy and petrophysical properties), and hydrocarbon traps (trap 

formation and timing), includes five TPSs identified in the province by the USGS; eight AUs were defined 

within the TPSs. Estimates of the undiscovered conventional oil and gas resource in these eight AUs, in 

addition to the estimates of undiscovered continuous oil and gas resources within the province, were reported in 

USGS Fact Sheet FS–146–02 (2002). The USGS estimated means of 16.6 trillion cubic feet of gas, 639 million 

barrels of oil, and 131 million barrels of total natural gas liquids for undiscovered continuous and conventional 

resources in the Powder River Basin Province. Most of the undiscovered gas resource (93 percent, or 15.5 

trillion cubic feet) is continuous. Of the 1.16 trillion cubic feet of conventional gas at the mean, about 91 

percent, or 1.05 trillion cubic feet is estimated to be from the Fall River-Lakota and Muddy Sandstones AUs of 

the Mowry TPS. Of the 215 million barrels of conventional oil at the mean: 

 about 30 percent, or 64 million barrels, is estimated to be from the Fall River–Lakota Sandstone AU; 

 about 28 percent, or 61 million barrels, is estimated to be from the Minnelusa-Tensleep-Leo 

Sandstones AU of the Pennsylvanian-Permian TPS; and 

 about 22 percent, or 47 million barrels, is estimated to be from the Muddy Sandstone AU. 

The Frontier-Turner, Sussex-Shannon, and Mesaverde-Lewis Sandstones AUs from the Niobrara TPS are 

estimated to contain means of 25 million barrels of conventional oil (12 percent) and 57.0 billion cubic feet of 

gas (5 percent) of the total undiscovered conventional resource. The Basin Margin AU of the PaleozoicMesozoic TPS is estimated to contain a mean of 18 million barrels and 14.7 billion cubic feet of total 

undiscovered conventional resource. The Eastern Basin Margin–Upper Fort Union Sandstone AU of the 

Tertiary–Upper Cretaceous Coalbed Methane TPS is estimated to contain a mean of 27.4 billion cubic feet of 

total undiscovered conventional gas resource (Williston Basin Province Assessment Team 2011). 

Because the USGS assessments (1995, 2003, and 2009) do not cover the same geographical area, it is difficult 

to determine one estimate of recoverable resources for the PRB portion of the planning area. The data is 

presented to allow the reader to understand that there are oil and gas recoverable reserves to be discovered in 

this portion of the planning area. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-130

The BLM estimates of recoverable reserves for this portion of the planning are based on the 2003 estimations. 

These estimates are a mean oil reserve of 185.42 million barrels of oil and a mean gas reserve of 4.439 trillion 

cubic feet of gas for the PRB of the planning area.

PROPOSED CARTER MASTER LEASING PLAN AREA

BACKGROUND

The purpose of an MLP is to plan for oil and gas development in a defined area containing a high level of 

potential resource conflicts. Within the MLP area, the BLM predicts and analyzes the likely oil and gas 

development at a more focused level than in the planning area as a whole.

The BLM evaluated the planning area for potential MLP areas. One area within Carter County met all of the 

following criteria for conducting an MLP:

 a substantial portion of the area to be analyzed in the MLP is not currently leased;

 there is a majority federal mineral interest;

 the oil and gas industry has expressed a specific interest in leasing and there is a moderate or high 

potential for oil and gas confirmed by the discovery of oil and gas in the general area; and

 additional analyses or information is needed to address likely resource or cumulative impacts if oil and 

gas were to occur where there are multiple use conflicts; impacts to air quality; impacts on resources or 

values of any unit of the National Park Service (NPS), a national wildlife refuge, or a national forest 

wilderness area and determined after consultation or coordination with the NPS, USFWS, or USFS; or 

impacts in other specially designated areas.

HOW TRACTS WERE IDENTIFIED

To make the initial process manageable and systematic, the BLM began its evaluation of the planning area by 

looking at each individual county with current oil and gas activity. A GIS map was created of each county and 

the acreage of the county was calculated. The mineral ownership GIS layer was added, and the amount of 

federal oil and gas mineral estate within the county was determined. Another layer showing the current leases 

(leases that are held by production and nonproducing leases) was added to determine the amount of federal 

mineral estate that is unleased and to help determine where there is existing production as indicated by the 

leases that are held by production. The recent expressions of interest were added to indicate interest by the oil 

and gas industry. The oil and gas development potential was then added using the RFD scenario from the 

existing Powder River and Big Dry RMPs. The existing wells were then added to help determine areas of 

interest, producing wells, and any new discoveries. Because the main resource or area in conflict with 

development is sage-grouse core habitat, this habitat was also added to the map. 

Based on the calculations and a visual interpretation of each county, areas in need of an MLP were identified. A 

GIS map was then developed focusing in on the potential area with the same layers as described above. 

Although the initial view was on a county basis, county lines were ignored when focusing on a particular area. 

A logical boundary was then drawn for each area. 

Two of the areas did not meet all of the criteria for doing an MLP (Dawson Southeast and Rosebud Northwest), 

but one area did meet the criteria: a portion of Carter County referred to as the Carter MLP area.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-131

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO FOR THE PROPOSED CARTER 

MASTER LEASING PLAN AREA 

Background Information

The proposed MLP area is located in Carter County. The MLP area has high (approximately 57,500 acres), 

medium (approximately 140,300 acres), and low (approximately 198,700 acres) development potential areas. 

The area contains approximately 396,500 surface (all ownership) acres and 282,500 acres of federal (BLMadministered) oil and gas mineral acres.

The proposed MLP lies within the MCFO RFD area. Projections for the MLP RFD are based on information 

contained in the MCFO RFD, which was completed in 2012. The MCFO RFD contains projections of the 

number of possible oil and gas wells that could be drilled and produced in the MCFO planning area.

Assumptions

As the location of the MLP area is many miles from the high development potential CBNG areas in the MCFO 

RFD, no CBNG wells are projected to be developed in the MLP area.

Using the prediction for number of wells per development potential per township, the RFD for the MLP predicts 

54 to 119 oil and gas wells. Up to 10 percent of these wells (11) would produce oil and gas. Federal oil and gas 

estate in the MLP composes 71 percent of the MLP area; therefore, 71 percent of the 119 all-ownership wells 

would result in 84 BLM-administered wells drilled (46 oil and 38 gas).

The BLM anticipates oil development occurring in two project PODs, one in the western half and one in the 

eastern half of the MLP area. One water injection/salt water disposal/injection well would be needed for each 

POD. These injection wells would come from dry holes or marginal producers. The water produced from the oil 

wells would be poor in quality (over 10,000 parts per million [ppm] total dissolved solids [TDS]).

Historically, industry has considered a 10-percent success rate for wildcat wells to be the industry average. 

Of the 46 BLM-administered oil wells drilled in the MLP, 10 percent (approximately 5) would be producing oil 

wells. Each well would need a reserve pit measuring 100 feet by 40 feet. Each well would need an access road 

for a total of 2 miles of road (Table 26). Two miles of pipeline (to remove the associated gas) and 2 miles of 

buried power lines for these producing oil wells would be needed. Flaring of associated gas would be needed 

until pipelines were in place.

Of the 38 gas wells predicted, approximately 4 gas wells would produce federal gas. The four producing wells 

would need 12 miles of pipeline to deliver or distribute the gas and 12 miles of buried power lines (Table 26). 

Access would not be developed for the gas wells because it would be gained by driving across two-track roads.

The water produced from each gas well would be low in volume (holes 8 foot in diameter) and good quality (at 

or below 10,000 ppm TDS).

COAL BED NATURAL GAS MANAGEMENT IN THE DECKER AREA

CBNG development in the Decker area will be managed under the 2008 Record of Decision for the Final 

Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment 

of the Powder River and Billings RMPs, and will be used when reviewing proposals to identify impacts, 

develop mitigation measures, and guide the decision-making process.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Fluid Minerals Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario

MIN-132

TABLE 26.

LEVEL OF DISTURBANCE FOR OIL AND GAS WELLS AND ASSOCIATED PRODUCTION

FACILITIES

Facilities

Exploratory 

Well 

Disturbance 

(acres per well)

Construction 

Disturbance 

(acres per well)

Operation or 

Production 

Disturbance 

(acres per well)

Well Pad 

360-foot by 360-foot 

pad during drilling and 

construction, 200-foot 

by 200-foot pad during 

operation

3 3 1

Access Roads 

to Well Sites

Two-track (12 feet wide 

by 0.21 miles long) NA 0.3 0.3

Graveled (12 feet wide 

by 0.075 miles long) 0.5 0.1 0.1

Bladed (12 feet wide by 

0.05 miles) 0.5 0.075 0.075

Utility Lines1

Water lines (15 feet by 0.20 

miles) NA 0.35 1

Overhead electric (10 feet by 

0.15 miles) NA 0.2 0.2

Underground electric (15 feet 

by 0.20 miles) NA 0.35 0

Transportation 

Lines

Intermediate pressure gas line 

to and from field compressor 

(25 feet by 0.08 miles)

NA 0.25 0.001

High pressure gas or crude oil 

gathering line (25 feet by 0.3 

miles)

NA 0.9 0.2

Processing

Areas

Tank battery (one 0.50-acre 

tank battery per 12.5 wells) NA 0.02 0.04

Access roads (25 feet by 0.05 

miles) NA 0.15 0.15

Field compressor (0.5-acre 

pad per 12.5 wells) NA 0.2 0.04

Sales compressor (2-acre pad 

for 240 wells) NA 0.01 0.01

Sales line (25 feet by 6 miles 

per 240 wells) NA 0.075 0.075

Produced 

Water 

Management

Produced water pipeline (25 

feet by 0.3 miles) NA 0.9 0.2

Water plant/injection well (6-

acre site per 12.5 wells) NA 0.25 0.5

Total Disturbance per Conventional Oil or 

Gas Well (acres) 4 7.1 3

1The operation disturbance for utilities assumes all utilities will be completed underground, and the land surface will be 

reclaimed so that no disturbance should remain except where noted. It is assumed that each conventional oil and gas well will 

need product pipeline and produced water line from the well. In addition, some wells will need intermediate pipeline run 

from the field compressor to sales line.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-133

SOLID MINERALS

COAL

BIG DRY RMP AREA

<The following is from the Big Dry RMP (BLM 1996) and pertains to the coal decisions that would be 

carried forward for the Big Dry RMP area in this RMP.>

Introduction

This summary is intended to aid in understanding the federal coal management process as it applies to the 

planning area. The basic requirements of coal management are detailed under the guidance in 43 CFR 3400. 

The objectives in managing the federal coal resource in this area are (1) to provide for the development of 

federal coal in an orderly and timely manner, consistent with the federal coal management program and 

policies, environmental integrity, and national energy needs; and (2) to identify federal coal that is acceptable 

for further consideration for leasing. This resource management plan and environmental impact statement 

provides the basis for tract specific analysis of areas considered for new competitive federal coal leasing, lease 

modification, exchange, and license issuance.

Coal Planning Process

The planning area is within the Fort Union Coal Region and competitive leasing is subject to oversight by the 

Regional Coal Team. At this time the region is decertified and not subject to regional coal sales. Individual 

leases can be sold without a region-wide analysis. However, tract specific analyses are required and the coal 

team can review the sale and determine that there is enough cumulative regional interest to justify recertifying 

the coal region. If this decision is made, consideration of the lease sale will become part of a regional analysis. 

There are four basic types of coal management actions that can be taken in the planning area: lease by 

application, lease modification, exchange, and license issuance. Since there is no indication of an immediate 

request for any of these actions, coal activity is not a major issue in this plan. Coal in the Big Dry Resource 

Area has low potential for underground mining. Therefore, coal planning is based on surface mining only. 

In each of the procedures there is a point at which an environmental impact statement or environmental 

assessment is prepared. The decision as to what level of study is appropriate hinges on the sensitivity and 

perceived impact of the action. The environmental study conducted for coal actions will include passing the 

tract through the four screens identified in 43 CFR 3420.1-4. The screens are: identification of areas with coal 

development potential, the application of unsuitability criteria identified in 43 CFR 3461.1 (which are primarily 

on-site concerns), multiple land use decisions, and landowner consultation. 

The off-site impacts of coal development will be addressed as needed when identified in the scoping process for 

specific lease activity planning. This includes concerns about impacts on the agricultural community, area 

socioeconomics, air quality, and regional transportation.

Identification of Coal Development Potential

The first step in making coal development potential determinations is the gathering of all available geologic 

data for the study area. The primary data sources are published and unpublished drill hole reports. This includes 

drilling by the U.S. Geological Survey, the BLM, the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and several coal companies. The government data is available in published reports and publicly 

accessible files held by the various agencies. The company data is mainly confidential and comes from 

exploration licenses, mine plan files, and drilling on privately owned coal. The drilling by federal agencies is on 

federally held coal. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-134

There are several publications on the coal geology of eastern Montana. These provide coal outcrop maps, coal 

elevations and thicknesses, and identify many areas where coal has been burned in-place. Much information is 

found in the records of old mines and company interest areas. This often includes coal thicknesses, depths, and 

quality analyses. Once the coal data has been assembled, the coal beds shown in the drilling records and maps 

are identified and correlated. Then coal thickness (isopach) and overburden thickness maps are prepared for 

each coal bed of interest. 

The final step preparatory to identifying coal development potential is the comparison of the overburden maps 

to the coal isopach maps. This results in a stripping ratio (feet of overburden to feet of coal) map. The stripping 

ratio is the chief parameter in the identification of the development potential of any parcel of land. The 

classification of development potential falls into four categories:

High - coal at least 5 feet thick, overburden no greater than 150 feet thick, and stripping ratio no more than

10:1.

Moderate - coal at least 5 feet thick, overburden no greater than 200 feet thick, and stripping ratio no more than 

20:1.

Low - coal present but does not meet the criteria for high or moderate development potential. 

None - no coal present.

It should be noted that a major factor in development potential categorization is the availability of data. As 

further data becomes available the ranking of any given area can change, usually upwards. This is especially 

true of areas ranked as having low potential as they might be better classified as “unknown.” 

The potential for a section is the highest rank of any portion of that section. If any part of the section has high 

potential, the entire section is ranked high. This is done because a section is the smallest practical unit for 

classification and study at a scale suitable for the whole planning area. If specific activity planning is done in an 

area, more detailed investigation will be done at that time. 

Fort Union Region coal is ranked as lignite. The lignite heating value ranges from 5,000 to 7,500 British 

thermal units per pound. Eastern Montana coal typically has high moisture, and low ash and sulfur content (see 

table 55). 

The coal resources identified in the planning area shown in coal development potential maps total 19.276 billion 

tons (of which 47.5 percent or 9.164 billion tons is federal) (Table 56). The coal bearing Fort Union formation

covers the eastern two-thirds of the planning area. There are doubtless many areas of high and moderate 

potential coal which have not been identified to date. There are also areas which have been identified but are 

considered insignificant or inadequately understood and were left out of this study. The acquisition of new data 

will make for refinements in this estimate. 

The remaining three screening steps are applied to the coal areas identified through this first screen.

Application of Coal Unsuitability Criteria

A total of 263,608 federal coal acres were found unacceptable for further consideration for coal leasing through 

application of the coal unsuitability screen. This screening is preliminary and will be reviewed and completed 

when a specific coal tract proposal is made. Those applications that can be made for the unsuitability criteria as 

follows.

Criterion 1 - Federal Land System: Lands totaling 22,852 federal coal acres were identified as unsuitable as part 

of the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail system. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-135

TABLE 55 

COAL BED DATA 

IDENTIFIED HIGH AND MODERATE COAL AREAS

Name

Average 

Thickness 

(feet)

Moisture 

Percent

Ash 

Percent

Volatile 

Matter 

Percent

Fixed 

Carbon 

Percent

Sulfur 

Percent Btu/lb

CREEK

Pust 23.9 38.61 8.02 26.52 26.81 0.72 6,182

CIRCLE

Pust 15.0 38.61 8.02 26.52 26.81 0.72 6,182

P 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA

Rogers 10.0 NA 6.10 NA NA 0.40 7,410

R 5.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Haugins 7.0 33.10 5.30 26.55 35.05 0.45 7,455

S 12.0 26.50 7.50 26.50 34.90 0.27 7,223

CUSTER CREEK

R 6.8 NA NA NA NA NA NA

U 20.3 25.60 18.80 25.60 30.00 0.30 6,430

L 7.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

GIRARD

Prittegurl 7.5 39.85 7.10 25.65 27.40 0.75 6,470

Breugger 5.0 43.20 5.80 29.00 24.00 0.30 5,999

Elvirio 14.0 38.40 6.73 25.67 29.20 0.70 6,667

D 6.7 34.90 7.60 27.10 30.40 0.50 6,790

KNOWLTON

Upper Dominy 28.0 38.80 5.72 24.64 30.78 0.39 6,663

Middle 

Dominy 8.5 37.67 5.60 26.07 30.67 0.43 6,788

Lower 

Dominy 9.0 36.20 7.72 25.85 30.23 0.41 6,645

LAME JONES 

CREEK

A 6.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Lame Jones 7.5 38.40 10.46 25.98 25.60 0.61 6,235

PENNEL CREEK

A 11.5 32.40 8.90 28.10 30.10 0.51 6,819

B 11.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

SCOBEY

E 3.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

D 8.0 29.83 13.67 27.25 29.26 0.64 6,418

C 3.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

WEST GLENDIVE

Kolberg Ranch 8.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Peuse 112.0 35.68 7.44 26.86 29.87 0.32 6,723

Poverty Flats 8.0 NA NA NA NA NA NA

Newton Ranch 9.5 30.90 13.45 24.76 30.89 0.37 6,507

WIBAUX-BEACH

Harmon 15.0 38.71 9.13 25.30 26.86 0.88 6,079

Hansen 9.0 36.43 11.40 25.00 27.17 1.60 6,077

KEY: Btu/lb. = British thermal unit per pound

NA = not applicable
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-136

TABLE 56

HIGH AND MODERATE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL TONS AND ACRES

FOR IDENTIFIED COAL AREAS

Coal Area

Total Tons 

Recoverable 

(x1,000,000)

Total Acres

Federal Tons 

Recoverable 

(x1,000,000)

Federal Acres

Burns Creek 5,813 267,500 2,595 118,828

Circle 6,238 599,500 2,589 253,617

Custer Creek 459 30,000 342 27,191

Girard 1,534 235,500 1,342 201,924

Knowlton 661 34,000 280 14,176

Lame Jones 

Creek 299 34,500 120 12,685

Pennel Creek 474 52,000 243 25,923

Scobey 911 132,000 526 74,035

West Glendive 1,903 243,000 799 102,477

Wibaux-Beach 982 46,000 328 16,524

TOTAL 19,276 1,674,500 9,164 847,379

NOTE: Tonnage estimates prepared by BLM.

Criterion 2 - Federal Lands within Rights-of-way or Easements, or Surface Leases for Residential, Commercial, 

Industrial, or Other Public Purposes: No lands were found unsuitable under this criterion. This criterion will be 

applied if specific coal activity proposals are made. 

Criterion 3 - Buffer Zones along Road Rights-of-way and Adjacent to Communities, Public Schools, Occupied 

Dwellings, Churches, Public Parks, and Cemeteries: No lands were found unsuitable under this criterion. This 

criterion will be applied if specific coal activity proposals are made. 

Criterion 4 - Wilderness Study Areas: The Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area includes 15,630 acres within 

the Custer Creek coal area. Consequently, 14,166 federal coal acres were found unsuitable for further 

consideration. 

Criterion 5 - Scenic Areas: The Terry Badlands Wilderness Study Area is a Class I visual resource management 

area. Under this criterion, the same acreage as that identified under Criterion 4 (14,166 federal coal acres) was 

found unsuitable. 

Criterion 6 - Land Used for Scientific Study: There are no federal lands within the coal areas used for scientific 

study. 

Criterion 7 - Historic Lands and Sites: There are no lands within the coal areas that are on the National Register 

of Historic Places. There are 2,524 federal coal acres overlain by sites considered eligible but not submitted to 

the register. These coal lands have been declared unsuitable under this criterion. 

Criterion 8 - Natural Areas: There are no designated natural areas or national natural landmarks within the coal 

areas. 

Criterion 9 - Federally Designated Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species: Under Alternative 

A, there is no identified area for this criterion. Under Alternatives B and C, 853 acres in the Black-footed Ferret 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern would overlap the Custer Creek coal area and would be designated 

unsuitable. Under Alternative D, 3,840 acres in the Black-footed Ferret Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

would overlap the Custer Creek coal area and would be designated unsuitable under this criterion. The 16 acre 

piping plover site is also designated unsuitable. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-137

Criterion 10 - State Listed Threatened and Endangered Species: No areas were listed as unsuitable under this 

criterion. 

Criterion 11 - Bald and Golden Eagle Sites: Four eagle nest sites were identified in the coal areas resulting in 

2,040 acres declared unsuitable under this criterion. 

Criterion 12 - Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas: Eagle roosting and concentration areas 

were identified along the Missouri and Yellowstone rivers in the Girard and Custer Creek coal areas, resulting 

in 5,503 federal coal acres declared unsuitable under this criterion. 

Criterion 13 - Falcon Nesting Sites: Prairie falcon sites were identified in the Burns Creek and Circle coal areas. 

A total of 4,080 federal coal acres were designated unsuitable under this criterion.

Criterion 14 - Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest: No additional migratory birds of high federal interest 

(besides eagles) were identified in the coal areas. 

Criterion 15 - Habitat for Species of State Interest: A total of 213,098 federal coal acres are unsuitable under 

this criterion. The habitat consists of critical winter ranges for white-tailed and mule deer, antelope, and grouse 

leks. 

Criterion 16 - 100 Year Floodplains: A total of 6,300 federal coal acres were found within the Burns Creek, 

Custer Creek, and Girard coal areas and designated unsuitable. 

Criterion 17 - Municipal Watersheds: No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion. There have 

been no municipal watersheds designated by the surface management agency within the coal areas. 

Criterion 18 - Natural Resource Waters: No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion. There are 

no natural resource waters designated within the coal areas. 

Criterion 19 - Alluvial Valley Floors: No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion. The State of 

Montana has the lead in designation of alluvial valley floors. It will make the designation when there is a 

specific coal action proposal including a mine plan. 

Criterion 20 - State Proposed Criteria: The State of Montana has proposed no unsuitability criteria. 

Multiple Land-Use Decisions

There are no unsuitability conflicts that necessitate multiple use or mitigative measures. 

Coal mining and oil and gas production can conflict. Present management practice is to allow the companies 

involved the opportunity to negotiate a private settlement. BLM policy is being drafted for the situation when 

the coal and oil and gas lease are federal. The proposal is to work on a first-come, first-served basis. The second 

lease issued will include the stipulation that the lessee must be prepared to hold operations in abeyance or cease 

permanently in favor of the prior lease. 

Surface Owner Consultation 

BLM is required by Section 714 of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act to consult with “qualified” 

surface owners of split estate lands (privately owned surface over federally held coal) where surface mining of 

the federal coal is under consideration. 

“Qualified” surface owners are asked to state their opinion for or against coal mining on their land. In areas of 

significant surface owner opposition, federal coal is removed from consideration for surface mine leasing. This 

screen involves only split estate lands remaining after the other three screens have been applied. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-138

Surface owner consultation has not been conducted for this resource management plan and environmental 

impact statement. At present there are no active proposals for new coal leasing in the planning area. Since 

landownership and owner qualifications will change through time, this screen will be applied when actual lease 

proposals are contemplated. This is in order to respond to the current landowner feelings at the moment of lease 

activity planning. 

Coal Development Scenario Generic Mine and End-use Facility Description and Impacts 

The purpose of this discussion is to present assumptions and impacts for coal development. The uncertainty of 

the location and size of the mine and end-use facility will limit this to a general discussion. This is not meant to 

be a substitute for a detailed site-specific analysis and environmental impact statement that may come later in 

response to an application for the permit to build and operate a mine and end-use facility. Nor will it preclude 

any federal, state, local, or private decisions concerning actual end-use, facility siting, or end-use restrictions. 

The following is based on the detailed analysis presented in the Draft Fort Union Regional Coal Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDI, BLM 1982c) and related logical mine size tract site-specific analyses 

and the Draft North Dakota Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (USDI, BLM 

1986a).

Mine 

The generic mine considered is a 5.5 million ton per year surface mine with a 40-year mine life. Mine operation 

is expected to disturb land at a rate of 340 acres per year or 14,000 acres over 40 years. It would take 

approximately 10 to 13 years for completion of the full cycle from initial disturbance through mining, 

reclamation, and bond release for each acre. In full production, the total area out of production in any year 

would be 3,400 to 4,400 acres. Soils would be continuously replaced on mined-out areas and brought back into 

production during the life of the mine. 

The low energy value and high water content of lignite coal constrains transportation of lignite. Therefore, it is 

assumed that an end-use facility would be near the mine. 

Facility 

A generic coal-fired electric power generation plant would consist of two 500 megawatt units located near a 

lignite coal source. The facility has an average operation factor of 0.90 and a load factor of 0.85. It would be 

capable of delivering a maximum of approximately 900 megawatts to the existing transmission system. The 

facility would consist of the following units: (l) coal preparation, storage, and handling; (2) power generation; 

(3) pollution control and waste disposal; and (4) utility and transportation corridors. The total land area 

dedicated to the facility would be approximately 600 acres. 

Coal Preparation, Storage, and Handling 

Lignite coal would be transported from a nearby mine to a 3-day storage pile or a 60-day storage pile. From the 

3-day storage pile, the coal would be sent by conveyor to be crushed before being transferred to the plant silos 

for intermediate storage. Finally, coal would be reconditioned before introduced into the furnace for ignition. A 

generic plant would burn approximately 800 tons of coal per hour or about 5.5 million tons per year. 

Power Generation 

The crushed coal is combined with air supplied by forced-draft fans and then ignited and burned in the boiler 

furnaces. The combustion in the boiler furnace produces heat that creates steam from feed water entering the 

boiler heat-exchange system. After releasing energy through expansion in the high-pressure section of the 

turbine, steam is returned to the boiler for reheating. After being reheated, steam is returned to the intermediate 

section and subsequently to the low-pressure section of the turbine. Spent steam passes through the condenser 

where waste heat is removed, and the condensed liquid is returned to the boiler feed water system. Combustion 

gases from the furnace are exhausted to the atmosphere through the pollution control devices. Steam energy is 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-139

converted to mechanical energy by the turbine and subsequently transformed into electrical energy by the 

generator. Generated power is routed through the main transformer for voltage step-up and then to a switchyard 

and transmission line system for distribution. 

The water for the power plant systems would come from a nearby river or impounded water source. 

Demineralization of the filtered water for boiler makeup will be necessary to provide water of the required 

quality for the steam generation system. The treated water would then be stored for use. There will be several 

holding ponds included at the facility to store recoverable water. 

The cooling system for the electric power facility would be mechanically induced draft wet-type cooling towers. 

Cooling tower blowdown would be sent to a holding pond to be used for ash sluicing, scrubbers or coal dust 

suppression. 

Pollution Control and Waste Disposal 

Burning lignite in the boiler produces gaseous emissions, fly ash, and bottom ash. The gas from the boiler 

passes through a fabric filter baghouse and a sulphur dioxide dry scrubber, and is dispersed by a 600-foot stack. 

Bottom ash from the main boiler, pyrite rejected from the pulverizer, and ash discharged from the hoppers 

would be hydraulically conveyed to dewatering bins. The ash would then be loaded into trucks and transported 

to the adjacent mine for disposal. 

The plant would include a dry scrubbing system to absorb sulphur dioxide from the flue gas. The scrubber 

product would be treated prior to disposal with dry fly ash. The flyash and scrubber product would be blended 

with water for dust control and stabilization. Emission of nitrogen oxides would be controlled by designing the 

boiler for proper mixing and flame quenching. The quantity of wastes produced by the power facility would be 

approximately 80 tons per hour of fly-ash and scrubber product and 10 tons per hour of bottom ash. 

The air emissions would depend primarily on: (l) the conversion process, the emission control technology used 

at the facility, and the level of control used; (2) the sulfur, ash, and water content of the lignite; and (3) whether 

or not the facility produces its own electric power. For this discussion, it is assumed that the facility would 

produce electric power with coal-fired boilers and steam turbines. 

Utility and Transportation Corridors 

Water would be pumped from the water source to a surge pond. The water pipelines would require a rights-ofway probably consisting of a 100-foot-wide construction easement and a 50-foot-wide permanent easement. 

The surge pond would have a water surface area of approximately 42 acres and would contain l,050 acre-feet of 

water. Transportation corridors would be required for roads and a railspur. The transmission line leaving an 

electric power facility would be a 500 kilovolt line with a right-of-way 150 feet wide connecting with an 

existing system.

<End of Big Dry RMP>

POWDER RIVER RMP AREA

<The following is from the Powder River RMP, Appendix D Federal Coal Lands Review Process (BLM 

1985c) and pertains to the coal decisions that would be carried forward for the Powder River RMP area in 

this RMP.>

Call for Coal Resource Information

Calls for expression of interest were sent to 34 companies on July 13, 1981. There were seven replies.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-140

Identification of Coal with Development Potential

The resource Evaluation Branch of the Minerals Management Service, Billings, Montana (now the BLM 

Branch of Solid Minerals, Montana State Office, BLM) evaluated the Powder River Resource Area to 

determine areas with coal development potential. 

Criteria for the determination are:

 Maximum 15:1 stripping ratio

 Maximum 500 feet overburden

 Coal at least 5 feet thick.

If an area met all three criteria it was classified as having development potential. These parameters were used 

for coal with over 7,000 BTU per pound. Most of the coal in the resource area is in this category. But coal in the 

Pine Hills area east of Miles City has lower heating values. For the purposes of this RMP, however, all coal was 

delineated based on the above parameters, because of the small acreage of coal below 7,000 BTU per pound. 

These criteria result in a greater tonnage of coal over a given area than the currently recognized maximum 

economic stripping limits used by surface miners in the region (generally limited to 6.5:1 maximum stripping 

ratio, 200 feet maximum overburden, and coal for purposes of the RMP screening analysis the beds greater than 

20 feet thick).

For purposes of the RMP screening analysis the legal subdivision (required for possible leasing) was used to 

describe the acreage rather than the free-flowing, and somewhat smaller, actual boundary of the coal resources. 

Tonnage figures used in the RMP were based on the actual acreage X thickness of coal X 1770 tons per acre 

foot and denote the actual tonnage of coal with development potential within the legal subdivision.

Application of Unsuitability Criteria

The unsuitability criteria in 43 CFR 3461 provide that coal lands shall be considered unsuitable for all or certain 

stipulated methods of coal mining if they fall within any of 20 categories listed in this Appendix.

In conformance with this requirement, all 1,123,600 acres of federal coal with development potential in new 

planning were assessed to see what unsuitability criteria applied. As a result, 61,615 acres containing 4.8 billion 

tons of coal were found unsuitable without exception for coal leasing, as shown in Table 2-7 of the main text. 

An additional 39,713 acres, as shown in Table 2-8, were identified as containing unsuitability criteria where an 

exception has been made or may be applied in the future, and carried forward for further leases or exchange 

consideration with stipulations. Also identified were 856 stream miles of preliminarily identified alluvial valley 

floors on both federal and private minerals. Because wildlife inventories were incomplete over much of the coal 

region, 522,500 acres in alternative B and 589,200 acres in Alternative C were identified as acceptable for 

further lease or exchange consideration pending further wildlife studies.

Methods

From January to March 1983, the Resource Area staff identified locations where unsuitability criteria applied 

within the areas of coal with development potential. Overlays showing application of the individual criteria 

were compiled at 1:100,000 scale for six quadrangles covering the coal area (Birney, Broadus, Lame Deer, 

Powderville, Miles City, and Forsyth). Composite overlays were constructed showing application of the 

unsuitability criteria, and areas needing further study. These overlays are available for inspection at the Miles 

City District Office. Unsuitability determinations were made by legal subdivision. The minimum acreage 

deleted was a quarter of a quarter section (40 acres) or an individual lot. Only in the case of floodplains was 

acreage deleted on other than a legal subdivision and discussed by criterion and county in the coal Management 

Situation Analysis on file at the Miles City District Office.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-141

Results

The following is a summary of results obtained for each criterion. In general, Criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6 refer to land 

status; Criteria 4, 5, and 8 refer to recreational and natural values; Criterion 7 refers to cultural resources; 

Criteria 9 through 15 refer to wildlife; Criteria 16 through 19 refer to watershed; and Criterion 20 refers to 

issues proposed by the State.

Lands

Criterion 1-Federal Land Systems

Two tracts totaling 331 acres were identified as unsuitable without exception. Both are withdrawn by the United 

State Forest Service for administrative purposes.

Criterion 2-Rights-of-Way Easements

A 100-foot wide right-of-way along roads on federal surface was identified as unsuitable. Such rights-of-way 

totaled 257 acres. An exception could be applied at a future date if all parties involved agreed to a relocation 

plan.

Criterion 3-Buffer Zones along Road Rights-of-Way and Adjacent to Communities, Public Schools, Occupied 

Dwellings, Churches, Public Parks, and Cemeteries

One public park-Woodruff Park in the Pine Hills east of Miles City-containing 76 acres, one cemetery 

containing one are, and five schools and buffer zones containing 35 acres, were identified as unsuitable for 

mining without exception.

Road rights-of-way (100 feet) plus a buffer of 100 feet outside each side of the right-of-way (a total of 300 feet) 

are unsuitable for mining. A total of 12,837 acres of road rights-of-way and buffers were identified. Land under 

occupied dwellings and within a 300-foot buffer is unsuitable for mining. A total of 1,489 acres of dwellings 

and buffers were identified. An exception could be applied to dwellings and rights-of-way in the future if all 

parties involved agree to a relocation plan.

Criterion 6-Land Used for Scientific Study

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Recreational and Natural Values

Criterion 4-Wilderness Study Areas

Two Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) were found unsuitable without exception. A total of 8,438 acres covering 

the entire Zook Creek WSA were deleted from further lease consideration. This acreage is slightly larger than 

the actual acreage of the WSA, because deletions were made on legal subdivisions. A total of 5,933 acres were 

deleted for Buffalo Creek WSA. This acreage differs slightly from actual WSA acreage because of legal 

subdivisions and also because a small part of the WSA lies outside the high and moderate coal area. If the 

WSAs were dropped from Wilderness consideration, the areas could be screened further for leasing 

consideration.

Criterion 5-Scenic Areas

Because WSAs are designated Class 1 scenic areas in Visual Resource Management, the 8,438 acres in Zook 

Creek and 5,933 acres in Buffalo Creek have also been deleted as unsuitable without exception under Criterion 

5 as well as 4.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-142

Criterion 8-Natural Areas

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Cultural Resources

Criterion 7-Historic Lands and Sites

Reynolds Battlefield in Powder River County, containing 1,404 acres, and Rosebud Battlefield in Big Horn 

County containing 5,051 acres, have been identified as unsuitable without exception. These areas would lose 

nearly all value if the original surface were modified.

An additional 6,776 acres, containing known significant historic and prehistoric sites eligible for or on the 

National Register of Historic Places, were identified as unsuitable. However, if the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Officer determine that the action will have no 

significant adverse effect on the properties, an exception may be applied. Pending such determinations, the 

exceptions have been applied to the eligible sites and submitted to the review agencies for comment.

Criterion 7 was revised on January 6, 1984 and was reapplied which resulted in no changes.

Wildlife

Recommendations for Criteria 9 through 15 were developed in cooperation with personnel from the Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. References to source material used to 

develop overlays are listed in the MSA for coal.

Wildlife-related unsuitability criteria were only applied on the acreage where inventory was complete. Known 

sites in areas with incomplete wildlife inventory were identified on the overlays but not tallied in the acreage 

tabulations. Areas lacking inventory have been identified as acceptable for further lease consideration pending 

further study. A reasonable timetable for conducting remaining wildlife studies in the areas pending further 

study is listed in the coal MSA.

All buffer zones were established using legal subdivisions encompassing recognizable appropriate land forms 

on quad maps.

Data used were those available as of February 18, 1983. Wildlife survey data does become outdated. For any 

proposed coal tract, a wide variety of updated information may be required for a particular activity plan. 

Criterion 9-Federally Listed Endangered Species

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Criterion 10-State Listed Endangered Species

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Criterion 11-Bald and Golden Eagle Nest Sites

Seventeen golden eagle nests and buffer zones, totaling 6,840 acres, were the only unsuitable habitat found. No 

exception was applied under this criterion.

Criterion 12-Bald and Golden Eagle Roost and Concentration Areas

Bald eagle winter concentration areas along the Tongue River, totaling 2,020, acres, were the only unsuitable 

habitat found. No exception was applied under this criterion.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-143

Criterion 13-Falcon Cliff Nesting Sites

Fourteen prairie falcon nests and appropriate buffer zones, totaling 4,540 acres, were the only unsuitable habitat 

found. No exception was applied under this criterion.

Criterion 14-Migratory Birds of High Federal Interest

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Criterion 15-State Resident Fish and Wildlife

A variety of habitat associated with seven wildlife species were identified as unsuitable. On some of the 

Criterion 15 acreage “a lease may be issued if, after consultation with the State, the surface management agency 

determines that all or certain stipulated methods of coal mining will not have a significant long-term impact on 

the species being protected” (43 CFR 3461.[o][1]). These mitigatable acreages consist mainly of sharp-tailed 

grouse and sage-grouse leks with buffer zones, and sage –grouse wintering areas. Habitat recovery and 

replacement plan requirements are detailed in the coal MSA. Most of the critical mule deer, white-tailed deer, 

antelope, and bighorn sheep winter range as well as critical turkey wintering areas were identified as unsuitable 

without exceptions. One area of overlapping mule deer and antelope winter range consisting of 1062 acres north 

of Decker was identified as suitable for lease consideration with stipulations in order to avoid a bypass situation.

Wildlife acreage identified as unsuitable without exception includes:

 22,141 acres of mule deer winter range;

 7,689 acres of antelope winter range;

 3,720 acres of overlapping mule deer and antelope winter range;

 960 acres of white-tailed deer winter range;

 3,374 acres of turkey wintering areas; and

 318 acres of bighorn sheep winter range.

 35,482 total acres unsuitable without exception*

Wildlife acreage identified as unsuitable with exceptions includes:

 5,421 acres within 16 sage-grouse leks and buffer zones;

 21,594 acres within 96 sharp-tailed grouse leks and buffer zones; and

 4,081 acres of sage-grouse winter habitat.

 27,086 total acres unsuitable with exceptions.*

*Totals are slightly smaller than the sum of the various categories due to overlap among habitat of different 

species.

Watershed

Criterion 16-Floodplains

Floodplains defined as unsuitable without exception contain 3,215 acres along the Tongue River and 2,966 

acres along the Powder River. There are large developed acreages along these two rivers. Criterion 16 requires 

that mining on floodplains could not take place if there would be substantial threat of loss of life or property. 

Floodplains of lesser streams were not deleted because mining was not identified as posing a substantial threat 

of loss of life or property.

Criterion 17-Municipal Watersheds

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-144

Criterion 18-Natural Resource Waters

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Criterion 19-Alluvial Valley Floors (AVFs)

No acreage was deleted at this time due to alluvial valley floors. However, 856 stream miles within the coal 

with development potential area were identified as preliminarily alluvial valley floors based on color infrared 

air photo interpretation by BLM staff and comparison with 1:100,000 scale reconnaissance maps of AVFs in the 

northern Powder River Basin, prepared by Earth Resource Associated in 1983 for the Office of Surface Mining. 

The miles identified were over private as well as federal coal. Final determination and deletion of alluvial valley 

floors would be made at the mine planning stage.

State Concerns

Criterion 20-State Proposed Criteria

No areas were identified as unsuitable under this criterion.

Surface Owner Consultation Process

According to Public Law 95-87, the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), all 

comprehensive land use plans involving potential coal leasing shall consult with qualified private surface 

owners over federal coal with development potential, and ask the surface owner to state his/her preference for or 

against the offering of the deposit under his/her land for lease. In conformance with this requirement, letters 

were sent out on January 19-21, 1983, to all 454 private surface owners over the 943,000 acres of coal with 

development potential in the Resource Area not considered in previous planning. (See the end of this 

Appendix.) The new planning areas contain an additional 183,000 acres of public surface over public minerals. 

Surface owners were requested to respond within 30 days; however, late responses were accepted for planning 

purposes until March 4, 1983. The letter did not ask for surface owner consent; rather, it requested views to help 

BLM decide which coal lands in the Powder River Basin should and should not be considered further for 

possible leasing. Areas with significant negative surface owner views were dropped from further consideration 

for leasing in this RMP; all other areas were carried forward as acceptable for further consideration. The 

decision on which specific coal lands will be leased will be made in a separate process, called activity planning, 

which is beyond the scope of the RMP.

Surface Owner Response Analysis

Of the 454 letters sent out, 246 were returned, for a 54 percent response rate. The responses covered 569,000 

acres, or 60 percent of the total 943,000 acres included in the mailing. Tables D-1 and D-2 show number and 

acreage of responses by county.

The figures in the tables show that the response was greatest in Big Horn County, where 80 percent of the 

landowners responded. Response was lowest (below 50 percent) in Powder River and Treasure counties. In 

general, landowners closer to existing mining operations or proposed developments (concentrated in Big Horn 

and Rosebud counties) were more responsive than those far away from coal activity. Large landowners were 

slightly more responsive than small landowners. (The 54 percent response rate covered 60% of the acreage.)

In the letter, owners were asked to show themselves as: 1) in favor of, 2) against, or 3) undecided about leasing 

of Federal coal underneath their surface. They were also asked to state: 4) if their surface was already under 

lease by a coal company and 5) whether they met the requirements as a qualified surface owner under SMCRA. 

The number and acreage of responses, by county, in these five categories are listed in Tables D-3 and D-4.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-145

TABLE D-1.

CONSULTATION SUMMARY AND NUMBER OF RESPONSES

County Total Letters 

Sent

Total Response 

Received

Response/Total = 

%

Big Horn 90 72 80

Rosebud 84 43 51.2

Powder 

River 223 103 46.2

Custer 51 26 51

Treasure 6 2 33.3

Total 454 246 54.2

TABLE D-2.

ACREAGE REPRESENTED BY RESPONSE

County Letters Sent (Acres) Response Received (Acres) Response / Total = %

Big Horn 273,526 215,789 78.9

Rosebud 170,113 114,167 67.1

Powder River 446,401 210,608 47.2

Custer 48,543 26,934 55.5

Treasure 3,978 1,858 46.7

Total 942,561 569,356 60.4

The figures show that opinions about coal leasing vary significantly by county. In the following discussion, both 

“favor” and “leased” views are counted as “favor.” Views of unqualified owners are not counted; however, it 

should be noted that unqualified owners include the State of Montana as well as coal companies and private 

individuals. In Big Horn County, views heavily favor coal leasing (58 percent of response, 77 percent of 

acreage). Only 31 percent of views (17 percent of acreage) oppose leasing, and few people (11 percent) are 

undecided. In contrast, a majority of views in Rosebud County oppose coal leasing (53 percent of response, 42 

percent of acreage). Only 32 percent are in favor, and 15 percent are undecided. However, those in favor have 

53 percent of the acreage surveyed in Rosebud County. In Powder River County, views are split more evenly; 

39 percent are in favor, 32 percent against, and 29 percent undecided. However, the acreage held by undecided 

landowners (37 percent) is almost as great as the acreage held by those in favor (40 percent). Views against 

leasing hold only 23 percent of the acreage. In Custer County, views are mainly against (55 percent) or 

undecided (36 percent). Only 9 percent are in favor of leasing. These figures are fairly close to the acreage of 

owners against (49 percent), undecided (42 percent) and in favor (9 percent). The two responses received from 

Treasure County are too few a number to reach statistically significant conclusions.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-146

TABLE D-3. 

BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES BY NUMBER

County Favor Against Undecided Leased Unqualified

Big 

Horn 28 39% 19 26% 7 10% 8 11% 10 14%

Rosebud 7 16% 20 46% 6 14% 5 12% 5 12%

Powder 

River 27 26% 29 28% 27 26% 9 9% 11 11%

Custer 2 8% 12 46% 8 31% 0 0% 4 15%

Treasure 0 0% 1 50% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 64 26% 81 33% 49 20% 22 9% 30 12%

TABLE D-4. 

BREAKDOWN OF RESPONSES REPRESENTED BY ACREAGE

County Favor Against Undecided Leased Unqualified

Big Horn 127,799 59% 31,256 15% 10170 5% 13,517 6% 33,047 15%

Rosebud 26,733 23% 39,024 32% 5,381 5% 22,850 20% 20,139 18%

Powder River 50,711 24% 44,548 21% 74,924 36% 30,248 14% 10,177 5%

Custer 1,487 6% 8,274 31% 7,073 26% 0 0% 10,100 37%

Treasure 0 0% 1,520 82% 338 18% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 206,770 36% 124,622 22% 97,886 17% 66,615 12% 73,463 13%

The high percentage of undecided views in Powder River and Custer counties may reflect the fact that these 

counties are further away from coal development. People may be less personally affected by development and 

have not formed strong opinions.

The figures also show that large landowners tend to be more in favor of coal development than small 

landowners. The tables consistently show that the percentage of acreage in favor is greater than the percentage 

of landowners in favor. Overall, 55 percent of the acreage is in the “favor” category while only 40 percent of the 

landowners are in favor; 38 percent of the landowners are against leasing, but they only control 25 percent of 

the acreage. This pattern may be due to large ranchers being more able to afford part of their land being taken 

out of production for coal development. In contrast, small ranchers must depend on all their land to have a 

viable operation.

Deletions Due to Negative Surface Owner Views

As a result of surface owner consultation, over 98,543 acres of private surface over 4.62 billion tons of coal 

with development potential were deleted from further consideration for coal leasing due to negative surface 

owner views. By county, the acres and tonnages deleted are shown in Table 2-6. 

Significant negative views satisfied one or more of the following criteria:

 They covered several sections in a solid pattern;

 They blocked up checkerboard federal coal ownership in a patter to preclude mine development;

 They were in addition to significant negative surface owner views expressed from the same owner in 

previous coal planning efforts;

 They covered a significant area adjacent to Custer National Forest; and/or
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-147

 They overlapped with or were adjacent to large areas deleted due to unsuitability criteria.

Some areas of federal coal without negative views were deleted where surrounded by or sandwiched between 

negative views in a pattern which would probably have prevented establishment of logical mining areas. In 

other cases, negative surface owner views covering only a small isolated area were not deleted.

Overlays showing application of the surface owner screens are available for inspection at the Miles City District 

Office.

Multiple Use Conflict Analysis

Coal planning regulation 43 CFR 3420.1-4e (3) states that “multiple land use decisions shall be made which 

may eliminate additional coal deposits from further consideration for leasing, to protect resource values of a 

locally important or unique nature not included in the unsuitability criteria.”

Coal areas leased and cleared in previous planning were already analyzed for multiple use conflicts in the 

existing MFPs (Decker-Birney, South Rosebud, and Coalwood). These MFPs were determined to meet 

principles of multiple use/sustained yield as required by Section 103(c) and (h) of FLPMA. For this RMP, 

multiple use conflicts were considered only on the 964,700 acres of Federal coal in new planning which had 

passed through the unsuitability and surface owner screens. BLM requested information regarding religious 

sites from the Northern Cheyenne Tribe in compliance with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. No 

information was received.

Factors in Analysis

Twelve resource categories and factors were defined which could be significantly affected by mining. These 

were:

 Negative surface owner views which were not deleted by the surface owner consultation screen;

 Soils in USDA Soil Conservation Service land capability classes VII and VIII. These are soils and 

landforms with questionable reclaimability due to the chemical and physical properties of the soils. 

Factors such as steep slopes, sodium content, and depth to bedrock, for example, influence this 

determination;

 Cropland in preliminarily identified AVFs and in areas of negative surface owner views defined in 

Category 1. Lands currently being used as cropland are delineated in the Conservation Districts’ Long 

Range Program for Resource Conservation, published by the USDA Soil Conservation Service;

 Wildlife values, including white-tailed deer, mule deer, and antelope winter range and all-season use, 

and turkey raptor, and grouse habitat. Known potentially unsuitable wildlife values in areas where 

inventory was incomplete were also delineated as multiple use conflicts;

 Power plants and associated facilities;

 Areas of significant hunting or other recreations use, and Class II or higher Visual Resource 

Management areas;

 Buffer zones around townsites;

 Forested areas, as defined on public surface by a BLM survey of commercial and noncommercial 

forest land conducted in the mid-1960s, and on private surface by shading on 1:100,000 scale USGS 

topographic maps;

 Oil and gas fields defined by the Montana Oil and Gas Commission and Known Geologic Structures 

defined by BLM;

 Cultural resource sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places but suitable for leasing with 

stipulations under the unsuitability criteria;

 Existing Allotment Management Plans;

 Areas preliminarily identified as AVFs by BLM staff. Color infrared aerial photography was analyzed 

as well as reconnaissance maps of alluvial valley floors in the Montana portion of the Powder River 

Basin, prepared by Earth Resources Associated in 1983 for the Office of Surface Mining. 

Consideration of AVFs for multiple use conflict purposes is in addition to the requirement under 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-148

unsuitability Criterion 19 that alluvial valley floors be deleted at min plan stage. Some of these areas 

also contain riparian wildlife habitat.

Methods

Transparent overlays for each of the twelve multiple use categories were stacked onto 1:100,000 scale base 

maps for each of the six quadrangles with coal potential in the Resource Area (Birney, Broadus, Lame Deer, 

Powderville, Miles City, and Forsyth). While one multiple use conflict by itself was generally considered not 

enough to drop an areas from further coal leasing consideration, having several overlapping multiple use 

conflicts over a single area was considered significant. In general, areas with four or more overlapping multiple 

uses were deleted from further lease consideration. However, the actual number of overlaps needed varied. 

Power plants and townsite buffer zones were deleted whether or not there were additional overlaps. Areas 

containing very thick coal close to the surface and near current or proposed mining may have needed more than 

four multiple use conflicts to be deleted because the high coal potential of the area was weighted as an 

additional multiple use consideration. Some areas having fewer than four conflicts were deleted where they 

were wedged between large blocks of land with four or more overlapping conflicts.

Because of the large number of overlapping multiple uses in the Broadus and Birney quadrangles, two groups of 

BLM staff independently deleted areas from further leasing consideration. These two sets of maps were then 

compared and the final areas deleted, reflecting a compromise between the two groups. Areas were deleted 

based on legal subdivisions. Transparent overlays at 1:100,000 scale showing application of multiple use 

conflicts and areas deleted due to multiple use conflicts are available at the Miles City District Office for 

inspection.

Multiple use analysis was based on resource information available as of mid-1983.

Results

A total of 95,100 acres over 4.51 billion 

tons of federal coal with development 

potential were deleted due to multiple use 

conflicts. Most areas deleted due to 

multiple use conflicts are concentrated in 

corridors within a few miles of the 

Tongue and Powder rivers. These areas 

have soil, forest, wildlife, recreational, 

agricultural, and watershed characteristics 

which make them less environmentally 

desirable for mining. Other areas deleted 

due to multiple use conflicts lie near 

Rosebud, Otter, and Pumpkin creeks. The 

remaining areas are scattered throughout 

the rest of the coal area.

Areas deleted due to multiple use conflicts are summarized in Table D-5.

TABLE D-5. 

AREAS DELETED DUE TO MULTIPLE USE CONFLICTS

County Acres Tons (billions)

Big Horn 5,400 0.71

Rosebud 36,500 2.24

Powder River 0 0.00

Custer 6,600 0.00

Treasure 46,600 1.34

Total 95,100 4.51
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-149
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-150
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-151
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-152
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

153
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-154
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-155

<End of Powder River RMP>

LOCATABLE MINERALS AND MINERAL MATERIALS

LOCATABLE MINERALS DISPOSAL ACTIONS

Locatable minerals are governed by the federal Mining Law of 1872, as amended. This law provides for the 

exploration, discovery, and mining of metallic and certain nonmetallic minerals on federal lands. The Mining 

Law of 1872, as amended, has five elements: discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, location of mining 

claims, recordation of mining claims, maintenance of mining claims, and mineral patenting. The BLM manages 

the last three elements.

Discovery

Federal statutes do not describe what constitutes a valuable mineral deposit. Several judicial and administrative 

decisions over the years have shaped a definition. A principal part of the definition is the “prudent man rule.” 

This rule holds that the statutory requirements for a discovery have been met if a person of ordinary prudence 

will be justified in expending labor and costs to develop a mine. Departmental decisions require a discovery on 

each claim with physical exposure of the valuable mineral within the claim boundaries, and each 10 acres on a 

placer claim must be “mineral in character.” Mineral in character is a discovery based on geologic inference, 

not necessarily on actual exposure.

Location

Any U.S. citizen or corporation organized under state laws can locate a mining claim. A claimant can hold a 

number of mining claims. A mining claim is located on federal mineral estate with valuable deposits of 

locatable minerals. There are two types of mining claims (lode and placer) and two types of mineral entries 

(mill and tunnel sites). 

Lode claims include classic vein deposits with well-defined boundaries, which include deposits such as gold 

and silver. Placer claims are those not subject to lode claims, which include bedded deposits such as bentonite. 

Both placer and lode claims have been filed for uranium. Placer claims are located by legal land subdivision, 

where practical. The maximum size of a placer claim is 20 acres per claim.

A mill site is a parcel of public land of a non-mineral character and is used to support mining claim operations. 

The mill site must include the erection of a mill or reduction works incident to mining. The maximum size of a 

mill site is 5 acres. Tunnel sites are plots of land where a tunnel is used to develop a vein. There is no known 

need for tunnel sites in the planning area.

Claimant rights include access to the claim across federal surface; use of timber on the claim for the mining 

operation; construction of fences and gates to protect the area of operations and equipment; and construction of 

structures for storing equipment, housing employees, and testing and processing facilities. Mining claims are 

real property and interests in mining claims can be bought or inherited.

Recordation

Claims and sites must be recorded with both the county and BLM. Location notices contain the date of location, 

the locator’s name, the name of the claim or site, the type of claim or site, the acreage claimed, and a 

description of the parcel claimed.

FLPMA of 1976 requires claimants to file a copy of the notice or certificate of location with the BLM. Maps 

and other documents filed under state law must accompany the copy of the official record. Federal regulations 

(43 CFR 3833) specify the information required. Amendments and transfers of ownership must be filed with the 

BLM.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-156

Maintenance

To maintain an interest in a claim, the claimant must pay a rental fee of $100 per claim each year. There is a 

provision for fee exemptions for claimants who qualify by producing between $1,500 and $800,000 under an 

active notice plan with less than 10 acres disturbance on 10 claims or fewer nationwide.

Exploration and mining activity on BLM-administered lands are subject to the regulations in 43 CFR 3809. 

These regulations require an operator to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the land. There is no 

requirement to notify the BLM of casual use activities (negligible disturbance). Actions that are proposed to 

disturb less than 5 acres requires the filing of an NOI. This includes activities that involve use of earth-moving 

equipment or blasting. The BLM reviews the NOIs to ensure that unnecessary and undue degradation would not 

occur. However, the BLM has no approval authority for NOIs.

Activities involving more than 5 acres of disturbance require the preparation of a PO and a reclamation plan. 

Special category lands defined in 43 CFR 3809.1-4 always require a PO, regardless of the size of the 

disturbance area. These include areas of ACECs, wilderness areas, and areas designated as closed to OHV use. 

Both Notice level of activity and Plans of Operation require a financial guaranty that covers 100 percent of the 

cost to reclaim the proposed disturbance. Claim operations (whether casual, under a notice, or by a PO) shall be 

reclaimed (43 CFR 3809.1-1).

Mineral Patents

A patented mining claim is one for which the federal government has passed its title to the claimant, making it 

private land. A person can mine and remove minerals from a mining claim without a mineral patent. In most 

cases, a mineral patent gives the owner exclusive title to the locatable minerals and title to the surface and other 

resources. Patenting requires discovery of a valuable deposit that meets the prudent man rule and marketability 

tests. A federal mineral examiner examines the claim to verify its validity.

Because issuance of new mineral patents was prohibited by a special moratorium issued by Secretary of the 

Interior Bruce Babbitt in 1994, they are no longer issued.

MINERAL MATERIALS DISPOSAL ACTIONS

The BLM issues mineral material (sand and gravel, scoria, and other materials) sales contracts to companies and 

individuals as well as free use permits to local governments. The sales and permits are discretionary and only 

issued where the use is in compliance with the RMP and is compatible with other resource values and uses. The 

permits are also stipulated for protection of other resource values. A pit is typically on a gravel source located 

by the permittee. A BLM representative is shown the site during an inspection and a NEPA document is 

prepared. A typical permit operation begins with removal of the topsoil and its storage on location. The storage 

site is selected for the protection and stability needed to maintain the soil over the lifetime of the operation. 

Backfill will be consolidated to match the original material as much as possible. Natural vegetation will 

establish some protection from erosion. The pit is excavated by bulldozers and front-end loaders and the 

material hauled away with trucks. In operations where large rocks are in the deposit, a portable rock crusher is 

used to reduce them to usable sizes.

An average pit in the planning area is excavated to 10 feet in depth. At the end of operations, BLM stipulations 

require reduction of vertical exposures to a slope ratio of 3 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) and the topsoil spread on 

the surface. A conventional seed mixture is prescribed for reclaiming abandoned material extraction sites.

SOLID MINERALS RFD

ASSUMPTIONS

Assumptions were made to aid in the analysis of the predicted impacts. Assumptions are based on previous 

events and the experience of BLM personnel and their knowledge of resources in the planning area. 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-157

GENERAL

Decisions and implementation of actions from any of the RMP alternatives would be in compliance with all 

valid existing rights, federal regulations, bureau policies, and other requirements.

Acre figures and other numbers used in the analysis are approximate projections for comparison and analytic 

purposes only. Readers should not infer that they reflect exact measurements or precise calculations.

Where an alternative allows development or use, the assumptions described below are applied.

COAL

The coal leasing decisions made in the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs (BLM 1996 and 1985c) are being 

carried forward in this planning document and include areas identified as acceptable for further consideration 

for coal leasing. Therefore, the lands considered as acceptable for further consideration for coal leasing that are 

found in the aforementioned documents should be taken into consideration for purposes of impact analysis in 

this document. The coal screening process will be applied on a case-by-case basis in response to individual coal 

lease applications. The explanation of the coal leasing process located in those RMP appendices is explained in 

the coal section of this appendix.

According to the DOE-EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030, the demand for coal in the 

United States would gradually increase about 0.6 percent per year from 2007 to 2030. The modest growth 

would come from increasing coal use for electricity and the startup of several new coal-to-liquids plants. The 

DOE-EIA’s 2009 Annual Energy Outlook further indicates that most of the additional output will come from 

mines in Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota.

Consequently, based on the above information, it is assumed that production at currently operating mines in the 

planning area (Cloud Peak’s Spring Creek Coal Mine, Decker Coal Company’s Decker Coal Mines, Western 

Energy’s Rosebud Coal Mines, and Westmorland Resources’ Savage Mine) will need additional coal as current 

reserves are used up (Table 27). The BLM believes that most mines will either continue current production rates 

or adjust accordingly to meet changes in market demand.

The BLM has developed RFD 

areas that depict where BLM 

staff felt most confident that 

future mining might occur. Short 

term indicates a period of up to 5 

years while long term is a period 

of up to 20 years.

Decker Mine

It is assumed that the Decker Mine will produce at or below the 2008 production levels for the long term. It is 

not anticipated that the operators of this mine will need to lease additional federal coal reserves; subsequently, 

an RFD is not necessary.

Spring Creek Mine

The BLM has recently approved an application to modify a coal lease at the Spring Creek Mine. An RFD 

containing 5,688 total acres of unleased federal was developed for this purpose. The RFD area represents 

estimated future leasing needs required to mine coal at a rate of approximately 18 million tons per year over the 

next 20 years. It is assumed any future mining would represent a continuation of existing operations at Spring 

Creek. In the short term, Spring Creek Coal Company will mine on existing federal or state leases and the Lease 

Modification area. In the long term, it is assumed they will be mining within the boundaries of the RFD.

TABLE 27.

TONS OF COAL PRODUCED IN FISCAL YEAR 2008

Ownership Decker Spring 

Creek Rosebud Savage

Federal 6,459,064 13,139,690 6,858,056 0

Other 0 4,379,878 6,234,518 356,344

Total 6,459,064 17,519,568 13,092,574 356,344
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-158

Rosebud Mine

The RFD for the Rosebud Mine is located between existing operations at Area B of the Rosebud Mine and the 

idled mine property of the Big Sky Mine. The BLM assumes that Western Energy would need the additional 

reserves in the RFD within the long term and mining will continue on existing leased reserves over the short 

term. It is also assumed any future mining would represent a continuation of existing operations at the Rosebud 

mines.

North Ashland

The BLM has developed an RFD southeast of the Rosebud Mines and the idled Big Sky Mine. The RFD 

contains about 9,000 acres of leased federal coal. The property has never been mined and is currently not 

permitted for mining. However, it is assumed that it will be developed in the long term. A description of a 

generic mine was developed for the Big Dry RMP (BLM 1995). That generic mine plan is located in the 

Minerals Appendix of the Big Dry RMP and can be referred to for a general description of potential mine 

characteristics at this location (BLM 1995). However, it is likely that a co-located power plant would not be 

needed at this location because Colstrip power plants are nearby and this coal is transportable.

Savage Mine

It is assumed that the Savage Mine will produce at or below the 2008 production levels for the long term. It is 

not anticipated that the operators will need to lease additional federal coal reserves; subsequently, an RFD is not 

necessary.

Other Potential New Coal Development

Three potential new coal developments in the planning area (the Otter Creek Mine, Kinsey Mine, and Nelson 

Creek Mine) have been identified as possible new development areas. The BLM does not anticipate the need for 

any federal coal from these areas within the long term; subsequently, an RFD is not necessary. 

NON-ENERGY LEASABLE MINERALS

Non-energy leasable minerals includes such minerals as gypsum, sodium, and phosphate. They would also 

include minerals that are normally classed as locatable but only on lands acquired under the Bankhead Jones 

Act. While some typical non-energy leasable minerals do occur in the planning area, they occur at great depths, 

which is uneconomical to recover. However, there is one known deposit that contains minable reserves of 

sodium sulfate, which is located within the confines of Brush Lake and Westby B Lake in Sheridan County. The 

BLM administers only 16 surface and mineral acres at the Westby B Lake, and it is unlikely that leasing of 

these minerals would occur. In addition, it is also unlikely that mineable deposits of locatable minerals such as 

bentonite and uranium occur within the limits of Bankhead Jones lands administered by the MCFO; 

subsequently, an RFD scenario will not be developed for this class of minerals. 

LOCATABLE MINERALS

Locatable minerals are those minerals for which a mining claim can be staked. Although, there is very low 

potential for locatable minerals such as gold, chromium, titanium, zeolite, and associated minerals such as 

copper, lead, and zinc in the planning area, there is high potential for bentonite and uranium. 

Although gold placer mining took place in the gravels of the Yellowstone River as far downstream as Miles 

City in the early 20th century, there is no record of the quantity of the gold recovered. Even though gold 

reportedly occurs in the Yellowstone River, it appears that the occurrence is highly sporadic, not well defined,

and so limited in scope that it represents only a recreational interest. Moss agates also occur in the gravels of the 

Yellowstone River and it is assumed that the recreational collection of gold and agates would continue.
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-159

Most mineral commodities are currently at high values when compared with values over the last 25 years. It is 

assumed that commodity prices would fluctuate around the current price level or increase modestly over both 

the short and long term. It is assumed that sustained or increasing prices would generate interest in exploration 

and development of locatable mineral properties. 

Bentonite

Bentonite is a locatable mineral exposed extensively in the planning area, and it is mined in Carter County by 

two bentonite mining companies; subsequently, it is the most likely locatable mineral to have potential for 

additional development within the planning area. Both operating mines will expand mining operations to meet 

demands as existing reserves are mined out. 

The bentonite mining RFD area lies within a mining region in which two companies, American Colloid 

Company and Bentonite Performance Minerals operate (Map 76). The area is subdivided into the Alzada North 

and Alzada South areas. Most of the mine-related disturbance in the Alzada North area is north of the Ridge 

Road, within the Willow Creek watershed. The other mine area within the region is the Alzada South mine area, 

located south of the Ridge Road and within the Thompson Creek watershed. 

There is also an estimated 252 acres of un-reclaimed abandoned mine lands in the Alzada South area, which 

were mapped by the State of Montana Abandoned Mine Land program in 1988. Bentonite Performance 

Minerals re-disturbed about 53 acres of pre-law disturbance and have reclaimed about 46 acres.

The combined American Colloid Company and Bentonite Performance Minerals permitted acreage in Alzada 

North and South areas is about 13,685 acres, of which about 4,792 have been disturbed by mining (Table 28). 

Much of the acreage that has been disturbed by mining has been reclaimed. 

American Colloid Company has submitted 

an amendment application to add lands to 

their existing permit. Amendment 12, if 

approved, represents the short term 

development scenario and would increase 

the permitted area by 1,327.4 acres, of 

which 819.5 acres would be federal (BLMadministered) and 507.9 acres would be 

private ownership. The disturbed area on 

Amendment 12, which would include 

mined areas plus mine-related disturbances 

such as haul roads, stockpiles, and other 

disturbances, would total approximately 

617.5 acres (331.6 BLM-administered acres 

and 285.9 private acres).

In addition, American Colloid Company (J. Pharr, personal communication, September 28, 2009) has indicated 

that mining permits could be sought within the RFD area over the next 20 years, which includes about 21,545 

mixed public and private acres. In the RFD area, there are about 12,325 acres of federal surface on which the

BLM would administer permits (about 57.2 percent of the RFD areas area). Therefore, it is assumed that mining 

and reclamation could occur on about 50 percent, or up to 10,772 acres of land, in the RFD area. These acreages 

are a rough estimate, “best guess” scenario based on limited exploratory drilling.

Uranium

There has been a recent resurgence of interest regarding in situ uranium mining operations nationwide. There 

are several known sandstone hosted, roll front type uranium deposits in Carter County, Montana, and a uranium 

exploration company showed some interest in 2008 in exploring these deposits to determine the economic 

viability of a potential uranium in situ leaching operation. According to this company, their project consists of 

25,000 acres of claim blocks and leases west of Alzada, in Carter County. The company believes it may have 

TABLE 28.

SUMMARY OF PERMITTED ACRES IN BENTONITE

RFD AREAS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Area

Total 

Permitted 

Acres

Permitted 

BLMadministered 

Acres

Permitted 

Private 

Acres

Total 

Disturbed 

Acres 

(includes 

Reclaimed 

Acres)

Alzada 

North 5,631 2,241 3,390 2,629

Alzada 

South 8,054 500 7,554 2,163

Total 13,365 2,741 10,944 4,792
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-160

reserves of uranium ore in at least three deposits in the area. However, additional exploratory drilling is needed 

to confirm or expand the reserves in these areas.

A uranium RFD area has been established for analysis purposes (Map 77). It is important to note that the 

Surface Management Regulations used to manage locatable mineral activity only applies to BLM-administered

surface. Although the BLM generally does not regulate locatable mineral actions on private surface, there is one 

exception: cases where the private surface owner of land patented under the Stockraising Homestead Act does 

not give permission to the claimant to conduct surface-disturbing operations. In that circumstance, the claimant 

must file a PO with the BLM for approval. However, for analysis purposes, the BLM will assume that only 

BLM-administered lands within the RFD area are subject to mineral location, exploration, and development. 

The total acres within the RFD area are about 75,709 acres. The BLM-administered land within the RFD area 

consists of approximately 34,153 acres and approximately 7,803 BLM-administered surface acres are within the 

company’s claim block and leasehold areas.

It is assumed that exploratory drilling will occur within the Uranium RFD area in the short and long term. Drill 

trucks that are similar to water-well drilling rigs would conduct drilling in these areas with support equipment 

consisting of a water truck, electric (geophysical) logging vehicle, and crew support vehicle (pickup truck). The 

drill holes could range from 500 to 2,000 feet deep. It is not known if related surface disturbance such as road 

building or pits for drilling fluids would occur. Although the number of exploratory sites that would be drilled is 

unknown, it could be many hundreds or more. 

It is assumed that an in situ leaching facility for uranium extraction will be constructed in the long term. Since 

the uranium deposits are relatively deep (500 to 2,000 feet), it is likely that the in situ leaching method of 

removing the ore would be employed if they were to be developed. It is also assumed that the in situ leaching

facilities would be within the range identified in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for In situ 

Uranium Leach Milling Facilities (USNRC and WDEQ 2009) (2,500 to 16,000 acres).

As the principal federal licensing agency, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has evaluated the impacts 

associated with construction and operation of an in-situ uranium recovery operation in the Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for In situ Uranium Leach Milling Facilities (USNRC and WDEQ 2009). The 

document provides a good description of a generic in situ leaching operation as well as the impacts associated 

with such a development. An excerpt follows:

“A commercial ISL [in situ leaching] facility consists of both an underground and a surface 

infrastructure. The underground infrastructure includes injection and production wells drilled to the 

uranium mineralization zone, monitoring wells drilled to the surrounding ore body aquifer and to the 

adjacent overlying and underlying aquifers, and perhaps deep injection wells to dispose of liquid 

wastes. ISL [in situ leaching] facilities in the uranium milling regions considered in this GEIS (i.e., 

Wyoming West, Wyoming East, Nebraska-South Dakota-Wyoming, and Northwestern New Mexico) 

are commonly exposed to freezing conditions during winter months. Therefore, pipelines to transfer 

groundwater extracted from the well fields to the uranium processing circuit are buried to avoid 

freezing and thus are considered to be part of the underground infrastructure.

ISL [in situ leaching] facilities also include a surface infrastructure that supports uranium processing. 

The surface facilities can include a central uranium processing facility, header houses to control flow 

to and from the well fields, satellite facilities that house ion-exchange columns and reverse osmosis 

equipment for groundwater restoration, and ancillary buildings that house administrative and support 

personnel. Surface impoundments such as solar evaporation ponds may be constructed to manage 

liquid effluents from the central processing plant and the groundwater restoration circuit (Figure 2.1-

3).

The surface extent of a full-scale (i.e., commercial) ISL [in situ leaching] facility includes a central 

processing facility and supporting surface infrastructure for one or more well fields (sometimes called 

mine units) and encompasses about 1,000 to 6,000 ha [2,500 to 16,000 acres] (NRC, 1992, 1997a) (see 

Section 2.11). However, the total amount of land disturbed by such infrastructure and ongoing 
MINERALS APPENDIX

Solid Minerals

MIN-161

activities at any one time is much smaller, and only a small portion around surface facilities is fenced 

to limit access (Figures 2.1-3 and 2.1-4). Well fields typically are not enclosed by fencing.

NRC establishes the total flow rates and the maximum amount of uranium that can be produced 

annually at a commercial ISL [in situ leaching] facility using license conditions. NRC-licensed flow 

rates typically range from about 15,100 to 34,000 L/min [4,000 to 9,000 gal/min], and licensed 

maximum limits on annual uranium production range from about 860,000 to 2.5 million kg/yr [1.9 

million to 5.5 million lb/yr] of yellowcake (NRC, 1995, 1998a, b, 2006, 2007). Actual production rates 

are generally somewhat lower than these limits (Energy Information Administration, 2008)” (USNRC 

and WDEQ 2009, pages 2–4 and 2–5).”

Please consult the above-cited document for a detailed explanation of the in situ leaching process and associated 

impacts.

MINERAL MATERIALS

The demand for mineral materials, such as clinker, sand, and gravel (primarily used for road construction) with 

lesser amounts of petrified wood, agate, and building stone, would increase at a moderate but steady rate over 

the short and long term. 

It is assumed that three mineral materials permits (most likely for sand or gravel) would be issued per year over 

both the short and long term. Each mineral material site would operate for approximately 5 years, disturb about 

5 acres, and yield about 10,000 cubic yards of material.
This page intentionally left blank.
MONITORING APPENDIX

MON-1

MONITORING APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

For each resource, there are a series of items that will be monitored. Each item is evaluated by location, technique 

for data gathering, unit of measure, frequency, remedial action trigger, and management option (Table 1). The 

monitoring and evaluation plan states the event that will be evaluated and lists the key resources that will be 

managed in the planning area. If an adverse impact can be corrected by a management action within the scope of this 

plan, the change will be implemented. If the adverse impact can be corrected only by a management action that is 

outside the scope of this plan, the management change will be a formal amendment.
MON-2

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE

Air Resources 

and Climate

Gaseous and 

particulate 

regulated air 

pollutants and air 

quality related 

values (AQRVs), 

such as acid 

deposition, lake 

acidification, and 

visibility

Area-wide

Air quality 

photochemical 

grid modeling

Micrograms/cubic 

meter (μg/m3)and 

parts per million 

(ppm) 

concentrations (as 

μg/m3)

Modeling will 

be performed 

when adequate 

data are 

available to 

validate model 

performance 

(see the Air 

Resources and 

Climate 

Appendix)

Predicted 

exceedances 

of National 

Ambient Air 

Quality 

Standards 

(NAAQS) or 

Montana 

Ambient Air 

Quality 

Standards 

(MAAQS) or 

unacceptable 

impacts to 

AQRVs

Implement 

additional 

emission 

controls or 

operating 

limits

Gaseous and 

particulate 

regulated air 

pollutants

Sidney, Birney, 

and

Broadus area

Continued 

automated 

sampling and 

analysis

μg/m3and ppm

concentrations (as 

μg/m3)

Continuous

Measured 

exceedances 

of NAAQS or 

MAAQS

Implement 

additional 

emission 

controls or 

operating 

limits

Climate 

indicators 

including 

temperature, 

precipitation, 

precipitation 

timing and 

intensity, 

snowfall, snow 

pack, albedo, 

greenhouse gas 

Area-wide

Analysis of 

existing 

climatic data 

and climate 

change data 

available from 

the National 

Oceanic and 

Atmospheric 

Administration, 

the Western 

Degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F), 

degrees Celsius 

(°C), inches, feet, 

unitless (albedo), 

ppm, parts per 

billion

Annual

None (actions 

triggered 

based on 

resourcespecific 

concerns)

Provide annual 

updates 

summarizing 

recent climate 

trends to 

Bureau of 

Land 

Management 

(BLM) 

resource 

management 
MON-3

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

(GHG) 

concentrations

Regional 

Climate 

Center, United 

States 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency 

(USEPA), and 

other reliable

sources of 

information

personnel

SOILS

Soils Soil erosion, 

uplands

Area-wide 

where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur

Visual 

observation, 

photo point, 

rangeland 

health 

assessment, 

surface 

aggregate 

stability test, 

silt fence, and 

surveyed 

erosion pins

Soil loss in tons 

per acre

Site will be 

visually 

examined 

quarterly. 

Where erosion 

is considered 

excessive, 

measurements 

of site 

characteristics 

will be taken 

to determine 

rate of soil 

loss.

Visual 

evidence of 

pedestal, wind 

scour, rill 

greater than 3 

inches, active 

headcutting 

gully, or sheet 

erosion. Soil 

or site 

stability 

indicators are 

not similar to 

reference 

rangeland 

health 

conditions. 

Change in 

surface 

aggregate 

stability to a 

lower class. 

Loss of soil 

exceeding 10 

Report 

exceedance to 

the BLM, 

Montana 

Department of 

Environmental 

Quality 

(MDEQ), or 

USEPA. 

Enforcement 

action would 

be taken.
MON-4

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

tons per acre 

per year

Soils (cont’d)

Soil erosion, 

streambanks, 

riparian areas, 

and floodplains

Area-wide 

along rivers 

and tributaries 

where 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur

Visual 

observation, 

photo point, 

rangeland 

health or 

proper 

functioning 

condition 

assessments, 

silt fence, and 

surveyed 

erosion pins

Area affected in 

square feet or 

acres

Site would be 

visually 

examined 

quarterly. 

Where 

streambank 

erosion is 

considered 

excessive, 

measurements 

of site 

characteristics 

will be taken 

to determine 

soil loss.

Visual 

evidence of 

active 

headcutting, 

channelization 

beyond 

natural 

conditions, or 

bank slump. 

Proper 

functioning 

condition 

(PFC) rated 

functional-at-

risk with a 

downward 

trend or 

nonfunctional. 

A 10% 

increase in 

streambank 

loss.

Report 

exceedance to 

the BLM, 

MDEQ, or 

USEPA. 

Enforcement 

action would 

be taken.

Soil salinization 

and sodification

Area-wide 

where 

management 

activities were 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur

Visual 

observation, 

measurement 

of soil 

characteristics 

such as 

(electrical 

conductivity (EC), sodium 

adsorption ratio (SAR), 

Area affected in 

square feet or 

acres

Site would be 

visually 

examined 

quarterly. 

Where impacts 

to soil or 

vegetation 

were 

observed, 

measurements 

of site 

A 20% 

increase in 

levels in EC, 

SAR, or 

exchange 

sodium

percentage

(EC greater 

than 8, SAR 

greater than 8, 

exchangeable 

Report 

exceedance to 

the BLM, 

MDEQ, or 

USEPA. 

Enforcement 

action would 

be taken.
MON-5

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

exchange 

sodium 

percentage, and 

pH

characteristics 

would be 

taken to 

determine 

salinity and 

sodicity levels.

sodium 

percentage 

greater than 

10, or pH 

greater than 

8.5)

Soils (cont’d)

Compaction

Area-wide 

where 

management 

activities were 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur

Visual 

inspection, 

penetrometer, 

or ratio of 

penetration 

resistance or 

bulk density to 

that of the 

reference area

Lbs. per square 

inch, mass per 

volume

Site would be 

visually 

examined 1 to 

2 times yearly; 

where 

compaction is 

considered 

excessive, 

measurements 

would be 

taken.

When an area 

has a 10% 

increase in 

density or 

ratio of 

penetration 

resistance or 

bulk density 

to that of the 

reference area 

greater than 1 

and the 

compacted 

area exceeds 

10% of 

surface 

disturbance

Decompact or 

close access to 

compacted site 

until area 

recovers from 

compaction

Rutting

Area-wide 

where 

management 

activities were 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur

Visual 

observation 

and measured 

depth of rut

Inches

Site would be 

visually 

examined 1 to 

2 times yearly. 

Where rutting 

is considered 

excessive, 

measurements 

would be 

taken.

Ruts exceed 4 

inches in 

depth

Close access to 

rutted site until 

soil conditions 

are not 

susceptible to 

rutting and are 

repaired.
MON-6

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Soils (cont’d) Subsidence of fill 

material

Areas where 

management 

activities 

required fill 

material

Visual 

observation 

and measured 

depth of 

subsidence

Feet

Site would be 

visually 

examined 1 to 

2 times yearly. 

Where 

slumping or 

piping is 

considered 

excessive, 

measurements 

would be 

taken.

10% increase 

in slumping or 

piping depth

Close access to 

site until area 

is reclaimed

WATER

Water 

Surface water 

quality and 

quantity

In watersheds 

expected to be 

affected, 

potentially 

affected, or 

down gradient 

from CBNG 

surface 

discharge 

points or 

regionally at 

the monitoring 

stations 

identified by 

the interagency 

working group

(refer to Final 

Supplement to 

the Montana 

Statewide Oil 

and Gas 

Environmental 

Impact 

As determined 

by the 

interagency 

working group

(refer to the 

FSEIS) or 

water quality 

parameters, 

temperature, 

and discharge 

or stage 

measurements

As determined by 

the interagency 

working group

(refer to the 

FSEIS) or feet, 

cubic feet per 

second (cfs), and 

standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

water quality 

(e.g., milligrams 

per liter [mg/L], 

pH, μS/cm, and °C)

As determined 

by the 

interagency 

working group

or based on 

activity plan 

schedule (refer 

to the FSEIS)

Exceedance 

of any 

parameter 

above the 

State of 

Montana 

surface water 

quality 

standards or 

identified 

BLM 

thresholds 

(refer to the 

FSEIS)

Report 

exceedances to 

the MDEQ, 

which would 

determine 

cause and take 

appropriate 

actions

If monitoring 

indicates that 

BLM 

thresholds 

were met or 

exceeded, 

untreated 

discharge of 

CBNG water 

from federal 

wells would no 

longer be 

allowed 

upstream from

that station. 
MON-7

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Statement and 

Proposed 

Amendment of 

the Powder 

River and 

Billings 

Resource 

Management 

Plans

[FSEIS]).

Note that the 

10% of 7Q10 

criteria for 

untreated 

CBNG water 

would apply 

unless stations 

upstream and 

downstream 

from proposed 

outfalls are 

monitored 

(refer to the 

FSEIS).

Previous 

approvals may 

be modified.

Water (cont’d) Groundwater 

drawdown

Regionally at 

locations 

determined by 

the interagency 

working group

(refer to the 

FSEIS)

Monitoring 

wells would be 

finished in 

bedrock units; 

especially coal 

seams expected 

to be 

developed for 

CBNG.

Depth to water 

reported in 

hundredths of feet

Depth to water 

measurements 

would be 

made 

approximately 

monthly to 

establish an 

initial 

baseline. 

Measurements 

would be 

A 20-foot 

decrease in 

static water 

level from 

seasonally 

adjusted mean 

static water 

level 

(determined 

from baseline 

data) (refer to

If falling water 

levels were 

determined to 

be caused by 

CBNG 

activity, 

operators must 

offer water 

well mitigation 

agreements to 

all landowners 
MON-8

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

made 

approximately 

quarterly 

thereafter

unless a 

greater 

frequency was 

determined to 

be necessary. 

Monitoring 

would 

continue until 

at least 80% 

recovery of 

static water 

level was 

achieved.

the FSEIS) with water 

sources in the 

defined 

drawdown area 

(20 feet or 

greater 

drawdown) of 

their 

development. 

Hydrologic 

barriers, such 

as injection 

wells, may be 

an option in 

some cases to 

prevent 

drainage of 

American 

Indian gas and 

water 

resources.

Water (cont’d)

Groundwater 

quality and 

quantity

Alluvial 

groundwater 

would be 

monitored in 

stream valleys 

topographically 

down gradient 

from CBNG 

surface 

discharge 

points. Since 

discharge to 

ephemeral 

streams would 

not be allowed, 

Monitoring 

wells would be 

finished in the 

alluvium. 

Depth to water 

measurements 

and water 

quality 

parameters, 

including (but 

not limited to) 

pH, EC, water 

temperature, 

common ions 

(Na, Mg, Ca, 

Standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

water quality and 

static water level 

(mg/L, °C, 

μS/cm, and 

hundredths of 

feet)

Depth to water 

measurements 

would be 

made 

approximately 

monthly to 

establish an 

initial 

baseline. 

Depth to water 

would then be 

collected 

approximately 

quarterly 

thereafter. 

A change in 

groundwater 

chemistry that 

affects its 

class of use or 

rise in static 

groundwater 

levels of 5 

feet or more 

that may 

cause impacts 

at the ground 

surface (refer 

to the FSEIS)

If impacts 

were 

determined to 

result from 

CBNG 

development, 

direct 

discharge of 

CBNG water 

into waterways 

in the 

watershed may

be 

discontinued 

until modified 
MON-9

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

these wells 

would be along 

larger streams 

(refer to the 

FSEIS).

K, HCO

3, CI, 

SO

4) would be 

obtained.

Water quality 

samples would 

be taken 

approximately 

annually 

unless more 

frequent 

monitoring is 

needed. 

Monitoring 

would 

continue until 

at least 80% 

recovery of 

static water 

level was 

achieved.

water 

management 

plans were 

submitted and 

approved (refer 

to the FSEIS).

Water (cont’d)

Groundwater 

quality and 

quantity

Operators 

would install 

monitoring 

wells adjacent 

to 

impoundments 

(refer to the 

FSEIS).

A monitoring well would be 

installed within 

the first 

permeable unit 

and within the 

first 

groundwater 

encountered 

(up to 50 feet 

total depth) to 

determine 

effectiveness of 

infiltration; if 

evaporation 

basins were 

leaking, a 

water quality 

sample of the 

Depth to water 

(feet to water 

reported in 

hundredths of 

feet). Water 

quality samples 

would be 

collected if rises 

in groundwater 

were observed or 

if water were 

observed in a 

previously dry 

zone.

Wells would 

be gauged 

monthly for 

the first year 

and quarterly 

thereafter 

unless a rise 

was observed. 

If a rise were 

observed,

monitoring 

would be 

monthly. 

Water quality 

samples would 

be collected 

whenever the 

water level is 

above 

A rise of 1 

foot or more 

in static water 

levels above 

seasonally 

adjusted mean 

water levels 

(determined 

from the first 

year of data) 

or a change in 

the class of 

use in the 

groundwater 

(refer to the 

FSEIS).

Any change in 

class of use 

would be 

reported to the 

MDEQ. 

Operators may 

be required to 

install 

additional 

monitoring 

wells further 

downgradient, 

or discharge 

into 

impoundments 

may be 

required to 

cease until a 

revised water 
MON-10

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

first 

groundwater (if 

encountered) 

would be 

collected to 

determine class 

of use.

baseline. 

Monitoring 

would 

continue at 

least until the 

end of CBNG 

water 

discharge into 

the 

impoundment.

management 

plan is 

submitted and 

approved (refer 

to the FSEIS)

Water (cont’d) Springs

A network of 

springs 

determined to 

be fed by the 

regional flow 

system would 

be identified 

along coal 

outcrops in the 

CBNG 

development 

area (refer to 

the FSEIS)

Spring 

discharge and 

water quality 

parameters, 

including (but 

not limited to) 

pH, EC, water 

temperature, 

and common 

ions (Na, Mg, 

Ca, K, HCO

3, 

CI, SO

4), 

would be 

determined 

from existing 

springs.

Discharge cubic 

feet per second 

(cfs), pH, EC (μS/cm), and 

water temperature 

(°C) would be 

determined in the 

field. Standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

water quality also 

would be used 

(mg/L).

Field 

measurement 

of discharge, 

pH, EC, and 

water 

temperature 

would be 

determined 

approximately 

quarterly. An 

initial water 

quality sample 

would be 

collected; 

additional 

samples would 

be analyzed if 

substantial 

changes in the 

field 

parameters 

were 

observed.

A 50% 

decrease in 

spring 

discharge 

below 

seasonally 

adjusted mean 

(determined 

in the first 3 

years) or a 

significant 

change in 

water quality 

that affects its 

beneficial use 

(refer to the 

FSEIS).

If decreased 

spring 

discharges or 

water quality 

were 

determined to 

result from 

CBNG 

activity, 

operators must 

offer spring 

mitigation 

agreements to 

landowners 

who use the 

spring. If the 

affected spring 

were identified 

as important 

wildlife 

habitat, 

adaptive

management 

practices 

would be used 

at the 
MON-11

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

landscape level 

to improve 

spring 

ecosystems. 

Hydrologic 

barriers, such 

as injection 

wells, may be 

an option in 

some cases to 

prevent 

drainage of 

American 

Indian gas and 

water 

resources 

(refer to the 

FSEIS).

Water (cont’d)

Streambank or 

channel 

alteration

Any federal 

area-wide 

action in which 

potential 

impacts from 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur 

Monumented 

cross sections, 

longitudinal 

profile, visual 

inspection, 

photo point, 

PFC, surveyed 

erosion pins, 

and any 

suitable 

methods as 

described in 

Grazing 

Management 

Processes and 

Strategies for 

Riparian-

wetland Areas 

Area affected in 

square feet or 

acres

Based on 

activity plan 

schedule and a 

minimum of 

once every 10 

years

Trend away 

from 

objective,

a 10% 

increase in 

streambank or 

channel 

alteration, 

exceedance of 

any parameter 

above the 

State of 

Montana 

surface water 

quality 

standards for 

sediment, 

total 

Activities 

would be 

required to be 

altered or 

discontinued in 

order to 

provide 

environmental 

factors for 

increasing 

functionality or 

conditions of 

the streams.

Exceedance 

would be 

reported to 

BLM, MDEQ, 

or USEPA and 
MON-12

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

(Wyman et al. 

2006), Bureau 

of Land 

Management 

Prairie Stream 

Surveys: Study 

Plan (BLM 

2010k), and 

Stream 

Channel

Reference 

Sites: An 

Illustrated 

Guide to Field 

Technique

(Harrelson, 

Rawlins, and 

Potyondy 

1994).

suspended 

solids, or 

turbidity 

without a 

variance.

enforcement 

action would 

be taken. 

Water (cont’d)

Surface water 

quality and 

quantity

Any federal 

area-wide 

action in which 

potential 

impacts from 

management 

activities are 

occurring or 

expected to 

occur

Water quality 

parameters, 

temperature, 

discharge, or 

stage 

measurements

Feet, cfs, or 

standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

water quality

(e.g., mg/L, pH, 

μS/cm, °C)

Based on 

activity plan 

schedule

Exceedance 

of any 

parameter 

above the 

State of 

Montana 

surface water 

quality 

standards

Activities 

would be 

required to be 

altered or 

discontinued. 

Exceedance 

would be 

reported to 

BLM, MDEQ, 

or USEPA and 

enforcement 

action would 

be taken.

Water, Indian 

trust Groundwater

Adjacent to the 

Northern 

Cheyenne and 

Sampling of 

dedicated 

monitoring 

Standard 

quantitative 

measurements of 

Field 

measurements 

six times 

Where site-

specific 

studies show a 

The BLM 

would require 

the operators 
MON-13

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Crow Indian 

Reservations

wells in the 

zones of 

extraction and 

zones above 

and below the 

expected 

activity; wells 

are to be placed 

in the affected 

areas to areas 

unaffected by 

management 

activities

water quality and 

measurement of 

depth in feet

annually prior 

to production 

activities and 

continued 

throughout the 

activity period 

and for the 

duration of 

95% of the 

recovery of 

pre-

development 

conditions

potential to 

affect 

Reservation 

groundwater, 

the tribe 

would be 

consulted as 

to appropriate 

protection 

measures and 

where 

continuous 

monitoring 

showed a 

drawdown of 

groundwater 

attributed to 

CBNG 

production.

to modify 

federal CBNG 

production. 

Mitigation 

options would 

include 

reducing 

production 

rates, shutting 

in the well or 

wells,

establishing a 

hydrologic 

barrier, or 

providing 

compensation 

to the affected tribe.

Water, Indian 

trust Groundwater

Adjacent to the 

Northern 

Cheyenne and 

Crow 

Reservations

Monitoring 

wells would be 

established 

near the mouth 

of streams 

containing 

alluvium

Measurements of 

depth in feet

Water level 

measurements 

would be 

taken monthly 

prior to 

production 

activity and 

during 

development 

and water 

quality 

measurements 

would be 

taken 4 times 

per year

A 20% rise in 

the water 

table above its 

seasonally 

adjusted 

elevation, or a 2-unit 

increase in the 

SAR value

Discontinue 

CBNG 

evaporative 

ponds in that 

watershed or 

require ponds 

to be lined
MON-14

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

VEGETATION

Trees and 

shrubs

Functional 

habitat within 

desired 

conditions

Site-specific 

and landscape-

level

Visual 

observation, 

photos, 

utilization, 

browse-

evaluation, 

trend

Cover, diversity, 

and composition.

Varies and 

designed to 

address 

objectives

Failure to 

meet 

Rangeland 

Health 

Standards. 

Trend moving 

away from 

management 

objectives.

Change in 

livestock 

season-of-use, 

timing, 

intensity, 

frequency, and

duration

Herbaceous

Functional 

habitat within 

desired 

conditions.

Site-specific 

and landscape-

level

Utilization, 

visual 

observation, 

photos, and 

trend

Cover, diversity, 

and composition.

Varies and 

designed to 

address 

objectives

Failure to 

meet 

Rangeland 

Health 

Standards or 

trend moving 

away from 

management 

objectives

Change in 

livestock 

season-of-use, 

timing, 

intensity, 

frequency, and

duration

Riparian and 

Wetland 

Functional rating 

and trend

Priority 

allotments with 

allotment 

management 

plans and areas 

rated as non-

functional or 

functional-at 

risk with 

downward 

trend

Lotic and lentic 

standard PFC 

checklist and 

multiple 

indicators 

monitoring 

techniques (see 

Riparian Area 

Management, 

A User Guide 

to Assessing 

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition and 

the Supporting 

Science for 

Miles or acres 

based on 

functional rating 

and trend

Once every 5 

to 10 years 

based on 

priority of 

non-functional 

and 

functional-at 

risk with 

downward 

trend areas

Trend away 

from 

objective or 

when no 

improvement 

occurs in 

areas rated as 

non-

functional and 

functional-at 

risk with 

downward 

trend

Management 

changes would 

address causes 

of degradation. 

If impacts to 

management 

changes did 

not maintain or 

improve 

riparian and 

wetland 

functionality, 

additional 

monitoring or 

project 

revision would 
MON-15

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Lotic Areas, 

TR 1737-15 

[Prichard 1998] 

and Riparian 

Area 

Management A 

User Guide to 

Assessing 

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition and 

the Supporting 

Science for 

Lentic Areas, 

TR 1737-16

[Prichard et al. 

1999]) 

be required. 

Oil and gas 

operators 

would be 

required to 

alter activities 

in order to 

provide 

environmental 

factors for 

maintaining or 

improving 

functionality of 

riparian and 

wetland areas.

Invasive 

Species Infestations Inventoried 

infestations

Photo points, 

geographic 

information 

systems (GIS)

data,

mapping, and 

National 

Invasive 

Species 

Information 

Management 

System

Infestation size, 

presence or 

absence

Annually or 

every 3 to 5 

years and 

prioritized by 

species 

location and 

treatment 

method.

Expansion of 

weeds, Early 

Detection 

Rapid 

Response, 

new 

infestations in 

areas of high 

public use, 

and public 

accessible 

areas

Change in 

control method 

or combine 

multiple 

control 

methods and 

strategies

FISH AND WILDLIFE

Fisheries and 

aquatic 

wildlife in 

prairie 

streams

Habitat 

conditions and 

index of 

biological 

integrity 

All locations 

within Miles 

City Field 

Office 

(MCFO)

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Prairie Stream 

Surveys: Study 

Plan (BLM 

300 meter stream 

study reaches

Every 5 years 

(all sites or 

streams)

As needed: as 

Decrease in 

index of 

biological 

integrity 

score, habitat 

Management 

changes would 

address causes 

of degradation. 

If impacts to 
MON-16

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

prairie stream 

survey protocol 

and

locations as 

needed due to 

degraded 

habitat, 

allotment 

inspections, 

pre- and post-

development, 

or as other 

needs arise

2010k) and 

index of 

biological 

integrity 

approach 

following 

Development 

and evaluation 

of a fish 

assemblage 

index of biotic 

integrity for 

Northwestern 

Great Plains

streams

(Bramblett, 

Johnson, Zale, 

and Heggem 

2005) and Fish 

and Habitat 

Sampling 

Protocol for 

Prairie 

Streams

(Bramblett 

2003)

determined by 

a decrease in 

riparian 

conditions 

(e.g. declining 

PFC rating), 

water quality 

or water 

resource 

parameters 

indicate a 

decline in 

habitat 

conditions, or 

land-use or 

development 

plans indicate 

a potential for 

deleterious 

impacts to 

habitat

parameters, 

decreased 

riparian 

function, or 

allotment 

failing to meet 

Standards for 

Rangeland 

Health

management 

changes did 

not maintain or 

improve prairie 

stream aquatic 

wildlife 

habitat, 

additional 

monitoring or 

project 

revision would 

be required. 

Oil and gas 

operators 

would be 

required to 

alter activities 

in order to 

provide 

environmental 

factors for 

maintaining or 

improving 

prairie stream 

aquatic 

wildlife 

habitat.

Fisheries and 

aquatic 

wildlife in 

sport-fish 

reservoirs

Habitat 

conditions and

surveys by 

Montana Fish, 

Wildlife, and 

Parks (MFWP)

Designated 

sport-fish 

reservoirs

Gill netting and 

trapping 

conducted by 

MFWP

Acres of reservoir

1 to 5 years or 

determined by 

MFWP

Decrease in 

population 

sizes due to 

factors related 

to resource 

use

Management 

changes would 

address causes 

of degradation. 

If impacts of 

management 

changes did 

not maintain or 

improve sport-
MON-17

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

fish reservoir 

habitat, 

additional 

monitoring or 

project 

revision would 

be required. 

Oil and gas 

operators 

would be 

required to 

alter activities 

to provide 

environmental 

factors for 

maintaining or 

improving 

sport-fish 

reservoir 

habitat.

Upland game 

birds and 

migratory bird 

species

Use and trend

Sharp-tailed 

and sage-

grouse leks or 

winter grounds 

and migratory 

bird species 

habitats

Field inspect 

leks/breeding 

bird surveys 

and strategies 

outlined in the 

Wildlife 

Appendix

Number of 

males/numbers 

and species of 

migratory birds

Monitoring 

will be tied to 

yearly (varies 

per species, 1-

5 years for 

migratory bird 

species) 

planning with MFWP or 

based upon 

project 

specific need 

or existing 

requirements

Varies and is 

project-

specific (i.e., 

downward 

trend in lek 

attendance)

Extension of 

timing or 

project 

location or re-

location, 

stipulations or 

COAs, and offsite mitigation
MON-18

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Threatened 

and 

endangered 

species and 

other special 

status wildlife 

species habitat

Habitat use and 

trends

Black-tailed 

prairie dog 

colonies, 

interior least 

terns, and 

special status 

species raptor 

nests

Field surveys 

that include 

aerial, boat, or 

ground survey 

methodologies

Acres and number 

of prairie dog 

colonies, least 

tern numbers and 

nesting sites, and 

raptor nest site 

surveys

Monitoring 

will be tied to 

yearly 

planning with 

MFWP or 

based upon 

projectspecific need 

or existing 

requirements

Varies and is 

projectspecific

Extension of 

timing or 

project 

location relocation; 

stipulations or 

COAs; off-site 

mitigation

Upland game 

bird: sage and 

sharp-tailed 

grouse

Habitat condition 

or baseline data 

collection

Sage-grouse 

nesting, broodrearing, winter 

grounds, and 

sharp-tailed 

grouse habitats

Methodologies 

such as line 

point intercept 

and other 

methodologies 

as outlined in 

the 

Management 

Plan and 

Conservation 

Strategies for 

Sage Grouse in 

Montana-Final

(Montana Sage 

Grouse Work 

Group 2005)

Existing habitat 

conditions, height 

of residual 

vegetation, cover, 

species diversity, 

and potential 

habitat trends

Monitoring 

will be tied to 

grazing permit 

renewals, 

existing 

conditions, 

and allotments 

that contain a 

high 

percentage of 

BLMadministered 

lands and 

other actions 

that cause 

direct or 

indirect habitat 

loss

Varies and is 

projectspecific

Mitigate 

potential 

effects of 

habitat 

conditions or 

loss or require 

changes to 

livestock 

season-of-use

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology

Wildland Fire 

Management 

and Ecology

Fire Regime and 

Condition Class 

(FR/CC)

Area-wide

FR/CC 

Standard 

Landscape 

Worksheet

Composition of 

departure and 

condition classes 

compared to 

reference 

conditions

Field 

measurements 

evaluated on a 

10-year cycle

A change in 

the direction 

of trend away 

from 

management

Implement 

additional 

vegetation or 

habitat 

treatments
MON-19

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

CULTURAL RESOURCES

Areas of 

Critical 

Environmental 

Concern 

(ACECs)

See Special Designation Areas in this table.

Cultural 

Resources

(cont’d)

National Historic 

Trails

Lewis and 

Clark National 

Historic Trail

Area inspection 

to look for 

vandalism,

resource abuse, 

and to install 

photo points

Site condition Annually

User conflicts,

resource 

degradation,

or safety

hazards

Signing; site 

mitigation; 

more 

restrictive 

management 

(may require a 

resource 

management 

plan [RMP]

amendment)

Random sample 

of 10 additional 

sites

Area-wide Site inspection Site, surrounding 

area

Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance, 

natural or 

human-caused 

For any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance 

(natural or 

humancaused), halt 

activity 

affecting sites, 

increase 

frequency and 

number of sites 

monitored (if 

sites are being 

impacted), 

increase 

monitoring of
MON-20

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

nearby sites, 

and evaluate 

damage to sites

Cultural 

Resources

(cont’d)

Site degradation 

caused by human 

activity

Significant 

cultural sites 

and area-wide

Inspection of 

area disturbed

Site, surrounding 

area

Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance 

(natural or 

human-

caused), such 

as excavations

Closure of 

areas 

surrounding 

site to prevent 

further 

disturbance to 

significant 

cultural 

resources (may 

require an 

RMP 

amendment); 

for any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance 

(natural or 

human-

caused), halt 

activity 

affecting sites, 

increase 

frequency and 

number of sites 

monitored (if 

sites are being 

impacted), 

increase 

monitoring of 

nearby sites, 

and evaluate 
MON-21

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

damage to sites

Cultural 

Resources

(cont’d)

Environmental 

degradation, such 

as erosion or 

trampling

Significant 

cultural sites 

and area-wide

Inspection of 

displaced or 

altered area

Site, surrounding 

area

Annually

Accelerated 

loss or 

damage to 

significant 

cultural 

material

Closure of 

areas 

surrounding 

site to prevent 

further 

disturbance to 

significant 

cultural 

resources (may 

require an 

RMP 

amendment; 

for any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance 

(natural or 

human-

caused), halt 

activity 

affecting sites, 

increase 

frequency and 

number of sites 

monitored (if 

sites are being 

impacted), 

increase 

monitoring of 

nearby sites, 

and evaluate 

damage to sites
MON-22

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

ACECs See Special Designation Areas in this table.

Paleontological 

Resources

Significant 

paleontological 

localities

Area-wide Inspection of 

disturbed area

Degradation 

caused by human 

or natural 

activities that lead 

to loss of 

significant fossil 

resources

Annually

Loss or 

damage to 

significant 

fossil 

resources

Closure of 

areas 

surrounding 

site to prevent 

further 

disturbance to 

significant 

fossil resources 

(may require 

an RMP 

amendment) 

Random 

sample of 5 

additional 

sites

Area-wide Inspection of 

disturbed area

Degradation 

caused by human 

or natural 

activities that lead 

to loss of 

significant fossil 

resources

Annually

Loss or 

damage to 

significant 

fossil 

resources

Closure of 

areas 

surrounding 

site to prevent 

further 

disturbance to 

significant 

fossil resources 

(may require 

an RMP 

amendment) 

Locality 

degradation 

caused by human 

activity

Significant 

paleontological 

localities 

Inspection of 

area disturbed

Percentage of 

locality Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance 

such as 

excavations

Closure of 

areas 

surrounding 

site to prevent 

further 

disturbance to 

significant 

fossil resources 

(may require 

an RMP 

amendment) 
MON-23

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

Paleontological 

Resources

(cont’d)

Environmental 

degradation, such 

as erosion or 

trampling

Significant 

paleontological 

localities

Inspection of 

displaced or 

altered area

Number of fossils Annually

Accelerated 

loss or 

damage to 

significant 

fossils

Closure of 

areas 

surrounding 

site to prevent 

further 

disturbance to 

significant 

fossil resources 

(may require 

an RMP 

amendment) 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM)

VRM I (see Wilderness in this table)

VRM II VRM II See Map 15 Field visit Photo points Once every 1 

to 5 years

Unanticipated 

or 

unacceptable 

effects or 

conflicts 

occurring

Require 

mitigation; 

signing; 

increase 

enforcement 

visits; and 

replan for area 

(may require 

an RMP 

amendment)

VRM III/IV

Large scalesurface 

disturbing 

project

Planning area

Field visit or 

key 

observation 

points

Photos As the need 

arises

Large-scale 

surfacedisturbing 

project on 

landscape

Require 

mitigation

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

For Lands with Wilderness Characteristics with VRM I, see Wilderness Study Areas in this table. For Lands with Wilderness Characteristics with 

VRM II, see VRM above.
MON-24

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products 

(cont’d)

Reforestation MCFO

Site inspection 

and stocking 

surveys

Trees per acre 

and visual 

evaluation of tree 

vigor

Initial survey 

10 years after 

harvest or 

wildfire; 

subsequent 

survey after 15 

years to 

determine if 

artificial 

regeneration is 

necessary

Less than 150 

trees per acre; 

trees greater 

than 4.6 

inches

diameter at 

breast height

Planting of 

nursery stock 

or broadcast 

seeding

Silvicultural 

treatments MCFO Site inspection

Trees per acre; 

basal area per 

acre; volume per 

acre (thousand 

board feet per 

acre); and size 

classes; visual 

evaluation of 

forest health

Pre- and posttreatment

Obtain current 

stand data 

information 

and evaluate 

effects of 

treatments

Stocking 

surveys, stand 

exams, forest 

inventory, 

permanent 

plots, and 

photo points

Forest health MCFO

National 

Agricultural 

Imagery 

Program

photography, 

aerial detection 

surveys, site 

visits

Visual evaluation Annually

Evaluate 

insect and 

disease 

damage and 

tree mortality 

levels

Silvicultural 

treatments, 

sanitation 

harvest, 

chemical 

application 

(e.g., 

verbenone, 

carbaryl)

Roads MCFO Site Inspection Visual Evaluation Pre- and posttreatment

Damage to 

road surface 

(e.g., rutting, 

erosion, 

sediment 

Culvert 

replacement or 

installation, 

rolling dips, 

proper 
MON-25

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

delivery, or 

culvert 

washouts)

drainage and 

road 

placement, 

reconstruction, 

cut and fill 

slope 

stabilization, 

surface 

blading, grass 

seeding, 

armoring, road 

closures, 

timing 

restrictions, 

and other 

activities (see 

Montana 

BMPs in the 

Forestry and 

Woodland 

Products 

Appendix)

MINERALS

Coal Exploration 

license Area

-wide Site inspection Exploration 

license

The 

regulations at 

43 Code of 

Federal 

Regulations (CFR)

3480.06(d)(4) 

require 

inspections of 

exploration 

and production 

as frequently 

as necessary, 

Non-

compliance 

with the terms 

and 

conditions of 

the 

exploration 

license, or 

operating 

regulations;

poor 

reclamation; 

or 

Require 

compliance 

with terms and 

conditions of 

the license, 

require 

appropriate 

reclamation, 

and eliminate 

environmental 

degradation
MON-26

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

but at least 

quarterly. 

Exploration 

license areas 

must be 

inspected for 

compliance 

with site-

specific 

stipulations, 

terms and 

conditions of 

the license, 

and 

reclamation 

success prior 

to bond 

release. 

Because 

exploration 

licenses expire 

after 2 years 

license areas 

are typically 

inspected after 

expiration of 

the license but 

prior to bond 

release (or 

sooner if 

requested by 

the 

proponent).

environmental 

degradation

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal

Geophysical

notice of intent

(NOI)

Area-wide Line or area 

inspection

Operations 

conducted in 

compliance with 

Minimum of 

once during 

operations

Violation of 

regulations, 

change from 

Issue certified 

letter with 

corrective 
MON-27

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

NOI approved NOI action and 

timeframe; 

bond release 

cannot occur 

until violations

are corrected

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal 

(cont’d)

Geophysical

notice of 

completion Area

-wide Line or area 

inspection

Operations 

conducted in 

compliance with 

notice of 

completion

Minimum of 

once during 

operations, 

once after 

reclamation

Violation of 

regulations, 

change from 

approved 

notice of 

completion

Issue certified 

letter with 

corrective 

action and 

timeframe; 

bond release 

cannot occur 

until violations 

are corrected

Application for 

permit to drill 

operations 

(surface and 

technical 

inspections)

Area-wide Site inspection

Operations 

conducted in 

compliance with 

applications for 

permit to drill

Surface 

Inspections:

construction, 

drilling, and 

production –

Minimum of 

once and as 

necessary

Interim and 

final 

reclamation –

minimum of 

once and until 

reclamation is 

complete

Technical 

inspection: 

drilling and 

production –

Violations of 

regulations, 

change from 

approved 

applications 

for permit to 

drill

Issue a written 

order or an 

incident of 

non-

compliance 

with timeframe 

to correct 

violations or 

shut in 

operations
MON-28

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

minimum of 

once and as 

necessary

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal 

(cont’d)

Sundry notice Area-wide Site inspection

Operations 

conducted in 

compliance with 

approved sundry 

notice

As necessary

Violations of 

regulations, 

change from 

approved 

sundry notice

Issue a written 

order or an 

incident of 

non-

compliance 

with timeframe 

to correct or 

shut in 

operations

Oil and gas 

drainage Area

-wide Drainage 

evaluation

Radius of 

drainage As necessary

The BLM 

determines 

that federal oil 

or gas is being 

drained 

(physically 

removed) by 

an off-lease 

well.

Notify lessee 

of drainage 

situation. 

Require lease 

protection, 

compensatory 

royalty, or 

relinquishment

Produced water 

disposal Area

-wide Site inspection

Operations 

conducted in 

compliance with 

permit

Minimum of 

once annually 

or as 

necessary

Violation of 

regulations or 

change from 

approved 

permit

Issue a written 

order or an 

incident of 

non-

compliance 

with timeframe 

to correct or 

shut in 

operations

Spill Area-wide Site inspection Spill area cleaned 

up and reclaimed

Minimum of 

once after 

event and as 

necessary

Violation of 

regulations or 

change from 

approved 

permit

Issue a written 

order or an 

incident of 

non-

compliance
MON-29

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

with timeframe 

for correction

Oil, Gas, and 

Geothermal 

(cont’d)

Plugging 

operations Area

-wide Site inspection

Operations 

conducted in 

compliance with 

permit

Minimum of 

once during 

operations and 

as necessary

Violation of 

regulations or 

change from 

approved 

permit

Issue a written 

order or an 

incident of 

non-

compliance

with timeframe 

for correction 

or shut in 

operations

Locatable 

Minerals NOIs Area

-wide Site inspection NOI

At least four 

times each 

year, the 

responsible 

field office 

would inspect 

an operation if 

the operator 

uses cyanide 

or other 

leachates or 

where there is 

significant 

potential for 

acidic or 

deleterious 

drainage(43 

CFR 

3809.600(b). 

active notices 

and plans that 

do not involve 

leachates 

should be 

inspected at 

Non-

compliance 

with the terms 

and 

conditions of 

the NOI or 

Plan of 

Operations, 

surface 

management 

regulations, 

poor 

reclamation, 

or 

environmental 

degradation

Require 

compliance 

with the terms 

and conditions 

of the NOI or 

Plan of 

Operations, 

surface 

management 

regulations, 

and require 

that 

reclamation 

was 

appropriately 

completed and 

environmental 

degradation 

did not occur.
MON-30

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

least two times 

per year. 

These 

inspection 

frequencies 

are minimums; 

field offices 

are 

encouraged to 

conduct 

inspections on 

a more 

frequent basis 

where it is 

deemed 

necessary.

MCFO 

currently has 

no plans or 

notices that 

use leachates.

Mineral 

Materials

Permits and 

contracts Area

-wide Site visit Permits and 

contracts

Inspections are 

required at 

least once per 

year for sales 

less than 5,000 

cubic yards 

and twice per 

year for sales 

larger than 

5,000 cubic 

yards.

Non-

compliance 

with the terms 

and 

conditions of 

the permit or 

contract, 

regulations, 

poor 

reclamation, 

or 

environmental 

degradation

Require 

compliance 

with the terms 

and conditions 

of the permit 

or contract, 

regulations, 

and require 

that 

reclamation 

was 

appropriately 

completed and 

environmental 

degradation 
MON-31

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

did not occur.

RECREATION

Recreation 

(cont’d)

General 

recreation

use

Area-wide with

emphasis on 

dispersed

use of

undeveloped 

recreational

sites (extensive 

recreation 

management 

areas)

Area inspection 

to look for 

vandalism and

resource abuse

and to install 

photo points

Site condition

Twice a year 

(e.g.,

once in June 

and

once in 

October) and

photograph 

annually

User conflicts,

resource 

degradation,

or safety

hazards

Signing, 

fencing or 

other 

mitigation 

measures

Concentrated

recreation use 

and

demand

Special 

recreation 

management 

areas

and sites with

recreation 

facilities

Visitor 

registration,

traffic 

counters,

estimates, and 

photo

points

Visitor days and 

site

condition

Visitor 

registration

boxes and 

counters

checked once

monthly (at 

the

minimum) and 

weekly

or biweekly 

during

heavy use 

periods;

photograph 

annually

Increased 

visitor use per

year or 

sustained use

that requires

additional or

improved 

facilities

Monitor more 

frequently and 

signing, 

fencing, or 

other 

mitigation 

measures

Area-wide 

commercial

and 

competitive

activities 

(special 

recreation 

permits)

Administrative 

review

and site 

inspection or 

reviews for 

permittees with

permit 

stipulations

Permit 

stipulations,

resource 

condition, and

success of 

reclamation

On site during

competitive 

events,

periodic site 

inspection

for 

commercial

operations, 

Violation of 

permit

stipulations, 

irreparable

resource

damage, and 

compromised

visitor safety 

Monitor more 

frequently and signing, 

fencing, or 

other 

mitigation 

measures
MON-32

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

and 

administrative

review

annually

and

recreation 

experience

RENEWABLE ENERGY Renewable 

Energy

(cont’d)

Rights-of-way 

(ROWs)

Area-wide Site inspection ROW

Minimum of 

once during or 

for 

construction 

within 5 years 

of issuance, 

then in the 20th

year after 

issuance and 

every 10 years 

thereafter; 

before release 

or collection 

of a bond; 

before renewal 

termination or 

relinquishment 

acceptance; or 

as required by 

specific terms 

and conditions 

in the ROW

grant or the 

plan of 

development (POD) or 

regulations

Nonuse of the 

ROW or 

violation of 

ROW grant 

stipulations, 

the terms of 

the POD, or 

regulations

Require 

compliance 

with ROW 

grant 

stipulations, 

POD terms, or 

regulations 

with possible 

suspension or 

termination for 

non-

compliance or 

nonuse
MON-33

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND OHV AND BACK COUNTRY BYWAYS

Travel 

Management 

and OHV and 

Back Country 

Byways

(cont’d)

Track progress 

on 

implementation 

or planning 

signing, and 

mapping

Planning-areawide

Field trips and 

localized 

public 

meetings

Verify minimized 

resource damage, 

user conflicts, and 

new user-created 

roads

Annual

Effects not 

anticipated in 

EIS or 

unacceptable 

effects 

Require further 

mitigation or 

reclamation; 

consider 

replanning area 

(may require 

an RMP 

amendment)

LANDS AND REALTY

Lands and 

Realty (cont’d) ROWs Area-wide Site inspection ROW

Minimum of 

once during or 

for 

construction 

within 2 years 

of issuance for 

Mineral 

Leasing Act

reviews and 

within 5 years 

of issuance for 

Federal Land 

and Policy 

Management 

Act reviews, 

then in the 20th

year after 

issuance and 

every 10 years 

thereafter; 

before release 

or collection 

of a bond; 

before renewal 

termination or 

Nonuse of the 

ROW or 

violation of 

ROW grant 

stipulations, 

the terms of 

the POD, or 

regulations

Require 

compliance 

with ROW

grant 

stipulations, 

POD terms, or 

regulations 

with possible 

suspension or 

termination for 

noncompliance or 

nonuse
MON-34

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

relinquishment 

acceptance; or 

as required by 

specific terms 

and conditions 

in the ROW

grant or the 

POD or 

regulations

Lands and 

Realty (cont’d)

2920 Land Use 

Permits and 

Leases

Area-wide Site inspection Lease or Permit

Minimum of 

once during or 

for 

construction 

within 2 years 

of issuance; 

before release 

or collection 

of a bond; 

before renewal 

termination or 

relinquishment 

acceptance; or 

as required by 

specific terms 

and conditions 

in the lease or 

permit or the 

POD or 

regulations

Nonuse of the 

lease or 

permit or 

violation of 

lease or 

permit 

stipulations, 

the terms of 

the POD, or 

regulations

Require 

compliance 

with lease or 

permit 

stipulations, 

POD terms, or 

regulations 

with possible 

suspension or 

termination for 

non-

compliance or 

nonuse

Other Land Use 

Authorizations Area

-wide Site inspection Use 

Authorization

Minimum of 

once during or 

for 

construction; 

before release 

or collection 

of a bond; 

Nonuse of the 

authorization 

or violation of 

authorization 

stipulations, 

the terms of 

the POD, or 

Require 

compliance 

with 

authorization 

stipulations, 

POD terms, or 

regulations; 
MON-35

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

before renewal 

termination or 

relinquishment 

acceptance; or 

as required by 

specific terms 

and conditions 

in the 

authorization 

or the POD or 

regulations

regulations with possible 

suspension or 

termination for 

noncompliance or 

nonuse

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS

ACECs

Cultural ACECs Area-wide Site inspection Site, surrounding 

area

Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance, 

natural or 

human-caused

Increase 

frequency of 

monitoring to 

ensure ACEC 

values were 

not being 

impaired

Paleontological

ACECs Area-wide Site inspection

Site, surrounding 

area Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance, 

natural or 

human-caused

Increase 

frequency of 

monitoring to 

ensure ACEC 

values were 

not being 

impaired

Geologic ACEC Smoky Butte Site inspection Site, surrounding 

area

Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance, 

natural or 

Increase 

frequency of 

monitoring to 

ensure ACEC 

values were 

not being 

impaired
MON-36

MONITORING APPENDIX

TABLE 1. MONITORING TABLE

Element Item Location Technique Unit of Measure Frequency 

and Duration

Remedial 

Action 

Trigger

Management 

Options

human-caused 

ACECs

(cont’d)

Scenic ACEC Finger Buttes Site inspection Site, surrounding 

area

Annually

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance, 

natural or 

human-caused 

Increase 

frequency of 

monitoring to 

ensure ACEC 

values were 

not being 

impaired

Wildlife ACECs

Piping Plover 

and

Black-footed 

Ferret 

Reintroduction 

Area

Site Inspection 

and monitoring Occupancy

Annually or 

determined on 

a site-specific 

basis

Any 

noticeable 

trend 

indicating 

increased 

disturbance, 

natural or 

human-caused

Increase 

frequency of 

monitoring to 

ensure ACEC 

values were 

not being 

impaired

Wilderness

Study Areas WSAs WSAs Flight, vehicle, 

and foot review

Surface 

disturbance

Once per 

month if the 

area is 

accessible 

unless an 

alternate 

schedule is 

approved by 

the State 

Director

Unauthorized 

actions

Require 

reclamation or 

possible civil 

or criminal 

action and 

public 

notification
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-1

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for paleontological resources and management in the planning 

area. Information includes guidance to classify resources and guide the protection of paleontological resources.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 

POTENTIAL FOSSIL YIELD CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ON PUBLIC LANDS

BLM Washington Office Instruction Memorandum (IM) No. 2008-009 (2007b) provides the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) classification system for paleontological resources on public lands. The classification 

system is based on the potential for the occurrence of significant paleontological resources in a geologic unit, 

the associated risk for impacts to the resource based on federal management actions, and BLM IM No. 2009-

011 (BLM 2008b). This IM provides guidelines for assessing potential impacts to paleontological resources in 

order to determine mitigation steps for federal actions on public lands under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). These guidelines also apply 

where a federal action affects split-estate lands. In addition, this IM provides field survey and monitoring 

procedures to help minimize impacts to paleontological resources from federal actions in the case where it is 

determined that significant paleontological resources would be adversely affected by a federal action.

Before initiating projects that could result in surface or subsurface disturbance in significant fossil-bearing 

formations (Potential Fossil Yield Categories [PFYC] 4 and 5 rated formations), BLM would conduct an 

inventory or require an inventory to be conducted for vertebrate paleontological resources in compliance with 

BLM IM No. 2008-009 Potential Fossil Yield Classification System for Paleontological Resources on Public 

Lands (BLM 2007b). This memorandum provides the BLM classification system for paleontological resources 

on public lands. The classification system is based on the potential for the occurrence of significant 

paleontological resources in a geologic unit and the associated risk for impacts to the resource based on federal

management actions (in compliance with BLM IM No. 2009-011 Paleontological Resources Management, 

Environmental Assessment [BLM 2008b]).

This memorandum provides guidelines for assessing potential impacts to paleontological resources in order to 

determine mitigation steps for federal actions on public lands under FLPMA and NEPA. These guidelines also 

apply where a federal action affects split-estate lands. In addition, this memorandum provides field survey and 

monitoring procedures to help minimize impacts to paleontological resources from federal actions in cases in 

which it is determined that significant paleontological resources will be adversely affected by a federal action. 

As per IM No. 2008-009, the Miles City Field Office has determined the following formation ratings:

 Arikaree, Class 4;

 Fort Union-Tullock, Class 4;

 Hell Creek, Class 5;

 Lance, Class 5; and

 Judith River, Class 4.

<The following is from Attachment 1 of BLM Washington Office IM No. 2008-009 (2007b).>

Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) System

Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely tied to the geologic units (i.e., formations, members, or 

beds) that contain them. The probability for finding paleontological resources can be broadly predicted from the 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-2

geologic units present at or near the surface. Therefore, geologic mapping can be used for assessing the 

potential for the occurrence of paleontological resources. 

Using the Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system, geologic units are classified based on the 

relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils and their 

sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher-class number indicating a higher potential. This classification is 

applied to the geologic formation, member, or other distinguishable unit, preferably at the most detailed 

mappable level. It is not intended to be applied to specific paleontological localities or small areas within units. 

Although significant localities may occasionally occur in a geologic unit, a few widely scattered important 

fossils or localities do not necessarily indicate a higher class; instead, the relative abundance of significant 

localities is intended to be the major determinant for the class assignment. 

The PFYC system is meant to provide baseline guidance for predicting, assessing, and mitigating 

paleontological resources. The classification should be considered at an intermediate point in the analysis, and 

should be used to assist in determining the need for further mitigation assessment or actions. 

The descriptions for the classes below are written to serve as guidelines rather than as strict definitions. 

Knowledge of the geology and the paleontological potential for individual units or preservation conditions 

should be considered when determining the appropriate class assignment. Assignments are best made by 

collaboration between land managers and knowledgeable researchers. 

Class 1 – Very Low. Geologic units that are not likely to contain recognizable fossil remains. 

• Units that are igneous or metamorphic, excluding reworked volcanic ash units. 

• Units that are Precambrian in age or older. 

(1) Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 1 units is usually negligible or not 

applicable.

(2) Assessment or mitigation is usually unnecessary except in very rare or isolated circumstances. 

The probability for affecting any fossils is negligible. Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is 

usually unnecessary. The occurrence of significant fossils is non-existent or extremely rare. 

Class 2 – Low. Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically 

significant nonvertebrate fossils. 

• Vertebrate or significant invertebrate or plant fossils not present or very rare. 

• Units that are generally younger than 10,000 years before present. 

• Recent aeolian deposits. 

• Sediments that exhibit significant physical and chemical changes (i.e., diagenetic alteration). 

(1) Management concern for paleontological resources is generally low. 

(2) Assessment or mitigation is usually unnecessary except in rare or isolated circumstances. 

The probability for affecting vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils is low. 

Assessment or mitigation of paleontological resources is not likely to be necessary. Localities containing 

important resources may exist, but would be rare and would not influence the classification. These important 

localities would be managed on a case-by-case basis. 

Class 3 – Moderate or Unknown. Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in 

significance, abundance, and predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. 

• Often marine in origin with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-3

• Vertebrate fossils and scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils known to occur 

intermittently; predictability known to be low. 

(or) 

• Poorly studied and/or poorly documented. Potential yield cannot be assigned without ground 

reconnaissance. 

Class 3a – Moderate Potential. Units are known to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically 

significant nonvertebrate fossils, but these occurrences are widely scattered. Common invertebrate or 

plant fossils may be found in the area, and opportunities may exist for hobby collecting. The potential 

for a project to be sited on or impact a significant fossil locality is low, but is somewhat higher for 

common fossils. 

Class 3b – Unknown Potential. Units exhibit geologic features and preservation conditions that 

suggest significant fossils could be present, but little information about the paleontological resources of 

the unit or the area is known. This may indicate the unit or area is poorly studied, and field surveys 

may uncover significant finds. The units in this Class may eventually be placed in another Class when 

sufficient survey and research is performed. The unknown potential of the units in this Class should be 

carefully considered when developing any mitigation or management actions. 

(1) Management concern for paleontological resources is moderate; or cannot be determined from existing 

data. 

(2) Surface-disturbing activities may require field assessment to determine appropriate course of action. 

This classification includes a broad range of paleontological potential. It includes geologic units of unknown 

potential, as well as units of moderate or infrequent occurrence of significant fossils. Management 

considerations cover a broad range of options as well, and could include pre-disturbance surveys, monitoring, 

or avoidance. Surface-disturbing activities will require sufficient assessment to determine whether significant 

paleontological resources occur in the area of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the 

paleontological resources. These units may contain areas that would be appropriate to designate as hobby 

collection areas due to the higher occurrence of common fossils and a lower concern about affecting 

significant paleontological resources. 

Class 4 – High. Geologic units containing a high occurrence of significant fossils. Vertebrate fossils or 

scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils are known to occur and have been documented, but may 

vary in occurrence and predictability. Surface disturbing activities may adversely affect paleontological 

resources in many cases. 

Class 4a – Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive with 

exposed bedrock areas often larger than two acres. Paleontological resources may be susceptible to 

adverse impacts from surface disturbing actions. Illegal collecting activities may impact some areas. 

Class 4b – These are areas underlain by geologic units with high potential but have lowered risks of 

human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating 

circumstances. The bedrock unit has high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial material, or 

other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the activity. 

• Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be 

impacted. 

• Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres. 

• Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by 

topographic conditions. 

• Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified 

paleontological resources. 

(1) Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 4 is moderate to high, depending on the 

proposed action. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-4

(2) A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is often needed to assess local conditions. 

(3) Management prescriptions for resource preservation and conservation through controlled access or 

special management designation should be considered. 

(4) Class 4 and Class 5 units may be combined as Class 5 for broad applications, such as planning efforts 

or preliminary assessments, when geologic mapping at an appropriate scale is not available. Resource 

assessment, mitigation, and other management considerations are similar at this level of analysis, and 

impacts and alternatives can be addressed at a level appropriate to the application. 

The probability for affecting significant paleontological resources is moderate to high, and is dependent on the 

proposed action. Mitigation considerations must include assessment of the disturbance, such as removal or 

penetration of protective surface alluvium or soils, potential for future accelerated erosion, or increased ease of 

access resulting in greater looting potential. If impacts to significant fossils can be anticipated, on-the-ground 

surveys prior to authorizing the surface disturbing action will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring or spotchecking may be necessary during construction activities. 

Class 5 – Very High. Highly fossiliferous geologic units that consistently and predictably produce vertebrate 

fossils or scientifically significant invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human-caused adverse 

impacts or natural degradation. 

Class 5a – Unit is exposed with little or no soil or vegetative cover. Outcrop areas are extensive with 

exposed bedrock areas often larger than two contiguous acres. Paleontological resources are highly 

susceptible to adverse impacts from surface disturbing actions. Unit is frequently the focus of illegal 

collecting activities. 

Class 5b – These are areas underlain by geologic units with very high potential but have lowered risks of 

human-caused adverse impacts and/or lowered risk of natural degradation due to moderating 

circumstances. The bedrock unit has very high potential, but a protective layer of soil, thin alluvial 

material, or other conditions may lessen or prevent potential impacts to the bedrock resulting from the 

activity. 

• Extensive soil or vegetative cover; bedrock exposures are limited or not expected to be 

impacted. 

• Areas of exposed outcrop are smaller than two contiguous acres. 

• Outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts are minimized by 

topographic conditions. 

• Other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability of both known and unidentified 

paleontological resources. 

(1) Management concern for paleontological resources in Class 5 areas is high to very high.

(2) A field survey by a qualified paleontologist is usually necessary prior to surface disturbing activities or 

land tenure adjustments. Mitigation will often be necessary before and/or during these actions. 

(3) Official designation of areas of avoidance, special interest, and concern may be appropriate. 

The probability for impacting significant fossils is high. Vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant 

invertebrate fossils are known or can reasonably be expected to occur in the impacted area. On-the-ground 

surveys prior to authorizing any surface disturbing activities will usually be necessary. On-site monitoring may 

be necessary during construction activities.

<End of BLM IM No. 2008-009>
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-5

<Internal Program Guidance from the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act under the Omnibus 

Public Lands Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-011-PRPA, Title VI, Subtitle D, Sections 6301-6312, 123 Stat. 

1172, 16 U.S.C. 470aaa)>

Permits are required for collecting paleontological resources, except casual collecting, consistent with other 

laws and policies (Sec. 6304 (a)(1) and (2)). 

Criteria for issuance of a permit includes: 

 the applicant is qualified; 

 the activity is undertaken to further paleontological knowledge or for public education; 

 the activity is consistent with any management plans; and 

 the methods of collecting would not threaten significant natural or cultural resources (Sec. 6304 (b)).

Permits would contain such terms and conditions as necessary and shall include requirements that: 

 fossils collected from public lands remain the property of the United States; 

 the paleontological resources and copies of associated records would be preserved in an approved 

repository; and 

 specific locality data would not be released by the permittee or repository without the written 

permission of the Secretary (Sec. 6304 (c)).

Prohibited acts include:

 trafficking, or offering to traffic in, paleontological resources if the person knew or should have known 

they were illegally collected from public lands; 

 sell or purchase, or offer for sale or purchase, any paleontological resource if the person knew or 

should have known they were illegally collected from public lands (Sec. 6306(a)); and

 intentional false labeling, which includes false records, accounts, and identifications (Sec. 6306 (b)). 

Penalties include fines based on value of the fossils and up to 5 years in jail; second or subsequent violations 

may result in doubling of penalties (Sec. 6306 (c)). The amount of the penalties should consider the scientific or 

fair market value of the paleontological resource; the cost of restoration and repair of the resource and the 

locality, and any other factors considered relevant by the agency (Sec. 6307 (a)).

Penalties collected can be used only to protect, restore, or repair the paleontological resources and the sites they 

came from; provide educational materials to the public; or pay rewards (Sec. 6307 (d)). Penalty fees do not go 

into the general fund or any other fund or activity, and rewards are authorized for furnishing information which 

leads to a conviction or violation, up to half the penalties assessed (Sec. 6308 (a)). All paleontological resources 

associated with a violation or conviction are subject to forfeiture (Sec. 6308 (b)). Seized paleontological 

resources may be transferred to federal or nonfederal educational institutions (Sec. 6308 (c)).

Information concerning the nature and specific location of a paleontological resource shall be exempt from the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (16 U.S.C. 552), with a few key exemptions (Sec. 6309).

This law does not apply to, or require a permit for, casual collecting of a rock or mineral (Sec. 6311 (3)).

This law does not affect any land other than federal land or affect the lawful collection or sale of 

paleontological resources from land other than federal land (Sec. 6311 (4)).

For all surface-disturbing activities, the lessee or operator must immediately inform the BLM of paleontological 

resources discovered as a result of operations. The lessee or operator would stop activity until directed to 

proceed by the BLM. The agency would identify paleontological resources and implement proper mitigation 

measures.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-6

Casual (hobby) collection of fossils would be allowed and limited to reasonable amounts of common 

invertebrate and plant fossils for non-commercial personal use. The BLM would ensure that proposed land uses 

would not destroy or damage significant paleontological resources. Requirements would follow the provisions 

of the 2009 Paleontological Resource Protection Act and BLM Washington Office IMs No. 2008-009 and 2009-

011 (BLM 2007b and 2008b).

Before initiating projects that might result in surface or subsurface disturbance in fossil-bearing formations, the 

BLM would conduct an inventory for vertebrate paleontological resources in conjunction with the inventory for 

cultural resources. The BLM would avoid impacts to significant paleontological remains through project 

redesign, project abandonment, or mitigation of adverse impacts through scientific recovery and analysis. The 

agency would prepare paleontological resource awareness programs designed to enhance the public 

appreciation of paleontological resource values. 

The reclamation process would be as follows: 

 topsoil would be removed and stockpiled at the beginning of an excavation; 

 the topsoil would be spread over the backfilled material during reclamation; 

 the area would be recontoured to match the original landscape and reseeded with native species; and 

 water bars (water diversions) or other methods to reduce soil erosion would be constructed on slopes 

exceeding 30 percent.

As part of the planning process, projects resulting in surface-disturbing activities shall prepare paleontological 

resource awareness programs designed to enhance the public appreciation of paleontological resource values; 

encourage scientific use of paleontological resources by university field schools; and first consider the 

development of recreational opportunities, including hobby collecting of fossils, as well as on-site interpretation 

and development. Monitoring would be conducted as described in the Monitoring Appendix. 

<End of guidance>

<The following is Attachment 1 from BLM’s 2008 IM No. 2009-011>

GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION OF 

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Surface disturbing federal actions on public and split-estate lands may cause direct adverse impacts to 

paleontological resources through the damage or destruction of fossils or the disturbance of the stratigraphic 

context in which they are located. Indirect adverse impacts may be created from increased accessibility to 

fossils leading to looting or vandalism activities. Land tenure adjustments may result in the loss of significant 

paleontological resources to the public if fossils pass from public ownership. 

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), federal actions and land tenure adjustments that may impact or result in a loss of paleontological 

resources on public or split-estate lands are evaluated, and necessary mitigation is identified. 

I. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The following sections outline general steps designed to assist in the analysis and assessment of possible 

impacts to paleontological resources from proposed actions. These sections are sequential in order and provide 

for termination of the assessment at various stages if the analysis indicates no impacts are likely to occur. 

A. Scoping. Field Offices must assess all proposed federal actions to identify possible effects to significant 

paleontological resources (see Appendix A for definition) that are potentially recoverable and are likely to 

be within the zone of expected surface disturbance or relatively close to the surface. The direct effects of all 

surface activities and the indirect effects of increased public access and land tenure adjustments must be 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-7

considered in any paleontological assessment. The assessment will determine whether further analysis will 

be necessary. The Paleontology Program Coordinator (Paleontology Coordinator – see Appendix A for 

definition) has primary responsibility for the scoping process for projects within the Field Office area, but 

the Paleontology Program Lead (Paleontology Lead – see Appendix A for definition) may be responsible for 

projects that span multiple Field or District Offices, and can support the Paleontology Coordinator as 

requested. 

1. Surface only activities – If the proposed project will not disturb potentially fossil-yielding bedrock or 

alluvium, no additional work is necessary. The project file should be documented as appropriate. 

Examples of such projects include weed spraying, mechanical brush treatment, geophysical 

exploration, or surface disturbing activities such as road construction when the fossil resource is 

expected to be buried well below project compression or excavation depth or when surface fossil 

resources would be left undamaged. 

2. Land Tenure Adjustments – If parcels are identified to pass from public ownership in a proposed land 

tenure adjustment action but contain no potential for recoverable, significant paleontological resources, 

no additional work is necessary. The project file should be documented as appropriate, and conclusions 

addressed in the environmental document. This situation may arise, for example, in areas consisting 

only of granitic bedrock where paleontological resources would not normally occur. 

3. Young alluvial deposits or deep soils may cover and obscure sedimentary bedrock, and any fossils that 

may occur in that bedrock would be unidentifiable or irretrievable prior to disturbance actions. In most 

of these cases, the fossil resources cannot be quantified, but the potential for impacting paleontological 

resources should be mentioned in the evaluation of the proposal, i.e., the planned disturbance will pass 

through the soil layer and impact a bedrock unit which is known to contain significant fossils 

elsewhere. 

If the initial scoping identifies the possibility for adversely affecting significant paleontological resources, 

further analysis is necessary. If there will be no impact or potential impact based on the action or the fossil 

resource may be impacted, but is too deep to be recovered, e.g., deep well bore passing through a fossil 

formation, the project file must be documented, and no additional assessment is necessary. 

B. Analysis of Existing Data. If scoping suggests the possibility of disturbing fossil-yielding bedrock or 

alluvium that is near to the surface and that may contain significant paleontological resources that are 

potentially recoverable, more in-depth analysis is necessary. Geologic mapping reflecting the Potential 

Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) should be consulted, along with any other easily accessible information, 

such as GIS-based locality data, other known paleontological locality information, and existing 

paleontological reports for the area, aerial photos, or soils maps. 

1. Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) – This is a system for categorizing the probability of 

geologic units to contain scientifically significant paleontological resources or noteworthy fossil 

occurrences. It has five levels or Classes, with Class 1 applied to geologic units that are not likely to 

contain significant fossils through Class 5 for geologic formations that have a high potential to yield 

scientifically significant fossils on a regular basis (see IM No. 2008-009). This classification does not 

reflect rare or isolated occurrences of significant fossils or individual localities, only the relative 

occurrence on a formation- or member-wide basis. Any rare occurrences may require additional 

assessment and mitigation if they fall within the area of anticipated impacts. 

2. If the results of the preliminary analysis determine that the proposed project will only affect geologic 

units not likely to contain significant fossils or that have a very low or low potential for significant 

fossils (PFYC Class 1 or 2), and no scientifically important localities are known to occur in the area, 

the project file should be documented, and no additional paleontology assessment is necessary. 

3. The results of an analysis of a proposed project may indicate the potential to disturb PFYC Class 3, 4, 

or 5 formations or potentially fossil-bearing alluvium, or known significant localities, which may then 

suggest the need for field surveys and/or other mitigation measures. The results may also identify areas 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-8

where little or nothing is known of the fossil record so that additional attention may be given to these 

areas during field survey. The analysis should consider the likely impacts on the known or potential 

fossil resource and should be the basis for determining the need for or level of additional assessments. 

C. Determining the Need for Field Surveys and Mitigation. The previously discussed procedures may result in 

the determination that the project may encounter bedrock or an alluvial zone that has a moderate or high 

potential to contain significant paleontological resources. However, it does not determine the appropriate 

action, such as a field survey, on-site monitoring, special stipulations, avoidance, or other mitigation. 

1. If the need for further work is not clearly evident after the analysis, the AO and/or Project Leader should 

be consulted for a final decision. The Paleontology Lead or Regional Paleontologist may also be 

consulted. A brief written report of findings should be prepared, including the rationale for supporting 

the decision not to require a field survey or additional monitoring. The report should be signed by the 

AO and placed in the project file. For example, a seismic survey using vibroseis trucks may be proposed 

on areas of deep soils, or a temporary recreational event may be planned in an area of low fossil 

potential. These types of projects are not likely to have a reasonable potential to affect adversely 

important paleontological resources. The file should be documented and a standard discovery stipulation 

attached to the permit proposal. 

2. If the analysis in Sec. I.B indicates a reasonably high expectation of not just encountering a potential 

fossil-bearing zone and also causing adverse impacts to significant paleontological resources, the 

determination must be made as to (1) whether adverse effects cannot be avoided; (2) whether the 

adverse impacts can be avoided by altering the location or scope of the project; (3) whether the impacts 

can be mitigated through development of special stipulations such as requiring on-site monitoring; or 

(4) whether field surveys will be necessary to determine the presence or absence of significant 

paleontological resources. 

3. In the case where it is known that significant paleontological resources will be adversely impacted, the 

preferred course of action is avoidance of the impact by moving or rerouting the site of construction, or 

eliminating or reducing the need for surface disturbance. 

4. Application of specific stipulations may reduce or eliminate adverse impacts in many cases. A standard 

discovery stipulation should be included in any permit approval that is likely to affect significant 

paleontological resources. The stipulation should mandate an immediate work stoppage in the area of 

discovery, notification to the AO, and protection of the material and geological context. Other 

stipulations may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis. 

(a) A suggested standard discovery stipulation for a discretionary federal action is: 

The permittee shall immediately notify the BLM AO of any paleontological resources 

discovered as a result of operations under this authorization. The permittee shall suspend all 

activities in the vicinity of such discovery until notified to proceed by the AO and shall 

protect the discovery from damage or looting. The permittee may not be required to suspend 

all operations if activities can be adjusted to avoid further impacts to a discovered locality or 

be continued elsewhere. The AO will evaluate, or will have evaluated, such discoveries as 

soon as possible, but not later than 10 working days after being notified. Appropriate 

measures to mitigate adverse effects to significant paleontological resources will be 

determined by the AO after consulting with the operator. Within 10 days, the operator will be 

allowed to continue construction through the site, or will be given the choice of either (1) 

following the AO’s instructions for stabilizing the fossil resource in place and avoiding 

further disturbance to the fossil resource, or (2) following the AO’s instructions for mitigating 

impacts to the fossil resource prior to continuing construction through the project area. 

Note: C.1 and C.2 above would be conducted at the permittee's expense. By regulation, after a 3809 plan 

of operations is approved or where there is no plan, the BLM is responsible for the cost of any 

investigation and recovery of fossil materials. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-9

(b) Other stipulations may be developed to reduce potential impacts, preferably in 

consultation with the project proponent. These may include (1) techniques to reduce surface 

disturbance, (2) briefings for all personnel about the potential for discovery, (3) requiring all 

finds be reported, and (4) using a "light touch" in sensitive areas. These should be made a 

formal part of the authorization for the project and discussed at a preconstruction meeting or 

an on-site meeting in the case of oil and gas operations. 

(c) All proponents should be directed to share the current rules and regulations regarding 

fossil theft and the limitations to free use collecting of invertebrate and plant fossils on BLMadministered lands with all employees and subcontractors under their direction. Unlawful 

removal, damage, or vandalism of paleontological resources will be prosecuted by federal law 

enforcement. Theft or damage to government property by a proponent, a proponent’s 

employee, or a subcontractor that is under a proponent’s direction may lead to legal actions 

against the proponent. 

5. If avoidance actions or stipulating measures are insufficient to protect known paleontological resources, 

a written assessment must be completed to determine the need for field survey or monitoring. This 

assessment must include the anticipated direct or indirect impacts associated with the project, the 

inadequacies of avoidance or special stipulations to protect the resource, existing paleontological 

information and known localities, relevant geologic information, and the potential for additional 

discoveries. The assessment must be completed by the Paleontology Coordinator. 

(a) In some cases, bedrock will not be visible at the surface in the project area (for example, 

where thin soils or alluvium obscure all outcrops), but the proposed excavation will likely 

penetrate into bedrock with known significant paleontological resources. Because fossil 

material will not be visible at the ground surface in these cases, it may be appropriate to 

forego a field survey prior to excavation, but require on-site monitoring or spot-checks when 

bedrock is finally encountered. If construction monitoring is proposed, the written assessment 

must include a thorough justification for the recommendation. 

(b) The State Office may require the Paleontology Coordinator to notify the Paleontology 

Lead that a field survey or monitoring is deemed appropriate prior to the final decision to 

require the survey or monitoring. The notification should minimally include the name of the 

project, the legal description of the location or other locational information, a brief summary 

of the proposed action, reason(s) for the decision to require a survey or monitoring, and any 

other relevant information. Concurrence of the Paleontology Lead or Regional Paleontologist 

may be required prior to the final decision for requiring a survey or monitoring. 

(c) A standardized assessment document may be developed that can be applied to projects that 

are similar in nature, relatively small, and repetitive in approach for use within a Field Office 

or District. This written assessment is intended to simplify the documentation process for 

those projects that are likely to have minimal impacts, and may be structured as a 

programmatic assessment, a form, a checklist, or other document with standard items. This 

assessment must include the name of the project, the legal description of the location or other 

locational reference, a brief summary of the proposed action, reason(s) for the decision, and 

any other relevant information. The parameters in the assessment should be designed to 

identify the need for a field survey. For example, the parameters may indicate a field survey 

may be required for road and well pad construction activities occurring on Class 4 or 5 

formations where the formation is likely to be encountered during surface disturbing 

activities. The Field Manager, in consultation with the Paleontology Lead, must approve the 

use of a programmatic assessment prior to initial implementation. 

6. The decision to require a field survey or monitoring must be made by the AO and documented in the 

project file. If required, a copy of the decision must be furnished to the Paleontology Lead. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-10

II. PROCEDURES FOR CONDUCTING A PALEONTOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY 

If the assessment of existing data indicates: (a) the presence or high probability of occurrence of vertebrate 

fossils or uncommon nonvertebrate fossils (PFYC Class 4 or 5), or that the probability is unknown (Class 3), in 

the area of a proposed federal action or transfer of title, and (b) a reasonable probability that those resources will 

be adversely affected by the proposed action, a paleontological field survey should be conducted. 

A. Definition of Field Surveys. Field Surveys are pedestrian surveys to be performed in areas where significant 

fossils can be expected to occur within the boundary and immediate vicinity of the anticipated disturbance, 

or where the probability of encountering significant fossils is unknown. 

1. Field surveys are performed prior to any surface disturbing activities. Before conducting field 

surveys, the project location should be as final as possible and any staking of the location should be 

complete. 

2. Surveys are conducted by a BLM Regional Paleontologist, Paleontology Lead, Paleontology 

Coordinator, appropriately trained and supervised BLM staff, or by a BLM-permitted consulting 

paleontologist hired by the project proponent. 

(a) At the Field Manager’s discretion, other qualified BLM staff may conduct surveys on 

small projects. Performance of surveys by BLM staff must also be approved by the Regional 

Paleontologist, Paleontology Lead, or Paleontology Coordinator. 

(b) Surveys that are complex in nature, constrained by construction schedules, or otherwise 

cannot be performed by BLM staff should be performed by a consulting paleontologist 

holding a valid BLM Paleontological Resources Use Permit. Submission of reports may be 

done directly by the paleontologist to the BLM. The project proponent is also responsible for 

all costs associated with the survey, including the consulting paleontologist’s fees and 

charges, all survey costs, fossil preparation to the basic identification stage, analyses, reports, 

and curation costs directly related to mitigation of the project’s anticipated impacts. Any 

required monitoring and mitigation costs are also the responsibility of the project proponent. 

These costs are to be negotiated between the project proponent and the consulting 

paleontologist prior to beginning any data gathering, analysis, or fieldwork, and these 

negotiations do not require BLM involvement or approval. Any new, additional, or modified 

curation agreements between the paleontologist and the official repository must be in place 

prior to starting fieldwork. 

(c) Authorization for an activity to proceed cannot be given by a consulting paleontologist. 

Performance of the survey, either by a consulting paleontologist or BLM staff or submission 

of the report DOES NOT constitute approval for the activity to proceed. The BLM must 

review the report, including adequacy of the field methods and findings. The AO must 

approve the findings and determine the need for monitoring prior to approval to proceed. 

B. Conducting Field Surveys. Field surveys must be performed by the Principal Investigator or an approved 

Field Agent or Field Monitor (see section IV.C., Types of Field Personnel for descriptions of these 

individuals) as authorized under a Paleontological Resource Use Permit, or by a BLM Regional 

Paleontologist or qualified BLM designee. Field surveys and collections performed as a mitigation measure 

are not intended to be scientific research studies, but are meant to identify, avoid, or recover paleontological 

resources to prevent damage or destruction from project activities. However, proper scientific techniques 

and procedures must be utilized during all mitigation efforts. Safety should be an important consideration; 

therefore, surveys should not be attempted on cliff faces, in open, non-reinforced trenches deeper than five 

feet, or other unsafe areas. 

1. The scope of the survey is dependent upon the scale of the project. Small projects are defined as less 

than 10 acres, or, if linear, less than five miles; large projects exceed those dimensions. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-11

2. At the start of fieldwork, the consulting paleontologist (paleontologist) must contact the 

Paleontology Coordinator in each affected Field Office who may require a visit to that office. After 

an initial visit each year, the paleontologist may contact the Field Office by telephone or email prior 

to subsequent field trips, at the discretion of the Field Office. Information about the survey schedule, 

additional personnel, emergency field contact information, and any other pertinent data should be 

provided to the Paleontology Coordinator. The Field Office will inform the paleontologist of any 

conditions that may impact the survey, such as fire danger or restrictions, drought restrictions, 

wildlife timing restrictions, management restrictions, road restrictions or construction, and any other 

relevant information. 

3. During the field survey, the paleontologist surveys, locates, and documents all paleontological 

resources within 200 feet of the proposed project location or corridor, or less distance upon approval. 

(a) Where significant paleontological resources are at risk, data collection alone does not 

constitute mitigation of damage. All significant fossils that may be damaged or destroyed 

during project activities must be collected, along with all relevant contextual and locational 

data. Specimens must be collected during the survey or prior to commencement of any 

surface-disturbing activities.

(b) In many cases, isolated gar scales, chelonid (turtle) carapace or plastron fragments, 

crocodile and fish teeth, and unidentifiable bone fragments do not need to be collected. The 

location must be recorded and a description of the fossil material noted in the field notes and 

on a BLM Locality Form as part of the report. The context of these types of fossils should be 

considered, as they may represent rare occurrences or unusual faunal associations, and thus 

may be scientifically important and must be documented and voucher specimens collected 

where appropriate. 

(c) Occurrences of plant or invertebrate fossils should be recorded and representative 

examples or voucher specimens collected where appropriate. Additional mitigation measures 

may be appropriate in some cases for these types of localities. 

(d) If a large specimen or a concentration of significant fossils is located during the field 

survey, the available time and/or personnel may not allow for full recovery during the survey. 

The specimen(s) and locality (ies) should be stabilized as needed, and a determination made 

as to whether avoidance is necessary or whether full recovery of the specimen is required at a 

later time prior to disturbance activities. The AO and project proponent must be notified, the 

mitigation alternatives discussed including funding for recovery, and a decision reached as 

soon as possible. If avoidance or later recovery is selected for mitigation, the find should be 

stabilized, buried if needed to protect the fossils and context, and appropriate measures 

implemented to reduce adverse effects from natural or human causes. 

4. During the survey, locations or areas that exhibit a lithology suggesting a high probability of 

subsurface fossil material must be recorded, and a recommendation for the need for on-site 

monitoring, spot-checking, or testing should be made in the report. This may include areas where no 

fossil material was found on the surface during the survey. The recommendation should consider the 

size and type of planned disturbance, such as the depth of a trenching operation or the acreage of 

surface disturbance. 

5. Surveys must be performed only during times when the ground is visible and not frozen. This will 

often preclude surveys during winter months in many areas. Biological timing restrictions, such as 

critical nesting or birthing times, may confine or delay field activities. Project proponents should be 

informed of BLM’s requirement for performing any field surveys as soon as possible and should be 

advised of the possibilities for delays in survey completion based on seasonal weather conditions or 

other management restrictions to allow for adequate scheduling of available time. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-12

C. Report of Survey Findings. After completion of the field survey, the paleontologist must file a written 

report with the BLM and the designated repository. If required, a copy should also be filed with the project 

proponent. This report must summarize the results of the survey as well as appropriate geological and 

paleontological background information as described below. It should also include any recommendations 

for on-site monitoring or other mitigation. For small projects (less than 10 acres), the report must be filed 

within 30 days after completion of the survey unless specific approval for a different time frame has been 

received from the BLM. The time frame for submission of the report for large projects should be negotiated 

during project scoping. On a case-by-case basis, approval to begin project activities may be granted for 

those portions of the project area noted to be less paleontologically sensitive prior to final approval of the 

report. 

1. Reports of the general findings and the background information must be submitted to the BLM 

project manager or AO (if appropriate), the Paleontology Lead or Regional Paleontologist, and each 

affected Field Office. Reports must include the following details, as applicable. Items (a) and (b) 

should appear at the beginning of the report and may be presented as a title page in multi-page 

reports. Some of these categories may be combined. 

(a) Name, affiliation, address, date of report, and permit number (if consultant) of 

paleontologist doing the survey. 

(b) Project name and number (if used), name of proponent, and general location of project. 

(c) Date(s) of survey and names of any personnel assisting with the survey. 

(d) Brief description of the proposed project, emphasizing potential impacts to paleontological 

resources. 

(e) Description of background research conducted. (Include overview of known 

paleontological information, institutions consulted, previous surveys in the area, previous 

projects of similar nature in the area, and general description of survey techniques employed). 

(f) Summary of regional and local geology. May reference earlier projects for relevant 

information. 

(g) Summary of regional and local paleontology. May reference earlier projects for relevant 

information. 

(h) Summary of the survey results. 

(i) Significance of findings. 

(j) Potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from the project. 

(k) Detailed mitigation recommendations that may lessen potential adverse impacts. 

(l) Potential fossiliferous areas to allow for future assessment of sites if applicable. 

(m) Cited and other pertinent references. 

(n) Map of project area, indicating areas surveyed, known localities, and new discoveries. 

(o) Relevant photos, diagrams, tables to aid in explaining, clarifying, or understanding the 

findings. 

(p) Listing of collected material, including field numbers, field identifications, and elements, 

cross-referenced to locality field numbers. This list may be submitted in electronic format, 

preferably in spreadsheet format. 

(q) BLM locality form (8270-3) or equivalent for each new locality (including localities 

where fossils were observed but not collected) with a 1:24000 scale map showing the 

localities (not reduced in scale during photocopying) (see items 2 and 3 below).

2. Exact locations of fossil localities contained in these reports are considered sensitive and must not be 

included in any public document. The BLM locality form (8270-3) or equivalent, 1:24000 scale map 

showing the localities, and any other information containing specific fossil locations may be bound 

separately or placed in a separate section to allow for preservation of confidential locality data. A 

copy of this confidential section must be submitted to the Paleontology Lead (in some cases, two 

copies may be required). A copy for each affected Field Office may be required. Another copy must 

be submitted to the official repository with the collected materials. 

3. BLM GPS recording and data standards must be used to report paleontological locality data. 

Existing USGS topographic maps are often based on the NAD27 standard, so locality data calculated 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-13

from a map base must be converted before submission. Data must be recorded and reported with a 

mean error of +/- 12.5 meters or less, at a 95 percent confidence level. For small localities, data 

should be reported as point data. Larger polygonal localities should be reported using coordinates of 

a centroid and a description of the approximate size, or the key coordinate points of a bounding 

polygon. Linear features, such as roads or surveyed project boundaries, must be reported as line data. 

The 1:24000 scale map(s) accompanying the locality forms should graphically illustrate the locality, 

either as a point or an outline of the locality as appropriate, and be clearly labeled with the locality or 

field number. 

D. Report Approval. The AO will analyze the Survey Report for adequacy within 10 working days of receipt. 

Notification accepting the report, or explaining any identified deficiencies, will be sent to the consulting 

paleontologist and the project proponent with a copy placed in the project file. Any deficiencies must be 

corrected as soon as possible, usually initiated within five working days, and the report must be resubmitted 

for approval. Any resubmissions must be prompt, but consideration will be made for the amount of time 

needed for major corrections. Deficiencies directly affecting the survey, such as inadequate survey 

procedures or incomplete data, must be corrected before granting approval for the project to proceed. 

Deficiencies not directly affecting the survey, such as curation issues, will not prevent approval of the 

project, but must be corrected as soon as possible. 

III. DETERMINATION OF FURTHER MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS 

The need for additional mitigation to protect paleontological resources will be determined on a case-by-case 

basis. The AO, in consultation with Regional Paleontologist or the Paleontology Lead, will analyze the Survey 

Report for survey findings and any mitigation recommendations. If no further mitigation is needed, the AO will 

promptly notify the project proponent that there are no additional paleontological surveys or mitigation 

measures required, and the project may proceed pending any other approvals. The project file must be 

documented indicating acceptance of the survey report and identifying any additional mitigation requirements. 

If it is determined that additional mitigation efforts are needed to protect or preserve the paleontological 

resources, the project proponent will be notified as soon as possible. The AO and/or the Paleontology Lead 

usually develop and approve the mitigation procedures or recommend a project be redesigned in consultation 

with the project proponent. Factors such as locality or specimen significance, economics, safety, and project 

urgency will be considered when developing mitigation measures. Additional mitigation measures will be 

developed and implemented as timely as possible so as not to delay project actions. 

A. Relocation. The preferred mitigation technique is to change the project location based on the results of the 

field survey. Relocation, however, may necessitate a field survey of the new area, as well as resurveys by 

other resource specialists. Anticipation of this contingency prior to or during the original survey may allow 

for survey of an expanded area at the same time. If relocation will eliminate impacts and is acceptable to all 

parties, then a report to the file, including a map showing the original and revised locations, must be 

completed documenting the change. Approval for the project to proceed in the revised location may then be 

granted by the AO to the project proponent. When avoidance is not possible, appropriate mitigation may 

include excavation or collection (data recovery), stabilization, monitoring, protective barriers and signs, or 

other physical and administrative protection measures. 

B. Deferred Fossil Collection. In some cases, fossil material may have been identified, but not completely 

collected during the initial field survey, such as a partial dinosaur or other large fossil assemblage. It may 

be possible to complete the recovery of this material and all related data prior to beginning construction 

activities, and thus mitigate the adverse impact. This may require a shift in the project schedule and must be 

coordinated with the project proponent. Approval by the AO for the project to proceed will only be granted 

when recovery of the fossil material and field data is completed. A report to the file and the project 

proponent documenting the recovery and indicating that no further mitigation is required must be 

completed, and the report signed by the AO. If the discovery cannot be fully collected within the available 

time frame, it may have to be avoided by relocating or redesigning the project. 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-14

IV. PROCEDURES FOR FIELD MONITORING 

The purpose of on-site monitoring is to assess and collect any previously unknown fossil material uncovered 

during the project activities or soon after surface-disturbing actions. Based on the initial scoping, the field 

survey and recommendations, and the plan of operations, it may be necessary to require monitoring of surfacedisturbing activities. Monitoring may be required as part of an overall mitigation for a project which was 

developed during the NEPA process, or upon the discovery of paleontological resources during project 

activities. 

A. Monitoring Plan. A monitoring plan can be developed by a BLM paleontologist or a qualified 

paleontologist hired by the proponent. The plan must be appropriately scaled to the size and complexity of 

the anticipated monitoring. If developed by a third party, the appropriate Paleontology Lead or Regional 

Paleontologist shall review the plan for sufficiency prior to acceptance. Monitoring of the project may 

proceed when the monitoring plan is approved by the AO. A monitoring plan indicates the treatments 

recommended for the area of the proposed disturbance and must minimally address the following: 

1. The recommended approach to additional specimen collection, such as total or partial recovery or 

sampling; 

2. The specific locations and intensity of monitoring or sampling recommended for each geologic 

unit, stratigraphic layer, or area impacted. 

Monitoring intensity is determined based on the analysis of existing data and/or field surveys and any previous 

monitoring efforts. 

B. Types of Monitoring. There are two types of monitoring: 1) on-site, performed during ongoing operations, 

and 2) spot-checks, performed during or after disturbance, or at key times during the progress of the 

project. 

1. On-site monitoring – In areas with a high probability for buried fossils, the presence of a monitor at 

the site of disturbance at all times that disturbance is occurring may be warranted. The need for a 

full-time monitor is based on the findings of the survey, the local geology, and the proposed 

actions. Efforts will be made to complete fossil recovery with minimal work stoppage. However, in 

some cases, an extended period of work stoppage may be required, so coordination with the project 

proponent or representative is important (see D below). Prior to beginning the monitoring work, the 

monitor, company supervisor, and machinery operators should agree on procedures for brief work 

stoppages to allow for examination of finds. It is critical that safety be of utmost concern because of 

the presence of heavy machinery and open trenches. 

The monitor must assess any finds, collect loose fossil material and related data, and take 

appropriate steps to mitigate any current or potential damage. Consideration of the size of the 

expected fossils must also be considered; for example, microfossils may not be visible during 

excavation activities. It may be appropriate to collect samples of matrix for later recovery of 

microvertebrate fossils or other analyses. Activities planned to occur during nighttime should be 

assessed relative to the potential to uncover significant fossils. Fossils may not be visible at night in 

trenching or grading operations, so construction activities may need to be suspended during 

nighttime in sensitive areas. 

2. Spot-checking – In areas with a moderate to high probability for unknown fossil material, it may be 

more appropriate to check only at key times rather than maintain continuous monitoring of 

operations. Key times for scheduling spot-checking are when the fossil-bearing bedrock is exposed 

to view or prior to placing spoil material back into the excavation. Examples of these key times 

may be when a pipeline trenching operation is complete but before pipe is placed and the trench 

backfilled or prior to redistribution of topsoil. Spot-checking requires close coordination with the 

project proponent and the paleontologist, and usually requires the paleontologist to be available on 

short notice. In some instances, it may be advantageous to allow rain and/or wind to erode away 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-15

loose matrix and concentrate fossil material to increase visibility. The paleontologist will 

coordinate with the project proponent to allow sufficient time for this action to occur, as appropriate 

to conditions, expected fossil material, and construction schedules. 

The paleontologist should report potentially fossiliferous areas in the final report to allow for future assessment 

of sites, even if no fossils were located during the project monitoring.

C. Types of Field Personnel. Depending on the complexity of the project, it may be necessary to employ a 

number of paleontology field personnel simultaneously. There may be a lack of fully qualified 

paleontologists to perform all the necessary monitoring during the scheduled times of construction. Use of 

additional personnel for fieldwork is permissible, but Field Agents and Field Monitors (described below) 

must be requested by the Permittee and authorized by the BLM prior to field work. 

1. Principal Investigator – The person listed as Permittee (Permit item 1a) on the Paleontological 

Resources Use Permit is the Principal Investigator (PI) and is responsible for all actions under the 

permit, for meeting all permit terms and conditions, and for the performance of all other personnel. 

This person is also the contact person for the project proponent and the BLM. 

2. Field Agent – Other qualified paleontologists may perform fieldwork independently of the PI 

under the conditions of this permit. Résumés must be submitted to BLM and must demonstrate 

qualifications equivalent to those of Permittees. Field Agents must be listed on the permit under 

“Name(s) of individual(s) responsible for planning, supervising, and carrying out fieldwork” 

(Permit item 8) or authorized in a separate letter from BLM. They must follow all the permit terms 

and conditions applicable to field work and must carry a copy of the permit, included terms and 

conditions, and separate authorizing letter (if used) while in the field. Fieldwork results must be 

reported to the PI, who will then submit required reports. 

3. Field Monitor – Field Monitors may be utilized for supplemental on-site monitoring of surfacedisturbing activities when the PI or a Field Agent is performing fieldwork elsewhere. Field 

Monitors must have sufficient field experience to demonstrate acceptable knowledge of fossil

identification, collection methods, and paleontological techniques. The PI must supply a summary 

of each person’s experience to the BLM prior to field work. Field Monitors must be approved by 

the BLM prior to performing fieldwork and must carry a copy of the permit while in the field. The 

PI or Field Agent must be in communication with the Field Monitor using a portable 

communication device, such as a cell phone or two-way radio, and are required to be near enough 

to the Field Monitor to allow for prompt examination of all fossil discoveries (no more than two 

hours away) by the PI or Field Agent. 

4. Field Assistant – Additional personnel not meeting the previously cited experience or knowledge 

levels may be utilized during field work, but must be under direct, on-site supervision of either the 

PI or a Field Agent as part of a supervised crew. Field assistants must have at least four to eight 

hours of training or experience received from a qualified paleontologist in identifying 

paleontological resources prior to performing fieldwork or when first utilized in this capacity. A 

listing of all Field Assistants (including contact information) must be supplied prior to any 

fieldwork. All discoveries made by a Field Assistant must be immediately reported to the PI or 

Field Agent on site. To ensure proper supervision, an appropriate ratio of Field Assistants per PI or 

Field Agent must be maintained. The complexity of the project, the area to be covered, and the 

experience of the assistants are some of the factors that should be considered in determining the 

proper ratio, but commonly five to seven assistants is the maximum number that can be supervised 

by one PI or Field Agent.

D. Work Stoppage. If significant fossil material is discovered during construction activities, the PI, Field 

Agents, and Field Monitors have the authority to halt temporarily surface disturbing actions until an 

assessment of the find is completed and appropriate protection measures taken. Efforts will be made to 

complete fossil recovery with minimal work stoppage. However, in some cases, an extended period of 

work stoppage may be required. If the paleontological resource can be avoided, mitigated, or collected 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-16

within approximately two hours, work may resume after approval from the PI or Field Agent, and the AO

must be notified as soon as possible of the discovery and any mitigation efforts that were undertaken. If the 

find cannot be mitigated within a reasonable time (two hours), the concurrence of the AO or official 

representative for a longer work stoppage must be obtained. Work may not resume until approval is granted 

from both the PI or Agent and the AO. 

V. FINAL PROJECT REPORT 

Upon completion of all fieldwork, including survey and monitoring, the PI must submit within 30 days, a 

written final report to the AO, Paleontology Lead, and the designated repository. A copy of the report may be 

provided to the project proponent if required, but without the BLM Locality forms. Reports must include the 

following details. Items 1 and 2 should appear at the beginning of the report, and may be presented as a title 

page in multi-page reports. 

1. Name, affiliation, address, date of report, and permit number (if consultant) of the paleontologist 

doing the survey. 

2. Project name and number (if used), name of proponent, and general location of project. 

3. Date(s) of the survey and names of any personnel assisting with the survey. 

4. Brief description of project and expected impacts to paleontological resources. 

5. A summary of mitigation performed. 

6. A summary of findings, including important discoveries. 

7. A description of potentially fossiliferous areas to allow for future assessment of sites, even if no 

fossils were located during the project monitoring. 

8. A completed BLM locality form 8270-3 or equivalent for each new locality using Universal 

Transverse Mercator (UTM) NAD 83 coordinates, and 1:24000 scale maps with new localities 

plotted using points or polygons as appropriate. Locality forms, maps, and any other information 

containing specific fossil locations should be bound separately or assembled as a separate section to 

allow for preservation of confidential locality data. 

9. List of specimen field numbers and field identifications of collected material, cross-referenced to 

the locality field number. This list may be submitted in electronic format, preferably in a 

spreadsheet format. 

If the survey was performed by BLM, a report similar in contents must be written and filed in the project file, 

and the project proponent notified as soon as possible upon completion.

VI. COMPLETION OF MITIGATION RESPONSIBILITY 

When the final report with the specimen inventory and the signed receipt of confirmation of museum deposition 

are accepted by the BLM, mitigation for paleontological resources related to the project will be considered 

completed. The project proponent will be notified in writing as soon as possible by the AO after consulting with 

the Paleontology Lead or Regional Paleontologist and a copy of the notification placed in the project file. 

The responsibility of the project proponent ends when appropriate mitigation related directly to the project is 

completed and final approval is received from the AO. Any additional field collection, quarrying, final 

specimen preparation, etc. will be considered to be research, and will be the responsibility of the consulting 

paleontologist or another approved party. The project proponent will not be held responsible for completion of 

any research project. However, the project proponent can choose to sponsor further research. A separate 

research permit will be required for additional research activities. 

VII. COLLECTIONS RESULTING FROM ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION 

Fossil specimens and related data collected from public lands during field surveys and mitigation remain the 

property of the Federal government. They must be placed in the approved repository(s) identified on the 

Paleontological Resource Use Permit held by the consulting paleontologist as soon as practical and receipt(s) of 

collections submitted to the BLM, but no later than 60 days after all field work is completed. Written approval 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-17

from the Paleontology Lead or Regional Paleontologist is required if additional time is needed for transfer of all 

specimens and field data. 

VIII. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT UPDATES 

Based on findings resulting from any of the above steps, the project file, locality and specimen information, and 

other BLM data should be updated to reflect any new or modified information. Paleontology permit files should 

be checked and updated, as well as any other administrative information. 

The PFYC Class assignments can be assessed based on the analysis, survey, and monitoring results. New 

information may indicate a change in the PFYC Class is appropriate for one or several geologic units. Other 

applications of the PFYC system should be considered, such as the use for impact analyses in planning 

documents or for survey and mitigation determinations for other projects. Any changes in classification must be 

made in consultation with the Paleontology Lead or Regional Paleontologist to maintain consistency across 

Field Office boundaries. 

DEFINITIONS

Alluvium – A general term for clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated detrital material [fragments of 

rock or mineral material derived from older rocks] deposited during relatively recent geologic time by a stream 

or other body of running water as a sorted or semi-sorted sediment in the bed of the stream or its flood plain or 

delta, or as a cone or fan at the base of a mountain slope; especially, such a deposit of fine-grained texture (silt 

or silty clay) deposited during a time of flood (from American Geological Institute (AGI), Glossary of Geology, 

1972 ed.) 

Alluvium may contain paleontological resources in older alluvial deposits. The location on the landscape often 

will provide clues to the potential for paleontological resources within alluvial deposits. As an example, 

alluvium developed near major river courses or lake margins has a much higher potential to contain significant 

paleontological resources than alluvium (colluvium) formed from slope wash. 

Approved Repository – Meets the Department of the Interior 411 Departmental Manual (DM) provisions for 

museum property, including capability for providing adequate long-term curatorial services, such as a 

physically secure environment, and maintaining professional staff qualified to catalog, care for, preserve, 

retrieve, and loan, where appropriate, these materials and associated records. 

Bedrock – A general term for the rock, usually solid, that underlies soil or other unconsolidated, surficial 

material (from American Geological Institute (AGI), Glossary of Geology, 1972 ed.). For paleontological 

purposes, bedrock generally excludes alluvium, colluvium, sand dunes, and loess (fine-grained blanket deposit 

of marl or loam). In certain situations, bedrock may contain recent soils/sediments with fossils. 

Colluvium – A general term applied to any loose, heterogeneous, and incoherent mass of soil material or rock 

fragments deposited chiefly by mass wasting, usually at the base of a steep slope or cliff; e.g., talus, cliff debris, 

and avalanche material. Also, alluvium deposited by unconcentrated surface run-off or sheet erosion, usually at 

the base of a slope (from American Geological Institute (AGI), Glossary of Geology, 1972 ed.) 

Field Agent – Other qualified paleontologists may perform fieldwork independently of the PI under the 

conditions of this permit. Résumés must be submitted to BLM and must demonstrate qualifications equivalent 

to those of Permittees. Field Agents must be listed on the permit under “Name(s) of individual(s) responsible 

for planning, supervising, and carrying out fieldwork” (Permit item 8) or authorized in a separate letter from 

BLM. They must follow all the permit terms and conditions applicable to field work and must carry a copy of 

the permit, included terms and conditions, and separate authorizing letter (if used) while in the field. Fieldwork

results must be reported to the PI, who will then submit required reports. 

Field Assistant – Additional personnel not meeting the previously cited experience or knowledge levels may be 

utilized during field work, but must be under direct, on-site supervision of either the PI or a Field Agent as part 

of a supervised crew. Field assistants must have at least 4 to 8 hours of training or experience received from a 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-18

qualified paleontologist in identifying paleontological resources prior to performing fieldwork or when first 

utilized in this capacity. A listing of all Field Assistants (including contact information) must be supplied prior 

to any fieldwork. All discoveries made by a Field Assistant must be immediately reported to the PI or Field 

Agent on site. To ensure proper supervision, an appropriate ratio of Field Assistants per PI or Field Agent must 

be maintained. The complexity of the project, the area to be covered, and the experience of the assistants are 

some of the factors that should be considered in determining the proper ratio, but commonly five to seven 

assistants is the maximum number that can be supervised by one PI or Field Agent. 

Field Monitor – Field Monitors may be utilized for supplemental on-site monitoring of surface-disturbing 

activities when the PI or a Field Agent is performing fieldwork elsewhere. Field Monitors must have sufficient 

field experience to demonstrate acceptable knowledge of fossil identification, collection methods, and 

paleontological techniques. The PI must supply a summary of each person’s experience to the BLM prior to 

field work. Field Monitors must be approved by BLM prior to performing fieldwork and must carry a copy of 

the permit while in the field. The PI or Field Agent must be in communication with the Field Monitor using a 

portable communication device, such as a cell phone or two-way radio, and are required to be near enough to 

the Field Monitor to allow for prompt examination of all fossil discoveries (no more than two hours) by the PI 

or Field Agent. 

Field Survey – Pedestrian (walking) surveys performed in areas where significant fossils are expected to occur 

within the boundary or immediate vicinity of an anticipated disturbance. Surveys are performed by a qualified 

paleontologist or BLM Regional Paleontologist or other officially appointed BLM employee prior to any 

surface disturbing activities. Survey activities also include concurrent collection of significant fossils. 

Land Tenure Adjustments/Change in Title – Changes in ownership or administration of surface or mineral 

estates, typically exchanges or sales, which may result in a change in ownership or control of paleontological 

resources. 

Monitoring – a) On-site observation during all surface disturbing activities to assess and collect any 

previously-unknown fossil material uncovered by the project activities. b) Examination of excavation or spoil 

piles at key times during project activities. Monitoring must be performed by a permitted paleontologist, field 

agent, or field monitor (see section IV.C.), Regional Paleontologist, or other officially appointed BLM 

employee, and occurs during or soon after surface disturbing actions. 

Paleontological Locality (Locality) – A geographic point or area where a fossil or associated fossils are found 

in a related geological context. A paleontological locality is confined to a discrete stratigraphic layer, structural 

feature, or physiographic area. 

Paleontology Program Coordinator (Paleontology Coordinator) – The employee designated by the local 

BLM Office Manager to manage paleontological resource issues, including planning, mitigation, budget, and 

other administrative duties. The local point of contact for paleontological resource use permittees, the State 

Office Paleontology Program Lead, and the Regional Paleontologist. The employee is usually a geologist or 

archaeologist. 

(a) In some offices, additional employees may be designated by the supervisor to determine the need for 

field surveys and monitoring for some projects, or other duties in support of the paleontology program. 

The scope of duties for these additional employees must be approved by the Paleontology Program 

Lead and closely coordinated with the Paleontology Coordinator. 

(b) A few current BLM employees may meet the same professional qualifications that are required for a 

BLM Paleontological Resources Use Permit applicant. BLM-approved training and field experience 

may also allow employees to gain sufficient background to achieve competency in the field. With the 

approval of the Regional Paleontologist and the Office Manager or Deputy State Director, these 

employees may be designated as qualified to perform field surveys or monitoring. The current 

availability of these employees must also be approved by the unit manager or Deputy State Director, 

typically on a project-by-project basis or within a defined time period. Depending on official duties, 
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-19

local roles and responsibilities, and management preferences, these employees may or may not be the 

Paleontology Coordinator. 

Paleontology Program Lead (Paleontology Lead) – Any one of the following: the Regional Paleontologist in 

the states with an identified position; the paleontologist at Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument; or 

the State Office Archeologist in the states without a Regional Paleontologist. 

Principal Investigator – The person listed as Permittee (Permit item 1a) on the Paleontological Resources Use 

Permit is the Principal Investigator (PI) and is responsible for all actions under the permit, for meeting all 

permit terms and conditions, and for the performance of all other personnel. This person is also the contact 

person for the project proponent and the BLM. 

Regional Paleontologist – The BLM paleontologist that provides professional expertise in paleontology, and is 

responsible for interpreting relevant laws, authorities, and policy for the administration of the BLM 

paleontology program for all States in his/her respective region, and as the program interface between Field 

and/or District Offices, State Offices, and the Washington Office. In some cases, the Regional Paleontologist 

also serves as the State Office Paleontologist. 

Significant Paleontological Resource (syn. Significant Fossil Resource) – Any paleontological resource that 

is considered to be of scientific interest, including most vertebrate fossil remains and traces, and certain rare or 

unusual invertebrate and plant fossils. A significant paleontological resource is considered to be scientifically 

important because it is a rare or previously unknown species, it is of high quality and well preserved, it 

preserves a previously unknown anatomical or other characteristic, provides new information about the history 

of life on earth, or has identified educational or recreational value. Paleontological resources that may be 

considered not to have paleontological significance include those that lack provenience or context, lack physical 

integrity because of decay or natural erosion, or that are overly redundant or are otherwise not useful for 

research. 

Vertebrate fossil remains and traces include bone, scales, scutes, skin impressions, burrows, tracks, tail drag 

marks, vertebrate coprolites (feces), gastroliths (stomach stones), or other physical evidence of past vertebrate 

life or activities. 

Soil – The natural medium for growth of land plants (from American Geological Institute (AGI), Glossary of 

Geology, 1972 ed.) Generally, well-developed soils do not contain paleontological resources. However, the C 

horizon (the substratum above bedrock that is little affected by soil forming processes) may occasionally 

contain Pleistocene-aged fossils. 

Stipulations – Written conditions that may restrict or impose limits on approved activities, or require that 

certain procedures be followed. The general usage herein encompasses several formal terms specific to other 

use authorizations such as Mitigation, Terms and Conditions, Conditions of Approval, and Standard 

Stipulations. 

Surface disturbance – Disruption of the ground surface and subsurface. Disruption may damage or destroy 

significant paleontological resources and their geological context. 

– Generally excludes: fire (but not fire activities, see below), vegetation mowing, weed spraying, grazing, 

natural erosion, fence building 

– Some activities that may impact the ground surface and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis are: 

* Mechanized vegetative treatments – chaining, sagebrush chopping, etc 

* Seismic activities – vibroseis techniques, cross-country travel 

* Fire management activities – line building, brush removal and thinning using mechanized equipment 

* Recreational activities – OHV, rock collecting, mountain biking, public events.

Voucher Specimen – A representative sample that verifies the kind of fossil material found during a field 

survey, and is collected and curated in an approved repository along with its associated field data.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX

PAL-20

<<End of Attachment 1 from BLM IM No. 2009-011>

See the Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Class I Overview of Paleontological & Cultural Resources in Eastern Montana, Volume I (Aaberg, Hanna, 

Crofutt, Green, and Vischer 2006) for further information regarding:

 paleontological resources management and evaluation issues;

 legislation history and management considerations;

 guidelines for determining significance and integrity of paleontological resources;

 paleontological resource sensitivity rating;

 geology, paleontological review of formations, and lithic resources;

 field of vertebrate paleontology;

 history of paleontological exploration in eastern Montana;

 types of vertebrate fossil sites or localities;

 issues concerning “site or locality” versus “isolated find” for paleontological remains;

 distribution of paleontological sites or localities and fossils in eastern Montana;

 types of fossils by formation;

 vertebrate versus non-vertebrate sites or localities;

 types of surveys; survey coverage, and source data limitations; and 

 management recommendations.

For management of paleontological ACECs, see Special Designation Areas elsewhere in this document.
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-1

RECLAMATION APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

Reclamation would be required for surface-disturbing activities (Bureau of Land Management [BLM]-

administered surface only) that disturb vegetation or soil resources. The reclamation of a site aims to set the 

perpetual course for the planned future condition of a site, including eventual ecosystem restoration by natural 

processes. Prior to a surface-disturbing activity, the site would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (and include 

an on-site assessment if necessary) and mitigation measures (see the Best Management Practices [BMP]

Appendix) would be enacted where appropriate. Reclamation plans would be site-specific, project-specific (for 

minerals-specific projects, see the Minerals Appendix), and incorporate the project’s complexity, environmental 

concerns (including wildlife stipulations), post-disturbance land use (for wildlife habitat criteria, see the Fish 

and Wildlife Appendix), and reclamation potential. This appendix gives guidance for appropriate reclamation 

planning prior to authorization and following surface disturbance.

The BLM would work with the project proponent or proponents to prepare the plan. Plans would incorporate 

program- or regulation-specific requirements for reclamation. Preparation and review of plans would be based 

on available information and techniques. Goals and objectives within the reclamation plan would be consistent 

with the resource management plan (RMP). The plan is considered complete when all the requirements 

described below have been addressed, the techniques to meet the requirements are described in detail, and the 

BLM approves the plan. This agreement would be periodically reviewed (including monitoring and reporting) 

and adapted as needed and as conditions change or new information or technology becomes available. 

Reclamation is considered successful when all the requirements described below have been addressed onsite 

and the BLM approves the site following an on-site inspection.

Most landscapes can be reclaimed using established conventional reclamation methods. However, some areas 

have unique characteristics that make achieving all the reclamation requirements described in this appendix 

unrealistic (e.g., sensitive soils, sensitive vegetation types, soils with severe physical or chemical limitations, 

steep slopes). These limited reclamation potential areas may require site-specific reclamation measures not 

addressed in this appendix. For these areas, each project would develop a unique set of requirements for 

reclamation success within the framework of this appendix. Resource development activities approved in these 

areas may require additional bonding.

RECLAMATION GOALS

The short-term goal of the reclamation plan would include immediate stabilization of the disturbed area and the 

creation of conditions needed to meet long-term goals. The long-term goal of the reclamation plan is concurrent 

eventual ecosystem restoration through natural processes, a safe and stable landscape, and achievement of 

desired conditions described in the RMP. 

RECLAMATION OBJECTIVES

The following reclamation guidelines apply to all surface-disturbing activities, including BLM-initiated 

activities, and would be addressed in each reclamation plan. Reclamation would be performed when 

environmental conditions are appropriate and completed within 6 months of the final disturbance. These 

guidelines would be met prior to release of the bond or reclamation liability. Where these reclamation 

guidelines differ from stricter applicable, laws, rules, and regulations, those standards replace this policy.

1. Manage all waste materials. 

a. Clean the site of all equipment, structures, material, and debris.

b. Surface pipelines or utility lines would be removed during final reclamation; deep lines 

(typically 3 feet or deeper) would be removed only if required by authorized officer.
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-2

c. Segregate, treat, or bioremediate contaminated material. Free fluids would be removed. 

Waste material would be disposed of at a state-approved facility.

d. Bury only BLM or state-authorized waste materials on-site. Buried material would be 

covered with a minimum of 5 feet of suitable material or meet other program standards. 

Buried material would meet the following criteria: 

 a range of pH 6 to-9;

 a moisture content less than 50 percent by weight;

 an oil and grease content less than 3 percent by weight;

 An electrical conductivity (EC) less than 12 deciSiemen per meter;

 an unconfined compressive strength greater than 20 pound per square 

inch; and 

 a total metals content that would not exceed United States Environmental 

Protection Agency limits.

2. Ensure subsurface integrity and eliminate sources of ground and surface water contamination. 

a. Properly plug all drill holes and other subsurface openings and seal from the bottom to 

the top of water-bearing formations. 

b. Stabilize, properly back fill, cap, and restrict entry to all open shafts, underground 

workings, pits, and other openings. 

c. No adverse changes in quality of receiving surface water or groundwaters would occur. 

Control sources of contamination to protect surface water and groundwater quality. See 

the Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines on water quality assessment.

d. Maintain all erosion or sediment control devices until vegetation is reestablished, site is 

stabilized, or the devices are no longer needed.

o Water Bar Guidelines:

1. Water bars are required on 25 percent slopes or 

greater and will be used as necessary on gentler 

slopes. Vary water bar spacing to:

a. fit site conditions,

b. promptly intercept surface water 

before the volume of water and 

velocity increase enough to 

generate erosion, and

c. facilitate drainage toward natural 

dips, rocky ground, or vegetation to 

intercept sediment.

2. Suggested spacing between water bars would 

follow the guidelines below:

a. for slopes less than 10 percent, the 

spacing would be at least every 100 

to 400 feet;

b. for slopes 10 to 19 percent, the 

spacing would be at least every 75 

to 200 feet;

c. for slopes 20 to 39 percent, the 

spacing would be at least every 50 

feet; and
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-3

d. for slopes greater than 39 percent, 

the spacing would be at least every 

25 feet.

3. Water bars would:

a. be 4 to 6 inches high but could be 

deeper depending on site 

conditions,

b. be at a 20 degree angle to the 

slope and channel water to the 

downhill side,

c. avoid directing sediment into 

drainages, and 

d. be placed to intercept runoff 

before channelization could 

occur (specifically the first water 

bar at the top of the slope).

4. The Gold Book (BLM and USFS 2007b) has 

further guidance and cross-sectional diagrams for 

water dips that are drivable. 

e. Fertilizer and soil additives would not be applied where they could adversely impact water 

quality.

3. Reestablish slope and surface stability and desired topographic diversity. 

a. Reconstruct the landscape to blend with adjacent contours and to maintain the 

approximate original contour. However, if the site has stabilized and recontouring would 

cause additional disturbance, this step may not be necessary and could be waived by the 

authorized officer.

b. Maximize geomorphic stability and topographic diversity of the reclaimed topography. 

c. Disturbed areas would be recontoured to provide proper drainage.

d. Eliminate highwalls, cut slopes, or topographic depressions, unless otherwise approved. 

e. Backfill to prevent surface subsidence. No downward movement of surface material 

would be evident, and the site would be maintained to correct settling within 1 year of 

reclamation. See the Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines on subsidence 

assessment.

f. There would be no evidence of slope instability on or adjacent to the site, other than 

minimal sheet, rill (less than 3 inches deep), or wind scour erosion within 1 year of 

reclamation. Minimize accelerated erosion and sedimentation on or adjacent to the 

reclaimed area with appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures immediately 

following disturbance. See the Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines on erosion 

assessment.

g. Erosion control matting would be unrolled from the bottom toward the top of the slope, 

placed along the direction of water-flow and loosely over soils with extreme surface 

roughness, and in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Wright 2000).

h. Reclaim all roads and trails unless they meet public demand.

i. The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation BLM Handbook H-1742-1 

contains further guidance on erosion and sedimentation control BMPs. 
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-4

4. Reconstruct and stabilize watercourses and drainage features. 

a. Reconstruct drainage basins and reclaim impoundments to maintain the drainage pattern, 

profile, and dimension to approximate the natural features found in the site’s naturally 

functioning basin or, if appropriate, nearby and similar reference basins. 

b. Reconstruct and stabilize stream channels, drainages, and impoundments to exhibit 

similar hydrologic characteristics found in the site’s naturally functioning system or, if 

appropriate, nearby, and similar reference systems. There would be minimal evidence of 

streambank erosion and no evidence of active headcutting and channelization (beyond 

that which already exists) within 1 year or the disturbance.

c. Upland erosion from surface-disturbing activities would be controlled effectively and not 

allowed to be transported to stream systems.

5. Maintain the biological, chemical, and physical integrity of the soil resource.

a. Identify, delineate, and salvage all topsoil and subsoil based on a site-specific and 

project-specific soil evaluation. Subsoil or overburden may be used as suitable growth 

medium if topsoil is not suitable (see the Soils Appendix for characteristics of suitable 

growth medium). 

b. When possible, soil would be direct-hauled to similar ecological sites during the 

reclamation process. If this were not possible, topsoil would be stockpiled separately 

from subsoil. All stockpiles would be appropriately identified and remain undisturbed 

until reclamation.

c. Protect all stored soil material from erosion, degradation, and contamination. Stockpiles 

would be of a stable configuration, no more than 8 feet deep, and stored for no more than 

1 growing season with minimal southwest sun exposure. Stockpiles would be located 

above the high water mark and away from riparian areas, floodplains, wetlands, and other 

sensitive areas. If stored for more than 30 days, erosion control (e.g., water or tackifier) 

would be applied immediately. If stored during the growing season, native seed would be 

applied within 30 days of storage. Stockpiles would be stored near the disturbance. 

Applied water would not degrade soil quality.

d. Displaced farmland, whether in production or not, would be reclaimed to original 

productivity. 

6. Prepare site for revegetation. 

a. Provide suitable surface and subsurface physical, chemical, and biological properties to 

support the long-term establishment and viability of the desired plant community as soon 

as possible following disturbance.

b. Redistribute soil resources along contours and in a manner similar to the original vertical 

profile. Incorporate soil material so that it blends in with the adjacent landscape, 

corresponding to adjacent surface roughness (macro- and microtopography). Avoid 

scalping more than 1 inch of undisturbed soils when redistributing spoils and salvage 

piles.

c. Reduce subsoil compaction to a minimum of 18 inches deep except in bedrock prior to 

redistribution of topsoil. Cross-rip along contours with two passes perpendicular to each 

other.

d. Prepare a proper seedbed when environmental conditions are appropriate (Strom, Norton, 

and Loubsky 2010):

1. Replace topsoil unevenly back over subsoil in order to create microsites.

2. Seed when a weak ball can be formed from soil 2 to 3 inches below the 

surface. 

3. Clods would be less than 2 inches in diameter.

4. A 170-pound person would leave footprints no deeper than half an inch.
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-5

7. Establish a desired, self-perpetuating, native plant community. 

a. Establish species composition, richness, structure, and total ground cover appropriate for 

the desired plant community as soon as possible following disturbance. The site would be 

compared to a reference site or a National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)

Ecological Site Description (http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/range/ecolsites/), 

whichever is appropriate. Multiple treatments may be required before success is 

achieved. See the Monitoring Appendix for specific guidelines on vegetation assessments. 

Vegetation objectives include.

1. Within 2 years of reclamation, the site would contain 50 

percent of the reference area’s vegetative basal cover. 

2. Within 5 years of reclamation, the site would contain 80 

percent of the reference area’s vegetative basal and 

canopy cover. 

3. Within 2 years of reclamation, 50 percent of the 

vegetative cover would consist of desirable species. 

4. Within 5 years of the reclamation, 90 percent of the 

vegetative cover would consist of desirable species. 

5. Composition would meet reference site conditions within 

5 years of the reclamation. For example, structure would 

be made up of 70 to 75 percent grasses and grass-like 

species, 5 to 10 percent forbs, and 5 to 10 percent shrubs. 

A minimum of 25 percent of the shrub component would 

be the reference site’s dominant species.

6. Monocultures would not be allowed beyond 2 years of 

reclamation.

7. The site would not have state- or county-listed noxious 

weeds within 5 years of reclamation. 

b. Using NRCS ecological sites and soil surveys, select genetically appropriate and locally 

adapted native plant materials based on the site characteristics and ecological setting 

whenever possible. Streambanks would be replanted with riparian vegetation following 

current ecological restoration practices.

c. Native species are preferred; select nonnative plants only as an approved short-term, nonpersistent, alternative to native plant materials (BLM Handbook 1740-2 and Executive 

Order 13112 of February 3, 1999). Ensure the nonnative species are designed to aid in the 

reestablishment of native plant communities and will not hybridize, displace, or offer 

long-term competition to the endemic plants. 

d. Seed sites when environmental conditions are appropriate and as soon as possible 

following re-contouring and seedbed preparation. Dormant fall seeding is recommended, 

typically after October 1st, when soil temperatures are less than 40 degrees Fahrenheit (F)

at a 2-inch depth (for 10 days or more) and before the ground freezes (Holzworth and 

Wiesner 2007). Warm season species are more successful when seeded in the spring 

when soil temperatures are a minimum of 55 degrees F (2007). Spring seeding should 

take place as early as possible, prior to May 15, on thawed, friable surface soil (2007). If 

seeding after May 15, complete seeding prior to August 15, and when soil is moist down 

to 2 feet deep (2007).

e. Approved seed rates would be specified in pounds of pure live seed (or PLS) per acre and 

be designed to adequately cover the soil upon germination. Seed would be tested to 

ensure viability and purity (germination or tetrazolium chloride tested by a registered 

seed analyst within 1 year of receipt). Seed would be certified weed free (BLM 2006a, 

2007c, and BLM- Manual H-1740-2). Seed would have easily accessible documentation 

(not seed bag tags), including sources.

f. Drill or broadcast seed along contours. Broadcast seeding followed by packing with a 

roller or drag (e.g., chain, harrow) with two passes perpendicular to each other is the 
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-6

preferred method of seeding. Drill seed with a 6-inch row spacing. Bury seed at depths 

2.5-3 times the diameter of the seed; for small seeds use length rather than diameter 

(Monsen, Stevens, and Shaw 2004). Hydroseeding is not recommended, but if approved, 

the seed should be spread in an initial pass and then covered by a mulch mixture (if 

needed) in a second pass; the mulch and seed should never be combined in a single pass.

g. The recommended drill seeding rate for large-seeded species is 20 pure live seed per 

square foot (or PLS/ft2), and the recommended drill seeding rate for small-seeded species 

(most seed mixes) is 30 to 40 PLS/ft2. Double the drill-seeding rate for broadcast or aerial 

seeding to a maximum of 80 PLS/ft2.

h. Seed additives are allowed (e.g., rhizobium, mycorrhizae, fungicide, pilling).

i. If the site does not meet desired roughness following seeding and packing, the site would 

be scarified or imprinted (e.g., rip, roll, imprint, harrow). Scarify and imprint no greater 

than several inches deep, along contours (Steinfeld, Riley, Wilkinson, Landis, and Riley 

2007). However, this step in the process would be followed only if necessary, because 

running equipment over the site would further pulverize and compact the soil.

j. Rock and woody debris would be replaced along contours and equivalent to predisturbance conditions and positioned to blend with adjacent areas. Felled trees would be 

low-stumped (uphill side no greater than 6-inches above the ground) and removed from 

drainages. Any excess woody debris would be removed or burned in upland areas.

k. Protect seed and seedling establishment with appropriate measures. Erosion-control 

matting and mulch would be biodegradable and certified weed and insect free. Matting 

would contain holes greater than 2 inches in diameter and a 2-year photodegradation life. 

Tackifier would be biodegradable. Straw or native hay mulch would be mold- and fungifree and would be crimped in vertically at a rate of 1 to 2 tons per acre, so that 80 to 90 

percent of the ground is covered (Wright 2000). Wood mulch is not recommended. All 

twine associated with straw or hay mulch would be biodegradable, but if it is not, then it 

would be collected and properly disposed of. 

l. Defer cattle grazing until shrubs have reestablished, a minimum of 2 growing seasons 

(Holzworth and Wiesner 2007).

m. The Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Handbook, the Integrated 

Vegetation Management Handbook, and the Native Seed Network website 

(http://www.nativeseednetwork.org/) contain further guidance on revegetation BMPs. 

8. Reestablish complementary visual composition. 

a. Ensure the reclaimed landscape features blend into the adjacent area and conform to 

RMP decisions (BLM Manual H-8431). 

b. Ensure the reclaimed landscape does not result in long-term changes to the scenic quality 

of the area or change the scenic quality rating (BLM Manual H-8410).

9. Manage invasive species (the same as appears in the Best Management Practices Appendix) 

a. The project area would be inventoried for invasive species on and adjacent to the site 

before initial activities.

b. An invasive species management plan would be developed if appropriate. 

c. Invasive species would be controlled using an integrated pest management approach.

d. Vehicle wash stations would be used prior to entering or leaving disturbance to reduce 

the transport and establishment of invasive species.

e. Invasive species would not be allowed to be transported off site without appropriate 

disposal measures.

10. Develop and implement a reclamation monitoring and reporting strategy. 

a. Conduct compliance and effectiveness monitoring in accordance with a BLM-approved 

monitoring protocol. Observations would include accelerated erosion and sedimentation, 

subsidence, revegetation, and invasive species. An on-site inspection by the BLM is 
RECLAMATION APPENDIX

RCL-7

required within 1 year of the interim and final reclamation. Preferably in the spring, 

before livestock are turned onto allotments. Subsequent annual inspections would occur 

at the same vegetative phenological stage as the first inspection.

b. Evaluate monitoring data for compliance with the reclamation plan.

c. Document and report monitoring data detailing vegetation reestablishment, utilization, 

and site stability to the BLM within 2 months of the on-site inspection. Include in the 

document:

1. digital tabulated data and photographs;

2. shapefiles of global positioning system locations that include all associated data;

3. a discussion of the existing environment as compared to the objectives;

4. vegetation data summarized by morphological group (e.g., grass, grass-like, 

forb, shrub, or tree);

5. livestock utilization over the past year including species, timing, and duration; 

and

6 if any of the objectives have not been met, include in the report an explanation 

for failing to meet the objective and recommendations for remedial measures 

where appropriate.

d. The BLM would evaluate the report and reply back to within 2 months of receiving the 

report. Site-specific evaluations may be recommended following BLM evaluation of data. 

The BLM may suggest remedial measures, alter proposed remedial measures, or alter the 

method or interval for monitoring and reporting.

e. Implement revised reclamation strategies where appropriate. 

f. Continue the process of monitoring, evaluating, documenting, reporting, and 

implementing until reclamation goals and objectives are achieved.

g. In locations where the reclamation goals and objectives have been achieved, and with 

written BLM concurrence, the monitoring requirement would be removed, and no 

additional monitoring or reporting would be required.
This page intentionally left blank.
RECREATION APPENDIX

REC-1

RECREATION APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for recreation resources and management in the planning area. 

Information includes guidance used for recreation management in the planning area.
REC-2

RECREATION APPENDIX

TABLES AND FIGURES

TABLE 1. RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX

Primitive 

Classification

Back Country 

Classification

Middle Country 

Classification

Front Country 

Classification

Rural 

Classification

Urban 

Classification

PHYSICAL COMPONENT – Qualities of the Landscape

Remoteness 

(approx. distance 

from routes)

More than 1⁄2 

mile from either 

mechanized or 

motorized routes

Within 1⁄2 mile of 

mechanized 

routes

Within 1⁄2 mile of 

four-wheel drive 

vehicle, ATV, 

and motorcycle 

routes.

Within 1⁄2 mile of 

low-clearance or 

passenger vehicle 

routes (includes 

unpaved County 

roads and private 

land routes)

Within 1⁄2 mile of 

paved/primary 

roads and 

highways.

Within 1⁄2 mile of 

streets and roads 

within 

municipalities 

and along 

highways.

Naturalness 

(landscape texture 

form, line, color)

Undisturbed 

natural 

landscape.

Natural 

landscape with 

any 

modifications in 

harmony with 

surroundings and 

not visually 

obvious or 

evident (e.g., 

stock ponds, 

trials).

Character of the 

natural landscape 

retained. A few 

modifications 

contrast with 

character of the 

landscape (e.g., 

fences, primitive 

roads).

Character of the 

natural landscape 

partially 

modified but 

none overpower 

natural landscape 

(e.g., roads, 

structures, 

utilities).

Character of the 

natural landscape 

considerably 

modified 

(agriculture, 

residential, or 

industrial).

Urbanized 

developments 

dominate 

landscape.

Facilities No structures. 

Foot/horse and 

water trails only.

Developed trails 

made mostly of 

native materials 

such as log 

bridges. 

Structures are 

rare and isolated.

Maintained and 

marked trails, 

simple trailhead 

developments, 

and basic toilets.

Rustic facilities 

such as 

campsites, 

restrooms, 

trailheads, and 

interpretive 

displays.

Modern facilities 

such as 

campgrounds, 

group shelters, 

boat launches, 

and occasional 

exhibits.

Elaborate fullservice facilities 

such as laundries, 

restaurants, and 

groceries. 

SOCIAL COMPONENT – Qualities Associated with Use

Contacts (avg. 

with any other 

group)

Fewer than 3 

encounters/day at 

campsites and 

fewer than 6 

encounters/day 

on travel routes.

3–6 

encounters/day 

off travel routes 

(e.g., campsites) 

and 7–15 

encounters/day 

7–14 

encounters/day 

off travel routes 

(e.g., staging 

areas) and 15–29 

encounters/day 

15–29 

encounters/day 

off travel routes 

(e.g., 

campgrounds) 

and 30 or more 

People seem to 

be generally 

everywhere.

Busy place with 

other people 

constantly in 

view.
REC-3

RECREATION APPENDIX

TABLE 1. RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX

Primitive 

Classification

Back Country 

Classification

Middle Country 

Classification

Front Country 

Classification

Rural 

Classification

Urban 

Classification

on travel routes. on travel routes. encounters/day 

on travel routes.

Group Size 

(average – other 

than your own)

Fewer than 3 

people per group.

4–6 people per 

group.

7–12 people per 

group.

13–25 people per 

group.

26–50 people per 

group.

Greater than 50 

people per group.

Evidence of Use No alteration of 

the natural 

terrain. 

Footprints only 

observed. Sounds 

of people rare.

Areas of 

alteration 

uncommon. 

Little surface 

vegetation wear 

observed. Sounds

of people 

infrequent.

Small areas of 

alteration. 

Surface 

vegetation 

showing wear 

with some bare 

soils. Sounds of 

people 

occasionally 

heard.

Small areas of 

alteration 

prevalent. 

Surface 

vegetation gone 

with compacted 

soils observed. 

Sounds of people 

regularly heard.

A few large 

areas of 

alteration. 

Surface 

vegetation absent 

with hardened 

soils. Sounds of 

people 

frequently heard.

Large areas of 

alteration 

prevalent. Some 

erosion. 

Constantly hear 

people. 

OPERATIONAL COMPONENT – Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use

Access (types of 

travel allowed)

Foot, horse, and 

non-motorized 

float boat travel.

Mountain bikes 

and perhaps 

other mechanized 

use, but all is 

non-motorized.

Four-wheel 

drives, all-terrain 

vehicles, dirt 

bikes, or 

snowmobiles in 

addition of nonmotorized, 

mechanized use.

Two-wheel drive 

vehicles 

predominant, but 

also four-wheel 

drives and nonmotorized, 

mechanized use. 

Ordinary 

highway auto 

and truck traffic 

is characteristic.

Wide variety of 

street vehicles 

and highway 

traffic is ever 

present.

Visitor Services 

(and information)

No maps or 

brochures 

available on site. 

Staff rarely 

present to 

provide on-site 

assistance.

Basic maps, staff 

infrequently 

present (e.g., 

seasonally, high 

use periods) to 

provide on-site 

assistance.

Area brochures 

and maps, staff 

occasionally 

(e.g., most 

weekends) 

present to 

provide on-site 

assistance.

Information 

materials 

describe 

recreation areas 

and activities, 

staff periodically 

present (e.g., 

weekdays and 

weekends).

Information 

described to the 

left, plus 

experience and 

benefit 

descriptions, 

staff regularly 

present (e.g., 

almost daily). 

Information 

described to the 

left, plus 

regularly 

scheduled on-site 

outdoor 

demonstrations 

and clinics.

Management 

Controls

No on-site 

posting/signing 

of visitor 

regulations, 

Basic user 

regulations at 

key access 

points. Minimum 

Some regulatory 

and ethics 

signing. 

Moderate use 

Rules, 

regulations, and 

ethics clearly 

posted. Use 

Regulations 

strict and ethics 

prominent. Use 

may be limited 

Enforcement in 

addition to rules 

to reduce 

conflicts, 
REC-4

TABLE 1. RECREATION SETTING CHARACTERISTICS MATRIX

RECREATION APPENDIX

Primitive 

Classification

Back Country 

Classification

Middle Country 

Classification

Front Country 

Classification

Rural 

Classification

Urban 

Classification

interpretive 

information, or 

ethics. Few use 

restrictions.

use restrictions. restrictions (e.g., 

camping, human 

waste).

restrictions, 

limitation, and/or 

closures.

by permit, 

reservation, etc.

hazards, and 

resource damage. 

Source: BLM 2010e

Photo of a sign at Strawberry Hill Recreation Area
RECREATION APPENDIX

REC-5

FIGURE 1. 

EXPERIENCE AND BENEFIT CHECKLIST

Visitor Experiences:

A: Achievement/Stimulation

! Developing your skills and abilities

!Having others think highly of you for doing 

this

! Testing your endurance

! Gaining a greater sense of self-confidence

!Being able to tell others about the trip

B: Autonomy/Leadership

! Experiencing a greater sense of 

independence

! Enjoying going exploring on my/our own

! Being in control of things that happened

C: Risk-taking

! Enjoying risk-taking adventure

D: Equipment

! Talking to others about your equipment

E/F/G: Family Togetherness/Similar 

People/New People

! Enjoying the closeness of friends and family

! Relishing group affiliation and togetherness

Enjoying meeting new people with similar 

interests

Enjoying participating in group outdoor 

events

H: Learning

! Learning more about things here

!Enjoying having access to hands-on 

environmental learning

! Enjoying learning outdoor social skills

I: Enjoy nature

! Savoring the total sensory-sight, sound, and 

smell-experience of a natural landscape

! Enjoying having easy access to natural 

landscapes

J: Introspection

! Enjoying being able to be more 

contemplative

! Reflecting on my own character and 

personal values

! Thinking about and shaping my own 

spiritual values

! Contemplating human’s relationship with 

the land

K: Creativity

! Doing something creative

! Enjoying artistic expression of nature

L: Nostalgia

! Bringing back pleasant memories

M: Exercise-Physical Fitness

! Enjoying getting some needed physical 

exercise

! Enjoying strenuous physical exercise

! Enjoying having a wide variety of 

environments within a single park or 

recreation area

! Enjoying having access to close-to-home 

outdoor amenities

Enjoying being able to frequently participate 

in desired activities in the settings I like

N: Physical Rest

! Enjoying getting some needed physical rest

O: Escape Personal-Social Pressures

! Releasing or reducing some built-up mental 

tensions

! Escaping everyday responsibilities for 

awhile

P: Escape Physical Pressure

!Feeling good about solitude, being isolated, 

and independent

! Enjoying an escape from crowds of people

Q: Social Security

! Being near more considerate people

R: Escape Family

! Getting away from family for awhile

S: Teaching-Leading Others

! Enjoying teaching others about the outdoors

T: Risk Reduction

! Having others nearby who could help you if 

needed

! Having a greater understanding about what 

will happen while I am here

Community Resident Experiences

A: Lifestyle

! Enjoying the hustle and bustle of having 

new people in town

! Enjoying the peace and quiet of this smalltown community

Enjoying maintaining out-of-town country 

solitude

! Living a slower pace of life

! Avoiding compromising the quality of life 
RECREATION APPENDIX

REC-6

here

B: Sense of Place

! Feeling like I belong to this community and 

liking it

!Avoiding having outsiders make me feel 

alienated from my own community

! Observing visitors treat our community with 

respect

! Feeling that this community is a special 

place to live

! Just knowing this attraction is here, in or 

near my community

C: Personal/Character

! Nurturing my own spiritual values and 

growth

! Developing a greater understanding of 

outsiders

D: Interacting with People

! Appreciating personal interaction with 

visitors

! Enjoying telling visitors what makes this 

community a special place to live and work

! Encouraging visitors to help safeguard our 

lifestyle and quality of life

! Sharing our cultural heritage with new 

people

! Seeing visitors get excited about this area

! Communicating our cultural heritage with 

those already living here

E: Change

! Liking change and new growth here

! Knowing that things are not going to change 

too much

F: Stewardship and Hospitality

! Feeling good about the way our cultural 

heritage is being protected

! Feeling good about how visitors are being 

managed

! Feeling good about how natural resources 

and facilities are being managed

! Feeling good about how this attraction is 

being used and enjoyed

I. Personal Benefits

A. Psychological

1. Better mental health and health 

maintenance

! A more holistic sense of wellness

! Restored mind from unwanted stress

! Diminished mental anxiety

! Improved mental well-being

2. Personal development and growth

! Greater self-reliance

! Confirmation/development of my own 

values

! Improved academic and cognitive 

performance

! Improved sense of control over one’s life

! Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment

! Improved skills for enjoying the outdoors 

alone

! Improved skills for outdoor enjoyment with 

others

! Improved leadership abilities

! Improved teamwork and cooperation

! Improved outdoor knowledge and selfconfidence

! Improved outdoor recreation skills

! Deeper sense of personal humility

! More balanced competitive spirit

! Greater sensitivity to/awareness of outdoor

aesthetics, nature’s art and its elegance

! Greater spiritual growth

! Greater cognitive efficiency

! Increased capacity for artistic expression

! Improved ability to think things through and

solve problems

! Increased adaptability

! Stronger ties with my family and friends

! Greater sensitivity to/respect for other 

visitors

! Increased understanding and tolerance of 

others

! Greater respect for my cultural heritage

! Enhanced awareness and understanding of 

nature

! Greater environmental awareness and 

sensitivity

! Greater understanding of the importance of

recreation and tourism to our community

! Better sense of my place within my 

community

! Improved ability to relate to local cultures

! More well-informed and responsible visitor

! Greater sense of responsibility

for my own quality of life

! Enlarged sense of personal accountability 

for

acting responsibly on public lands

! Enlarged understanding of my responsibility 

to help

care for this community and keep it clean
RECREATION APPENDIX

REC-7

! Improved sense of personal responsibility 

for

control of domestic pets and livestock

3. Personal appreciation and satisfaction 

! Closer relationship with the natural world

! A more outdoor-oriented lifestyle

! Enhanced sense of personal freedom

! Greater sense of personal security

! Greater sense of adventure

! Improved appreciation of nature’s splendor

! Improved opportunity to view wildlife 

close-up

! Greater appreciation of the arts

! Better understanding of wildlife’s 

contribution to my own quality of life

! Greater freedom from urban living

! Greater appreciation for my wildland and 

parkland

heritage and how managers care for it

! Greater personal enrichment through 

involvement

with other people

! Improved personal awareness, learning and

appreciation of others’ cultural values

! Increased acceptance of others who are 

different

! Greater cultivation of natural resource

stewardship ethic

! Increased appreciation of area’s cultural 

history

! Greater awareness that this community

is a special place

! Better understanding of my community’s

cultural identity

! Greater respect for private property

and local lifestyles

! An improved stewardship ethic towards

adjoining/host communities

! Improved understanding of how this 

community’s

rural-urban interface impacts its quality of life

! Improved understanding of this/our 

community’s

dependence and impact on public lands

B. Psychophysiological

! Improved physical fitness and health 

maintenance

! Restored body from fatigue

! Improved cardiovascular health

! Reduced hypertension

! Improved capacity for outdoor physical 

activity

! Improved physical capacity to do my 

favorite

recreation activities

! Greater opportunity for people with 

different

skills to exercise in the same place

! Decreased body fat and obesity

! Improved muscle strength and connective 

tissue

! Increased lung capacity

! Reduced incidence of disease

II. Household and Community Benefits:

! Heightened sense of satisfaction with our 

community

! Greater household awareness of and 

appreciation for our cultural heritage

! More informed citizenry about where to go 

for different

kinds of recreation experiences and benefits

! Reduced social isolation

! Improved community integration

! Improved functioning of individuals in 

family and community

! Greater family bonding

! Improved parenting skills

! More well-rounded childhood development

! Improved group cooperation

! Greater community involvement in 

recreation and other land

use decisions

! Increased community involvement reducing 

erosion

of our community’s small-town, rural 

character

! Reduced numbers of at-risk youth

! Less juvenile delinquency

! Higher school class attendance

! Lower school drop-out rates

! More highly motivated students/improved 

scholarship

! Reduced social alienation

! Increased compassion for others

! Lifestyle improvement or maintenance

! Enhanced lifestyle

! Enlarged sense of community dependency 

on public lands

! Increased nurturance/tolerance of others

! Increased independence/autonomy among 

seniors

! Increased community interdependence and 

friendliness

! Greater interaction with visitors from 

different cultures

! Greater community valuation of its ethnic 

diversity
RECREATION APPENDIX

REC-8

III. Economic Benefits:

! Reduced health maintenance costs

! Increased work productivity

! Reduced absenteeism from work

! Decreased job turnover

! Improved local economic stability

! More positive contributions to localregional economy

! Increased local tax revenue from visitors

! Increased local job opportunities

! Greater value-added local services/industry

! Increased desirability as a place to live or 

retire

! Enhanced ability for visitors to find areas 

providing

wanted recreation experiences and benefits

! Maintenance of community’s distinctive

recreation-tourism market niche or character

! Increased local tourism revenue

! Greater diversification of local job offerings

! Increased property values

! Greater fiscal capacity to maintain essential

infrastructure and services

IV. Environmental Benefits:

! Greater retention of community’s distinctive

architecture and structures

! Maintenance of distinctive small-town 

atmosphere

! Maintenance of distinctive recreation setting 

character

! Improved maintenance of physical facilities

! Reduced looting and vandalism of 

historic/prehistoric sites

! Greater community ownership and 

stewardship

of park, recreation, and natural resources

! Greater retention of distinctive natural 

landscape features

! Reduced wildlife harassment by recreation 

users

! Reduced wildlife disturbance from 

recreation facility development

! Reduced wildlife predation by domestic pets

! Greater protection of area historic structures 

and archeologic sites

! Sustainability of community’s cultural 

heritage

! Improved respect for privately-owned lands

! Improved care for community aesthetics

! Improved soil, water, and air quality

! Greater protection of fish, wildlife, and 

plant habitat from growth,

development, and public use impacts

! Increased awareness and protection of 

natural landscapes

! Reduced negative human impacts such as 

litter,

vegetative trampling, and unplanned trails

! Increased ecologically friendly tourism 

operations

! Reduced spread of invasive species such as 

plants, insects, and aquatic organisms

! Greater recycling

! Conservation of entire sustainable 

ecosystems

FIGURE 2. 

DISBENEFIT CHECKLIST

From which to Select or Craft Additional 

Items for Resident Customer Preference 

Studies

I. Personal Disbenefits: 

A. Psychological 

! Increased personal stress 

! Loss of an important sense of place 

! Loss of control over one’s desired future 

! Loss of control over my way of life 

B. Personal development and growth 

! Reduced ability to cultivate outdoororiented lifestyle 

! Greater sense of residents being alienated 

from one’s own community 

II. Social and Cultural Disbenefits: 

! Decreased family solidarity 

! Reduced ability to cultivate outdoororiented lifestyle 

! Increased exposure of at-risk youth to 

delinquency 

! Increased erosion of community’s smalltown atmosphere 

! Increased erosion of our sense of 

community 

! Diminished sense of community 

cohesion/friendliness 

! Increased crime 

! Greater conflict with outsider attitudes 

towards community 

! Greater sense of resignation among local 

residents towards continued growth and 

development 

! Increased personal disregard for local 

residents

! Increased personal disregard for other 

visitors

! Increased conflict with a new resident 
RECREATION APPENDIX

REC-9

whose culture conflicts with our lifestyles

III. Economic Disbenefits

! Higher cost of living 

! Increased property taxes

! Loss of economic productivity

! Loss of family legacy (e.g., family ranch or 

other business)

! Loss of recreation-tourism product character 

and our community’s market share

!Decreased tourism revenue

!Inability to cover costs of basic household 

necessities

IV. Environmental Disbenefits

! More rapid loss of distinctive community 

architecture

! Loss of environmental quality within the 

recreation area

! Increased disregard for natural resources

! Increased visitor disregard for stewardship 

of community infrastructure

! Increased urbanization of the natural 

landscape

! Loss of community’s defining, distinctive 

character

! Increased pollution, litter, and traffic noise

! Transformation of community by growth, 

development, and modernization
This page intentionally left blank.
SOILS APPENDIX

SOI-1

SOILS APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for soil resources and management in the planning area. 

Information includes:

 major land resource areas;

 reclamation guidelines and suitability;

 possible mitigation methods, by soil type;

 soil qualities and characteristics;

 suitable topsoil criteria; and

 common soil properties in the planning area.

MAJOR LAND RESOURCE AREAS

The following includes data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource 

Conservation Services (NRCS) Major Land Resource Area geographic database (http://soils.usda.gov/survey/ge

ography/mlra/).

The planning area’s soils fall into two principal Major Land Resource Area units. The rest of the planning area 

contains the Pierre shale plains-60A (3 percent of the planning area), northern dark brown glaciated plains-53A 

(2 percent of the planning area), northern rolling high plains-southern part-58B (2 percent of the planning area), 

northern rolling high plains-eastern part-58D (1 percent of the planning area), rolling soft shale plains-54 (0.5 

percent of the planning area), and brown glaciated plains-52 (0.5 percent of the planning area). The following 

soil descriptions of Major Land Resource Area units are from the NRCS Handbook 296 (2006).

Northern rolling high plains-northern part (58A). This is the dominant Major Land Resource Area unit 

within the planning area (73 percent of the planning area). Tertiary continental shale, siltstone, and sandstone 

underlie the eastern one-third to one-half of this area, while marine and continental sediments underlie the rest 

of the Major Land Resource Area, generally at the higher elevations. Although wide belts of steeply sloping 

badlands border a few of the larger river valleys, slopes are generally gently rolling to steep. 

From USDA Handbook 296:

“The dominant soil orders in this MLRA [Major Land Resource Area] are Entisols and Inceptisols. 

The soils in the area dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an ustic soil moisture regime, 

and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. They generally are shallow to very deep, well drained, and clayey 

or loamy. Ustorthents formed in residuum on hills and ridges (Bainville, Cabba, Cabbart, Neldore, and 

Yawdim series) and in alluvium on fans and terraces (Lambert series). Ustifluvents (Havre series) 

formed in alluvium on fans, terraces, and flood plains. Haplustepts (Busby, Cherry, Delpoint, Lonna, 

and Yamacall series) formed in alluvium, eolian deposits, and residuum on terraces, fans, and hills. 

Calciustepts (Cambeth series) formed in alluvium, colluvium, and residuum on fans, hills, and plains. 

Natrustalfs (Gerdrum series) and Haplustolls (Shambo series) formed in alluvium and glaciofluvial 

deposits on fans and terraces and in drainageways” (NRCS 2006, p. 158).

Pierre shale plains-northern part (60B). This is the next dominant Major Land Resource Area unit in the 

planning area (18 percent of the planning area). Marine and continental sediments underlie most of this Major 

Land Resource Area. The shale plains have long, smooth, gentle to strong slopes. 

From USDA Handbook 296:

“The dominant soil orders in this MLRA [Major Land Resource Area] are Alfisols, Entisols, and 

Vertisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an ustic soil moisture 
SOILS APPENDIX

SOI-2

regime, and smectitic mineralogy. They are shallow to very deep, generally well drained, and clayey. 

Natrustalfs (Absher and Gerdrum series) formed in alluvium, glaciofluvial deposits, and till on alluvial 

fans, stream terraces, and plains. Haplusterts formed in alluvium and/or residuum on alluvial fans, 

stream terraces, and plains (Bascovy and Bickerdyke series) and in alluvium and lacustrine deposits on 

alluvial fans, stream terraces, and lake plains (Marias and Marvan series). Ustorthents formed in mixed 

residuum, alluvium, and colluvium on hills and plains (Neldore, Orinoco, and Yawdim series) and in 

alluvium, lacustrine deposits, and glaciofluvial deposits on alluvial fans, stream terraces, and plains 

(Vanda series)” (NRCS 2006, p. 167).

RECLAMATION SUITABILITY

Reclamation suitability describes 

the ability of the soil resource to 

restore functional and structural 

integrity following disturbance. 

The NRCS used various soil 

characteristics to determine 

reclamation potential within the 

planning area (Table 1). In 

general, characteristics considered 

poorly suited to reclamation limit 

revegetation efforts or are very 

susceptible to erosion (Table 2). 

Fragile ecosystems have evolved 

with the limited biotic potential of 

such areas and successful 

reclamation is problematic. 

Reclamation of such sensitive 

areas includes costly erosion and 

sediment controls, costly 

revegetation, special designs, and 

frequent maintenance. Various site 

characteristics do not support 

vegetation identified as 

miscellaneous components (e.g., 

rock outcrops), and such areas 

cannot be reclaimed to predisturbance conditions. 

When exposed, soils highly susceptible to 

water and wind erosion lose topsoil and 

nutrients essential for the recovery of biotic 

production. The irretrievable loss of soil 

limits the reclamation potential of disturbed 

areas and results in damage to adjacent lands 

and waterbodies. The Kw factor, which is 

dependent on slope steepness, expresses the 

effects of sheet and rill erosion. Texture, 

rock fragments, organic matter, structure, 

and saturated hydraulic conductivity 

determine Kw. The wind erodibility index 

represents the probability of wind erosion and is determined by texture, clod composition, organic matter, rock 

fragment, and calcium carbonate content. 

TABLE 1.

RECLAMATION SUITABILITY CRITERIA

Property Well 

Suited

Moderately 

Suited Poorly Suited Limiting Factor

Kw relative 

slope

0–≤ 

3.2 > 3.2–7 > 7

water 

erosion

Wind 

erodibility 

index

0, 38, 

48, 56 86 134, 160, 180, 220, 250, 310 wind erosion

Available 

water capacity 

(0 to 40 in.)

> 4 > 2–4 ≤ 2 droughtiness

Relative EC (0

to 7 in.) 

(mmhos/cm)1

≤ 8 > 8–< 16 ≥ 16 salt content

SAR (0 to 7 

in.)

≤ 8 > 8–< 13 ≥ 13 sodium 

content

Rooting depth 

(inches) > 20 10–20 < 10 rooting depth

Precipitation 

(inches) > 11.8 7.9-11.8 < 7.9 precipitation

Miscellaneous 

component - -

misc. 

component

vegetation 

not 

supported

1Millimhos per centimeter

TABLE 2.

ERODIBLE SOIL CRITERIA

Property Slightly 

Erodible

Moderately 

Erodible

Highly 

Erodible

Limiting 

Factor

Kw relative 

slope 0–≤ 3.2 > 3.2–7 > 7

water 

erosion

wind 

erodibility 

index

0, 38, 

48, 56 86

134, 

160, 

180, 

220, 

250, 310

wind 

erosion
SOILS APPENDIX

SOI-3

Soils that are a poor growth medium greatly limit revegetation following disturbances, resulting in a perpetually 

altered habitat. The available water capacity of the soil, corrected for salinity and rock fragment content, 

describes the capability to store and release water for vegetation. Droughty soils have inadequate available 

water capacity, which is determined by organic matter content, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure. 

High electrical conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratios (SAR) retard vegetative productivity and are 

toxic to biota (see below). Restrictive soil layers, caused by physical or chemical soil properties (e.g., bedrock 

or cemented layer), limit plant rooting depth, which inhibits vegetative production. Insufficient precipitation 

also limits potential production and slows the rate of recovery.

POSSIBLE MITIGATION METHODS

SOIL TYPE

SODIC/FINE SOILS

Sodic soils inhibit nutrient uptake by plants, can be caustic to soil biota, and have limited aeration and water 

infiltration, weak structure, and surface crusts. Combined with the high clay content of the soils, the site would 

potentially have high shrink-swell action, which would inhibit germination and damage seedlings. 

Approximately 5 acres of the proposed disturbance would be more difficult to revegetate in comparison to areas 

more suitable to reclamation. Incorporating a crust inhibitor, such as weed-, herbicide-, pesticide-free compost, 

into the topsoil would remediate surface crusting. Adding gypsum (CaSO4  2H2O) is not recommended because 

soils would precipitate calcium carbonate, resulting in the formation of mineral crusts. Disking or increasing 

seeding rates may also be needed. 

Monitoring will be needed to assess the effectiveness of treatments. The following species are salt tolerant and 

adapted to fine soils: alkali sacaton (Sporobolus airoides), bottlebrush squirreltail (Elymus elymoides), 

Gardner’s saltbush (Atriplex gardneri), greasewood (Sarcobatus vermiculatus), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), 

scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and winterfat 

(Krascheninnikovia lanata).

SANDY SOILS

Successful reclamation may be difficult in areas of these soils (fine sands) because the site is highly susceptible 

to wind erosion. Wind erosion would result in the loss of topsoil and nutrients and increase the difficulty of

revegetation. Measures such as applying mulch, erosion control matting, tackifier (biodegradable), surface 

roughening, wind fencing, or additional seeding may be required for successful revegetation. Monitoring will be 

needed to assess the effectiveness of treatments. The following species are adapted to sandy soils: alkali sacaton 

(Sporobolus airoides), Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), little bluestem (Schizachyrium scoparium), 

prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia), sand bluestem (Andropogon hallii), sand dropseed (Sporobolus 

cryptandrus), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana ssp. cana), and tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus). Additionally, 

wind erosion control (e.g., water or tackifier) would be applied immediately to soil stockpiles if stored for more 

than 30 days. If stored during the growing season, native seed would be applied within 30 days of storage. 

Water applied to stockpiles would not degrade soil quality.

Erosion-control matting will be biodegradable and certified weed- and insect-free. Matting will have holes 

greater than 2-inches in diameter and a 2-year photodegradation life. Matting will be unrolled from the bottom 

toward the top of the slope, and placed along the direction of waterflow, loosely over soils with extreme surface 

roughness, and in compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions (Wright 2000).

Mulch and hay bales will be certified free of weeds and insects. Straw or hay mulch will be crimped in 

vertically at a rate of 1 to 2 tons per acre, so that 80 to 90 percent of the ground is covered (Wright 2000). All 

twine associated with straw or hay mulch will be biodegradable or collected and properly disposed of. Wood 

mulch will not be recommended.
SOILS APPENDIX

SOI-4

SOILS WITH INCREASED SOIL SALT CONTENT

Soils with high salt content commonly occur in topographic depressions in eastern Montana and can be 

identified by white surface layers, dark surface layers (high sodium content), or salt-tolerant vegetation. Salt 

concentrations are described by the soil solution EC and the SAR. EC is expressed in deciSiemens per meter 

(dS/m) and provides an indirect measurement of salt content. The SAR compares sodium concentrations to 

calcium and magnesium (which moderates sodium to an extent). Depending on concentrations, salt-affected 

soils are lethal to vegetation and have been found to reduce infiltration, increase overland flow, accelerate 

erosion, inhibit germination, reduce productivity, and damage plant tissue (ALL 2001a; BLM 2008g; 

McCauley and Jones 2005). Reclamation of soils with high salt content would require burial, removal, or in 

situ remediation. In situ remediation of soils high in soluble salt requires that good drainage and quality water 

is available for leaching. Accumulated surface salts, typical of unlined impoundments and evaporation ponds, 

would require removal (BLM 2008g).

Saline soils (EC greater than 4 dS/m, SAR less than 13, and pH less than 8.5) have concentrated calcium and 

magnesium ions, which results in surface crusts and lower osmotic water potential. Because of the lowered 

osmotic water potential, plants must expend more energy to uptake water, resulting in decreased productivity. 

The surface crusts damage plant tissue and inhibit germination. Saline soils can be reclaimed by leaching salts 

out of the plant root zone and inhibiting future capillary rise (Table 3).

Sodic soils (EC less than 4 dS/m, 

SAR greater than 13, and pH 

greater than 8.5) have concentrated 

sodium ions, which results in the 

dispersion of soil particles and 

clogs soil pores, weakens structure, 

and forms surface crusts, reducing 

aeration and water infiltration. Soils 

with high clay content are more 

prone to dispersion and increased 

shrink-swell action than other soils. 

Concentrated sodium also alters the 

uptake and utilization of potassium 

and calcium by plants (Brady and 

Weil 2004). The increased pH 

associated with such soils is caustic 

to plant roots and reduces 

phosphorus and micronutrient 

availability. Surface crusts can be 

remediated by incorporating a crust inhibitor, such as compost. The incorporation of a soluble, sulfur-based 

soil amendment results in the formation of sodium sulfate (Na2SO4), which can be leached out of the root 

zone. Eastern Montana soils typically have high concentrations of calcium, which clump soil particles 

following sodium leaching; subsequently, adding gypsum (CaSO4  2H2O) is not recommended because it 

would result in precipitation of calcium carbonate, resulting in the formation of surface crust.

Saline-sodic (EC greater than 4 dS/m, SAR greater than 13, and pH less than 8.5) soils do not occur naturally, 

but are created by disturbances, such as bentonite clay mining. Such soils experience surface crusts, lowered 

osmotic water potential, and soil particle dispersion. Remediation is the same as sodic soil treatments.

Disposal of water high in soluble salts result in saline, sodic, or saline-sodic effects. Altered soil-salt content 

can also permanently change the biotic community associated with the soil resource by encouraging salttolerant weeds (ALL 2001a). Additionally, land application and seepage ponds have the potential to form 

saline seeps (ALL 2001a). However, intensive mitigation (e.g., amendment added to irrigation water or 

monitoring) can maintain soil health. Land application management would include water and soil quality 

testing for suitable treatment conditions and monitoring.

TABLE 3.

RECOMMENDED VALUES FOR LAND APPLICATION

Soil Texture

EC Range 

(mmhos/cm)1 SAR

Flood Sprinkler Floo

d

Sprinkler

Very Coarse (sands, 

loamy sands)

0–4 0–5 <18 <24

Coarse (sandy loam) 0–3 0–4.5 <12 <15

Medium (loams, silt 

loams)

0.2–

2.5

0–3 <12 <15

Medium Fine (clay 

loam, sandy clay loam)

0.3–

2.5

0.2–3 <8 <12

Fine (silty clay loam, 

clay, sandy clay, silty 

clay)

0.5–2 0.3–2.5 <6 <9

1Millimhos per centimeter
SOILS APPENDIX

SOI-5

SUITABLE TOPSOIL CRITERIA

Depending on the action and site 

characteristics, it may be necessary to 

salvage suitable growth material and 

apply it as topsoil. Suitable material 

may be mixed with topsoil to dilute 

unsuitable characteristics (Table 4). 

Conversely, mixing unsuitable 

subsurface horizons with surface 

horizons could result in unsuitable 

growth medium for revegetation. 

Various amendments may also be used 

to improve soil characteristics, such as 

organic matter, fertilizer, and moisture 

additives. Organic matter additions 

should have a low carbon to nitrogen 

ratio (e.g., compost) and would be free 

of weeds, herbicides, and pesticides.

COMMON SOIL 

PROPERTIES IN THE 

PLANNING AREA

See Tables 5 through 9 for common 

soil properties in the planning area.

TABLE 6.

TEN PRINCIPAL ECOLOGICAL SITES IN 

THE PLANNING AREA

Ecological Site (Major Land 

Resource Area 58A or 60B, 10 

to 14 precipitation zone)

Percentage

(%)

Silt 26

Shallow clay 13

Silty steep 12

Shallow 11

Clayey 9

Claypan 6

Sandy 5

Saline upland 4

Dense clay 3

Shallow (15 to 10 precipitation 

zone)

2

TABLE 4.

RECOMMENDED SOIL CHARACTERISTICS FOR USE AS 

TOPSOIL

Characteristic Well Suited Moderately 

Suited

pH 6.1 to 8.2 5.5 to 6.1

8.2 to 8.5

EC (dS/m)10 to 4 4 to 8

SAR 0 to 4 5 to 10

Texture

sandy loam, loam, 

silty loam, sandy 

clay loam, very 

fine sandy loam, 

fine sandy loam

Clay, silty clay 

loam, sandy 

clay, loamy 

sand, loamy 

fine sand

Available Water Capacity > 0.1 0.05 to 0.1

Saturation Percentage 25 to 80 80 to 90

Coarse Fragment 

(percentage by weight) < 25 26 to 35

Boron (ppm)2< 5 NA

Selenium (ppm) < 0.1 NA

1

deciSiemens per meter

2

Parts per million

TABLE 5.

TEN PRINCIPAL SURFACE 

TEXTURES IN THE PLANNING 

AREA

Texture Percentage

(%)

Loam 24

Silt loam 24

Silty clay loam 10

Clay 8

Fine sandy loam 7

Clay loam 7

Silty clay 6

Channery loam 3

Sandy loam 0.5

Gravelly loam 0.5

USDA NRCS 2009 county SSURGO data
SOILS APPENDIX

SOI-6

TABLE 7.

TEN PRINCIPAL PARENT MATERIALS IN 

THE PLANNING AREA

Parent Material Percentag

e (%)

Residuum weathered from calcareous 

siltstone 10

Clayey alluvium 8

Alluvium 8

Loamy residuum weathered from 

calcareous siltstone 7

Loamy alluvium 6

Clayey residuum over 

semiconsolidated shale 5

Loamy residuum over 

semiconsolidated sedimentary rock 4

Silty alluvium 4

Clayey residuum weathered from 

shale 3

Silty residuum over semiconsolidated 

sedimentary rock 3

USDA NRCS 2009 county SSURGO data

TABLE 9.

TEN PRINCIPAL SOIL FAMILIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

Family Percentage

(%)

Loamy, mixed, superactive, calcareous, frigid, shallow Aridic 

Ustorthents 10

Fine-silty, mixed, superactive, frigid Aridic Calciustepts 8

Fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Aridic Haplustepts 7

Fine-silty, mixed, active, frigid Aridic Calciustepts 7

Clayey, montmorillonitic, nonacid, frigid, shallow Aridic Ustorthents 5

Clayey, montmorillonitic (calcareous), calcareous, frigid, shallow 

Ustic Torriorthents 5

Coarse-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid Haplocalcidic Haplustepts 3

Clayey, smectitic, nonacid, frigid, shallow Aridic Ustorthents 3

Fine, montmorillonitic, frigid Typic Natriboralfs 2

Fine, montmorillonitic (calcareous), frigid Aridic Ustorthents 2

USDA NRCS 2009 county SSURGO data

TABLE 8.

TEN PRINCIPAL MAP UNITS IN THE 

PLANNING AREA

Map Unit Percentage

(%)

Badland 4

Cabbart-Rock outcrop-Yawdim complex, 

15 to 70% slopes 4

Lonna-Cambeth-Cabbart silt loams, 4 to 

12% slopes 3

Lonna-Cambeth-Cabbart silt loams, 12 to 

25% slopes 3

Midway-Elso association, 8 to 35% 

slopes 2

Cambeth, calcareous-Cabbart-Yawdim 

complex, 15 to 25% slopes 2

Yamacall-Rock outcrop, soft-Kobase 

association, 8 to 70% slopes 2

Cabbart, wooded-Blacksheep-Delpoint 

complex, 6 to 60% slopes 2

Midway and Elso rocky soils, 35 to 75%

slopes 2

Ringling-Cabba association, 15 to 50% 

slopes 2

USDA NRCS 2009 county SSURGO data
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-1

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for special designation areas and designation processes in the 

planning area. Information includes detailed information about existing and nominated areas of environmental 

concern (ACECs) and the process used when considering rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers.

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

INTRODUCTION

The ACEC designation is an administrative designation used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

through the land use planning process. ACEC designation is authorized under Sec. 102(a)(11) of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA).

BLM regulations (43 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 1610.0-5(a)) define an ACEC as:

“within the public lands where special management attention is required (when such areas are developed or 

used or where no development is required) to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, 

cultural, or scenic values, fish and wildlife resources, or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards.”

Because ACEC designations can only be made on BLM-administered surface estate, private lands and lands 

administered by other agencies cannot be designated ACECs. In order to be designated, special management 

beyond standard provisions established by the plan must be required to protect the relevant and important 

values.

EVALUATION PROCESS

In order to be designated an ACEC, the nominated area must meet both the relevance and importance criteria as 

defined in 43 CFR 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613. If the relevance and importance criteria are met, an area 

must be identified as a potential ACEC and considered for designation and management in the resource 

planning process. 

To contain “relevance” an area must meet one or more of the following criteria by containing:

1. significant historic, cultural, or scenic values, including rare or sensitive archeological resources and 

religious or cultural resources important to American Indians;

2. fish and wildlife resources, including habitat for endangered, sensitive, or threatened species or habitat 

essential for maintaining diversity of species;

3. natural process or systems including endangered, sensitive, or threatened, plant species; rare geologic 

features; or rare, endemic, or relic plants or plant communities that are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian;

or

4. natural hazards including avalanche, dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or 

dangerous cliffs.

To contain “importance” the value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must have substantial 

significance and values characterized by one or more of the following:

1. more than locally significant qualities;

2. qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, unique, endangered, 

threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change;
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-2

3. recognition as warranting protection to satisfy national priority concerns or carry out the mandates of 

FLPMA;

4. qualities that warrant recognition to satisfy public or management concerns about safety and public 

welfare; or

5. posing a significant threat to human life or safety or property. 

An interdisciplinary team evaluates each area to determine if it meets both the relevance and importance 

criteria. Evidence of relevance and importance may be gathered from BLM or other sources. If an area does not 

meet the criteria for ACEC designation, or special management attention is not prescribed, analysis supporting 

the conclusion is incorporated into this resource management plan (RMP). 

The relevance and importance evaluations for each nominated and existing ACEC are described below.

NOMINATED ACECS

The areas described below have been nominated for consideration for ACEC designation.

CUSTER CREEK AND BIG DRY ARM: 

Nominated for black-tailed prairie dog habitat for reintroduction of the black-footed ferret. The Custer Creek 

nomination overlaps with an existing designated ACEC, the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC. This 

existing ACEC is recommended to be carried forward in the RMP (see Existing ACECs below). Therefore, the 

evaluation below is for lands lying outside the existing ACEC (Custer Creek) and a new proposal for lands 

along the Missouri River Breaks (Big Dry Arm).

Relevance Criteria: The nominated areas do not meet the relevance criteria because the areas are not suitable 

habitat for black-tailed prairie dogs. Furthermore, the subject lands nominated for ACEC designation are within 

a checkerboard-land ownership pattern, which would complicate a potential reintroduction of black-footed 

ferrets on private lands (where poisoning of prairie dogs or other habitat manipulation projects could occur on 

these lands). The designated areas are within suitable habitat for potential black-footed ferret reintroductions.

Importance Criteria: The nominated areas do not meet the importance criteria because the lands adjacent to the 

identified existing black-footed ferret ACEC do not have more than a local significance; are not fragile or 

irreplaceable, endangered or threatened; and have not been recognized as warranted to receive protection to 

satisfy national priorities.

Summary: The lands evaluated do not meet the relevance or importance criteria. These lands are not 

recommended for ACEC designation.

As stated in Chapter 2, the BLM continues to work with the Montana Black-footed Ferret Working Group on 

developing black-footed ferret reintroduction sites where potential habitat exists within the planning area, with 

the goal of creating at least one viable reintroduction site within the planning area that meets the minimum 

criteria for successful reestablishment of black-footed ferrets.

Important Bird Areas: Nominated as the Tongue River, Musselshell, and Powder/Carter County (sage-grouse)

important bird areas. See the end of this section for evaluation of sage-grouse habitat.

CEDAR CREEK BATTLEFIELD:

Nominated for important cultural values (1,022 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The Cedar Creek Battlefield meets relevance criterion 1 for containing significant historic and 

cultural values. The battlefield is one of the major battlefields of the great Sioux War. This war and associated 

sites are of major interest to both national historians and history enthusiasts, as well as the American Indian

cultures of the Sioux, Crow, and Cheyenne Tribes.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-3

Importance: The Cedar Creek Battlefield site meets the importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. The site possesses more 

than locally significant qualities; values that are fragile, sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, or 

threatened; the site is vulnerable to adverse change; and the site possesses values that warrant protection as 

mandated by FLPMA. The site is part of a nationally significant cultural war and represents one of the 

significant battles of the Sioux War.

Summary: The Cedar Creek Battlefield is approximately 1,021 public surface and mineral acres in size and 

located about 20 miles northwest of Terry, Montana, in Prairie County.

This area is a good example of a battlefield from the great Sioux War of 1876 to 1877, which was America's 

most prolonged and costly Indian war. The eighth of only twelve Sioux War battlefields, it remains interesting

and one of the most enigmatic battlefields in American history more than 100 years later. The war was initially 

waged over the rights to gold in the Black Hills of South Dakota although the rights and privileges granted to 

the Sioux in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 were also in dispute. The result transformed the entire northern 

plains from Indian and buffalo country into an open area for western settlement, which was dominated by 

miners, cattlemen, and homesteaders. This conflict produced a military-cultural epic with few comparisons in 

United States history.

While the eastern United States contains many numerous Revolutionary and Civil War battlefields, the great 

Sioux War of 1876 was probably the next largest war (based on geographic area) fought on American soil, 

spanning five states. This was the only war fought in the west. Public interest in this war is increasing, as 

evidenced by the numbers of visitors to the Little Bighorn Battlefield each year (and other developed sites). 

However, other major sites from the war lack the focused attention given to the Battle of the Little Bighorn. 

The BLM is fortunate to have the unique opportunity to administer public lands containing six of the twelve

major battle sites, five of which are within the Miles City Field Office (MCFO) planning area. The actual 

battlefield site area encompasses about 3,780 acres (all ownerships), with approximately 940 BLMadministered acres constituting the heart of the battlefield.

The Cedar Creek Battle was fought on October 21, 1876, the eighth of twelve major engagements of the Sioux 

War fought in a little over a year’s time. When a supply train did not arrive as scheduled at the Tongue River 

Cantonment, General Nelson A. Miles led the entire 5th Infantry out in relief. Miles met the wagon train on 

October 18, and the wagons were able to reach the cantonment on October 20. Miles did not return to his 

Tongue River post but pursued the wagon train attackers into the highlands north of the Yellowstone River 

between what is now Miles City and Glendive, Montana. On October 20, Miles spotted a large group of Sioux. 

Two Indians came forward under a white flag of truce announcing that Sitting Bull wished to confer with Miles 

about surrendering his people. The meeting, the first between a government agent and a leader of the nonagency Sioux, was ultimately fruitless. Sitting Bull declared his desire to remain in buffalo country and his 

insistence that the troops must leave. Miles broke off the meeting, and Sitting Bull and his followers returned to 

their camp some 5 miles away.

On the morning of October 21, Miles advanced against Sitting Bull’s village in the bottom of Cedar Creek. At 

mid-morning, the two agreed to talk again, but they could not reach mutually agreeable terms. The meeting 

broke up at noon, and Miles deployed for an attack. At first, the confrontation resembled a giant chess game, 

with each side trying to seize minor tactical advantages but neither side wishing to fire the first shot. However, 

when the Sioux were seen igniting the grass, Miles’ scouts fired, and an afternoon-long battle ensued. The 

Sioux were quickly outmaneuvered and overwhelmed, and they abandoned their village, fleeing northeast. 

Casualties from the Cedar Creek engagement included two soldiers wounded and five American Indians killed.

The Cedar Creek Battlefield meets both relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for ACEC 

designation.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-4

FLAT CREEK:

Nominated for important paleontological values (547 BLM-administered acres; Map 46).

Relevance: This microfossil site meets relevance criterion 3 for a “natural process or system.” The Hell Creek 

geologic formation and the associated fossils preserve a high-quality record of the end of the dinosaur age at the 

close of the Cretaceous Period., which is relatively rare worldwide. The area has produced fossils for display 

and research, and field studies of depositional patterns and earth history have taken place within the area. The 

necessary combination of bedrock exposure of the proper age and quality preservation of fossils provides 

research and collecting opportunities that are rare for this geologic period.

Importance: The Flat Creek area meets importance criteria 1 and 2. The area has produced fossils and provided 

research data that has proven to be significant to the national and global scientific communities. Comparison of 

fossils and other data collected in this area has provided scientists with insight about the end of the dinosaur 

age, such as the types of animals and plants present, the environment in which they lived, and the cause of the 

mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous Period. The fossil material and information is fragile and needs to 

be researched in place. In addition, the resource is best served by public ownership of the land, which ensures

access by the scientific community.

Summary: The Flat Creek paleontological area is approximately 547 public surface and mineral acres located in 

Garfield County. The area meets both relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for ACEC 

designation.

LONG MEDICINE WHEEL:

Nominated for important cultural resource values (179 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The Long Medicine Wheel area meets relevance criterion 1 for containing significant historic and 

cultural values. The cultural manifestations displayed at the Long Medicine Wheel site are rare.

Importance: The Long Medicine Wheel archeological site meets importance criterion 1 for possessing more 

than locally significant qualities. This site is regionally renowned, rare, and a sensitive site type of interest and 

concern to American Indians. The site possesses significant qualities that make it important and of interest to 

the region's archeological community. The site is considered eligible for nomination to the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP) and eligible for consideration as a traditional cultural property (TCP).

The Long Medicine Wheel site also meets importance criterion 2 for possessing values that are fragile, 

sensitive, fairly rare, irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, and vulnerable to adverse 

change. Although the site is not “one of a kind,” all medicine wheel type sites are considered rare and each has 

its own unique properties. The site and the information it contains are unique and irreplaceable. The fact that 

this site is a ceremonial site type makes it of particular interest to American Indians and eligible for designation 

as a TCP. The site is also threatened, endangered, and vulnerable to both erosion and the loss of the site's 

valuable information to artifact collectors.

Summary: The Long Medicine Wheel area is approximately 179 acres of BLM-administered surface located in

northeastern Montana in north-central McCone County, about 6 miles south of the Missouri River and 12 miles 

southwest of Wolf Point, Montana. 

The Long Medicine Wheel (Site 24MC148) is a large stone circle of over 25 meters in diameter with a central 

small stone cairn or rock pile. This site functioned as a prehistoric American Indian ceremonial circle and is 

located on top of a high prominent butte in northern McCone County. This site is significant because it is one of 

only five medicine wheels recorded in the Northern Plains, and it is the only one known sit to be recorded on 

BLM-administered lands within the MCFO planning area.

Ethnographic overview studies completed for the MCFO have identified this site type to be of interest and 

concern to American Indians. This historic property is also protected under the National Historic Preservation 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-5

Act of 1966, American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act, Executive Order 13007 (May 24, 1996), and other statutes and executive orders. The 

Long Medicine Wheel site meets the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for ACEC 

designation.

WALSTEIN: 

Nominated for important cultural and paleontological values (2,054 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: This area meets relevance criterion 1 as part of “a natural process or system,” having produced a 

number of significant paleontological and cultural properties, including the Mill Iron Site. Fossils in this area

preserve a high-quality record of the end of the dinosaur age at the close of the Cretaceous Period, which is

relatively rare worldwide. The area has produced fossils for display and research, and field studies of 

depositional patterns and earth history have taken place within the area. The necessary combination of bedrock 

exposure of the proper age and quality preservation of fossils provides research and collecting opportunities that 

are rare for this geologic time period.

The area has a number of cultural sites that are considered significant and eligible for nomination to the NRHP. 

In addition, the area is eligible for allocation to conservation use through the development of a cultural resource 

management plan. This significance is derived from the number of Paleo-Indian age sites and these site’s

unique properties and potential to contribute to important scientific information regarding cultural traditions 

from the Paleo-Indian period.

Importance: The area meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. It possesses information that is regionally 

significant, fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable to vandalism and adverse change. Natural or 

human-caused changes could result in the loss of significant scientific data. In addition, the area warrants 

allocation to conservation use, carrying out the mandates of cultural resource protection within FLPMA and the 

cultural resource management planning system. It is important that buried deposits be preserved to be of 

maximum value to the scientific community.

The Walstein area has produced fossils and provided research data that has proven to be significant to the

national and global scientific communities. Comparison of fossils and other data collected in this area has 

provided scientists with insight about the end of the dinosaur age, such as the types of animals and plants 

present, the environment in which they lived, and the cause of the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous 

Period. The fossil material and information is fragile and needs to be researched in place. In addition, the 

resource is best served by public ownership of the land, which ensures access by the scientific community.

Summary: The Walstein area is 2,053 BLM-administered acres located in Carter County. The Hell Creek 

formation is significant for paleontological resources spanning the end of the Cretaceous Period. The outcrops 

of these beds are some of the few places in the world that preserve a continuous record just before the mass 

extinction of dinosaurs and other life forms). As a result of the quality bedrock exposure and the preservation of 

the fossils in this area, the Walstein area provides an example of this fossil record. A number of scientific 

papers have been written based on research done in this area, and several major finds have also been recovered 

from the area. Most notably, this area has produced new dinosaur fossil localities, such as a new Tyrannosaurus 

Rex for the Los Angeles County Museum. This area containing exposures of the Hell Creek and Fort Union 

formations have also produced other dinosaur vertebrate fossils as well as other vertebrate fossils, including 

turtle and crocodile remains. The area continues to provide information as new material weathers out of the 

rock.

The Walstein area also qualifies as an ACEC under both the relevance and importance criteria for the cultural 

values the area contains. The area contains the Mill Iron site (24CT30-Mill Iron site), which is a Goshen period 

Paleo-Indian site dating between the Folsom and Clovis periods, the oldest known, well-documented aged 

human occupations in the Americas. The Mill Iron site and others are determined eligible or are considered 

eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The area is significant for its prehistoric Paleo-Indian period sites. These 

sites represent the oldest known occupations in the western hemisphere and contain important information on 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-6

early prehistory of American Indians in the plains environment. The Walstein area meets both relevance and 

importance criteria. It is recommended for ACEC designation. 

POWDERVILLE:

Nominated for unique paleontological values (Alternative A: 29,571 acres; Alternatives B, C, and D: 27,151 

acres; and Alternative E: 9,518 acres; Map 47).

Relevance: This area meets relevance criteria 1, for “a natural process or system.” The Hell Creek Geologic 

formation and the associated fossils preserve a unique record of the end of the dinosaur age at the close of the 

Cretaceous Period, which is relatively rare worldwide. The area has produced fossils for display and research, 

and field studies of depositional patterns and earth history have occurred within the area. The necessary 

combination of bedrock exposure of the proper age and quality preservation of fossils provides research and 

collecting opportunities rare for this geological time period.

Importance: The Powderville area has produced fossils and provided research data that has proven to be 

significant to the national and global scientific communities. Comparison of fossils and other data collected here 

has provided scientists with insight about the end of the dinosaur age, such as the types of animals and plants 

present, the environment in which they lived, and the cause of the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous 

Period. This fossil material and information is fragile and needs to be researched in place. In addition, the 

resource is best served by public ownership of the land, thereby assuring access by the scientific community.

Summary: The Powderville area is located in Powder River and Carter counties. The Hell Creek formation is 

significant for paleontological resources spanning the end of the Cretaceous Period. The outcrops of these beds 

are some of the few places in the world that preserve a continuous record just before the mass extinction of 

dinosaurs and other life forms. As a result of the quality bedrock exposure and the preservation of the fossils in 

this area, the Powderville area provides an example of this fossil record. A number of scientific papers have 

been written based on research done in this area and several major finds have been recovered from this area. 

Most notably, this area has recently produced new dinosaur fossil localities, including the Jane site, a rare 

juvenile Tyrannosaurus Rex, also known as Nanotyranus, which was excavated by the Burpee Museum of 

Rockford, Illinois. The area has also produced many other numerous dinosaur vertebrate fossils, including 

Tyrannosaurus Rex, hadrosaur, Triceratops, and other vertebrate fossils that include fish, turtle, crocodile, 

champsosaur and mammal remains. The area continues to provide new and exciting information as new 

material weathers out of the exposed rock formations. 

POWERS-YONKEE:

Nominated for unique cultural resource values (40 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The Yonkee area meets the relevance criterion for having significant historic and cultural values. 

The cultural phase displayed at the Powers-Yonkee site is rare, the site is both sensitive to vandalism and 

erosion, and the site is the "type" site for the Yonkee cultural phase.

Importance: The Powers-Yonkee archeological site meets the importance criterion for possessing more than 

locally significant qualities. This site is regionally renowned and is the "type" site for the Yonkee cultural 

phase; consequently, the site possesses significant qualities that make it important and of interest to the region's 

archeological community. The site is considered eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The Powers-Yonkee site 

also meets the importance criterion for possessing values that are fragile, sensitive, fairly rare, irreplaceable, 

exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, and vulnerable to adverse change.

The site is situated along both sides of a downcutting arroyo, or drainage. In the process of downcutting, the 

cultural deposits were exposed and eroded. For years, the area has been a favorite spot for artifact collectors 

from the Sheridan, Wyoming, area and has been heavily “potted.” The site area continues to be susceptible to 

advanced rates of erosion and artifact collecting.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-7

Although the site is not “one of a kind,” all stratified bison kill sites are considered rare and each has its own 

unique properties. The site and the information it contains are unique and irreplaceable. The fact that it this is 

the "type" site for the Yonkee culture makes it an excellent example of Late Plains Archaic sites. The site is also 

threatened, endangered, and vulnerable to both erosion and the loss of the site's valuable information to artifact 

collectors.

The area is potentially threatened by mineral-related activities, such as oil, gas, and coal leasing and 

development, and cattle grazing. Although the area is subject to patent under the mining laws and possesses 

leasable qualities of coal and oil and gas, the area is not known to possess known commercial values of coal, 

hardrock, or oil and gas mineral resources. However, imminent development of these resources could endanger 

the area's values. The potential for this exists, and these threats should be reduced through planning decisions.

The area is presently used to graze cattle. The site sits within a grove of trees that attract cattle looking for shade 

in the summer. This causes the area to become overgrazed and accelerates erosion. The site is located in broken,

hilly terrain with moderate tree cover that limits the viewshed from the site. However, the integrity of the 

viewscape in the immediate vicinity of the site should be preserved, and it is recommended that the viewshed be 

maintained in as pristine a condition as possible.

A cultural resource management plan is proposed for development for this site. When completed, this plan will 

allocate the site to conservation use. BLM management objectives should involve the long-term conservation of 

this site for future generations to study and enjoy. Specific research questions could be formulated in order to 

study artifacts and records from the site, which could be used to demonstrate a number of prehistoric activities 

that were present or conducted at the site.

Summary: The Powers-Yonkee site is located within a 40-acre tract of BLM-administered surface estate and 

mineral estate (all minerals) in southwestern Powder River County, about 10 miles north of the Wyoming 

border, between Moorhead and Decker, Montana. 

The Powers-Yonkee Site, a bison kill site, is significant because it is among one of the first reported bison kill 

sites in the Northwestern Plains. It is also the “type” site for the Yonkee projectile point style and cultural 

phase. The Powers-Yonkee site, also known by its Smithsonian trinomial number 24PR5, was originally 

believed to be a Late Middle Prehistoric period site dating to about 2,500 years before the common era. As this 

site was the first of its cultural phase to be described, it became the "type" site for this phase. This arroyo trap 

bison kill contained skeletal remains of bison intermediate between Bison bison and Bison antiquus.

Archeological excavations were originally conducted in 1961, defining the Yonkee cultural phase. During the 

past decade, archeologists began to question seriously certain interpretations initiated in the original PowersYonkee report. In 1986, at the instigation of Jerry Clark, then BLM's Miles City District archeologist, the BLM 

entered into a cooperative agreement with Montana State University to perform additional assessments of the 

Powers-Yonkee site, which was conducted by Dr. Tom Roll of Montana State University. The assessment 

determined that most of the remaining deposits are located on BLM-administered lands and substantial portions 

of the site remain. Subsequent radiocarbon dates now suggest the site dates to about 1,000 years before the 

common era.

The site has contributed valuable information to the scientific community and has added significantly to the 

further understanding of the prehistory of the Northwestern Plains. The site also qualifies for inclusion on the 

NRHP. To date, only a portion of the site has been excavated, and substantial deposits remain available for 

future study. These studies may help resolve the many unanswered questions concerning the prehistory of the 

Northwestern Plains.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-8

EVALUATION OF RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE CRITERIA FOR 

PROPOSED GREATER SAGE-GROUSE AREA OF CRITICAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

In response to the Notice of Intent to Prepare Environmental Impact Statements To Incorporate Greater Sagegrouse Conservation Measures Into Land Use Plans and Land Management Plans (BLM 2011e), the BLM 

received an ACEC nomination for greater sage-grouse from WildEarth Guardians that will be considered in this 

planning process. 

This report presents the completed evaluation form for the nominated ACEC in the planning area (Table 1). An

ACEC that meets both relevance and importance criteria are included in at least one management alternative 

analyzed in this RMP. Map 4 identifies the locations of the nominated ACEC.

Area Considered and General Location: Portions of Garfield, McCone, Custer, Carter, Powder River, Big 

Horn, Rosebud, and Treasure counties (Map 4)

General Description: Priority habitat areas for greater sage-grouse

Acreage: 1,067,000 BLM-administered surface acres

Values Considered: Greater sage-grouse habitat

EXISTING ACECs

There are 16 ACECs already designated within the planning area (BLM 1994b and 1999a). One of the 16 

ACECs (Howrey Island) no longer has the values that made it relevant, so it is recommended for nondesignation in this RMP. The values that make the remaining 15 areas ACECs have not changed, and they are 

carried forward as ACECs in the RMP (see Chapter 2, Special Designation Areas.)

HOWREY ISLAND: 

Originally designated for special wildlife values.

Relevance: Howrey Island does not meet any of the relevance criteria. When originally designated, the area met 

criterion 2 for providing habitat for a threatened species, the bald eagle. The bald eagle has been delisted and is 

no longer a threatened species.

Importance: Howrey Island meets importance criterion 2. The island has qualities and values that make it 

fragile, sensitive, and unique.

Summary: Howrey Island is approximately 592 public surface acres located in Treasure County. Because this 

area meets the importance criteria but not the relevance criteria, Howrey Island is not recommended for 

continued ACEC designation. (Note: this area is considered for special recreation management area designation 

in the RMP; Map 82).

BATTLE BUTTE BATTLEFIELD ACEC: 

Designated for unique historic values (Alternative A, 121 acres; Alternatives B through D, 237 acres; and 

Alternative E, 320 acres; Map 88).

Relevance: Battle Butte Battlefield meets relevance criterion 1. This significant site is 1 of 12 battlefields of the 

Sioux War. This site is of major interest to both national historians and history enthusiasts as well as the 

American Indian cultures of the Sioux, Crow, and Cheyenne Tribes.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-9

TABLE 1.

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANCE EVALUATION

Relevance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

A significant historic, 

cultural, or scenic value No

No significant historic or cultural values are known. Scenic values are 

moderate, but are similar to those of many other areas in the planning area.

A fish and wildlife 

resource

Yes

The nomination meets the relevance criterion for wildlife resources. The 

nominated area provides habitat for greater sage-grouse (1,067,000 BLMadministered surface acres), a BLM sensitive species, and the area has also 

been identified as a core area by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP).

A natural process or 

system

Yes

The nomination also meets the criterion for a natural system or process 

because of the condition of the sagebrush habitat in the nomination area.

Natural hazards No No natural hazards are known.

Importance Value Yes/No Rationale for Determination

More than locally 

significant qualities

No

Although the area contains habitat for greater sage-grouse conservation as 

noted in the nomination material, the area is not significantly unique or more 

important than other habitat areas in this region. Greater sage-grouse are 

distributed throughout the western United States (Figure 1). The portion of 

the distribution in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alberta, 

and Saskatchewan are designated as Management Zone I (Stiver et al. 2006)

(Figure 2). Management zones are delineations of greater sage-grouse 

populations and subpopulations within floristic zones with similar 

management issues. Within Management Zone I in Montana, MFWP

designated core areas (MFWP 2012) and Wyoming Game and Fish 

designated core areas in Wyoming (WDFG 2010b) (Figures 3 and 4). In 

addition, Montana Audubon has also designated five important bird areas for 

sage-steppe associated birds, including greater sage-grouse, in Montana, most 

of which are contained within the MFWP core areas (Figure 5). While all of 

these areas are considered important to greater sage-grouse conservation, the 

areas are dispersed throughout the region and are not significantly unique to a 

specific region or planning unit. In addition, greater sage-grouse habitat in 

these core areas is owned by a number of different entities and habitat on 

BLM-administered lands is not distinct from habitat managed by other 

ownerships.

Special qualities

No

The area is not particularly fragile or sensitive to change as compared to other 

sites in Montana.

Warrants national 

priority or FLPMA 

protection

Yes

Satisfies national priority concerns. 

Safety or public welfare 

concerns

No

No safety or public welfare concerns are known.

Poses a significant threat No No significant threats.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-10

FIGURE 1.

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE DISTRIBUTION

Source: Stiver et al. 2006

FIGURE 2.

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Stiver et al. 2006
SPE-11

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

FIGURE 3.

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CORE AREAS IN MONTANA

Source: MFWP 2012

Sage-grouse core areas are habitats associated with Montana’s highest densities of sage-grouse (25 percent quartile), based on male counts, or sage-grouse lek complexes and associated 

habitat important to sage-grouse distribution (MFWP 2012).
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-12

FIGURE 4.

GREATER SAGE-GROUSE CORE AREAS IN WYOMING

Source: WDFG 2010c
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-13

FIGURE 5.

IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS IN MONTANA

Source: Montana Audubon 2012

Importance: Battle Butte Battlefield meets relevance criteria 1, 2, and 3. The site is part of a battle directly 

associated with Crazy Horse, one of the Sioux’s main leaders. Battle Butte Battlefield contains irreplaceable 

information and is vulnerable to adverse change. The site is an exemplary example of Sioux War battle sites and 

possesses values that warrant protection as mandated by FLPMA.

Summary: The Battle Butte Battlefield is located in Rosebud County. It meets both the relevance and 

importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC designation. Battle Butte, or the Wolf Mountains 

Battle, was fought in January 8, 1877, in a blinding blizzard. Led by army scout Yellowstone Kelly, Colonel 

Nelson Miles commanded a force of 436 men composing seven companies of the 5th and 22nd infantries. They 

marched from the Tongue River Cantonment south along the Tongue River in search of American Indian winter 

villages. After 10 days march up the river, Miles’ command encountered warriors from Crazy Horse’s winter 

camp, which consisted of 1,200 inhabitants located south of Birney, Montana. The Sioux attacked west of the 

Tongue River and then occupied the high ground, firing down into the U.S. soldiers’ positions. Miles ordered 

his men to attack uphill to take command of the high ground. Once Miles’ men were able to hold the high 

ground, the Sioux’s advantage was lost. Low on ammunition, the Sioux retreated upstream. In the ensuing 

blizzard, the Sioux were able to escape up the Tongue River. Both sides suffered casualties.

REYNOLDS BATTLEFIELD ACEC: 

Designated for significant historic values (Alternative A: 324 acres and Alternatives B through E: 922 acres; 

Map 88).

Relevance: Reynolds Battlefield meets relevance criterion 1. This significant site from the Sioux War and 

associated sites are of major interest to both national historians and history buffs as well as the American Indian

cultures of the Sioux, Crow, and Cheyenne. 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-14

Importance: Reynolds Battlefield meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. The area is an exemplary example of 

Sioux War battle sites. The battlefield is rare, 1 of only 12, with this the first of the major battles. The Reynolds 

Battlefield possesses values that warrant protection as mandated by the FLPMA. 

Summary: The Reynolds Battlefield is located in Custer County. It is the first engagement of 12 major battles of 

the Sioux War of 1876 to 1877. The Big Horn Expedition left Fort Fetterman, Wyoming, in mid-February and 

endured almost continual harsh winter weather with sub-zero temperatures. Marching north up the Powder 

River drainage, they crossed into Montana near Decker and proceeded down the Tongue River to Hanging 

Woman Creek. There, Crook ordered Colonel Joseph J. Reynolds, 3rd Cavalry, with six companies of the 2nd

and 3rd Cavalry to attack the only village they had found thus far, a village to the east on the Powder River. 

Reynolds attacked the village at dawn on March 17, 1876. In the early morning battle, the troops captured the 

village, burning all of the camp tepees. Most of the camp inhabitants were able to escape. Some 800 ponies 

were also captured. The village retaliated by firing down into the army positions from a high bluff to the west. 

The troops withdrew under heavy fire. Their hasty withdrawal, ordered by Reynolds, resulted in four army dead 

left in the field. Later that night, the village recaptured their horse herd. Crook was enraged by these events and 

ordered Reynolds court-martialed. One damaging aspect of this battle was the fact that the village was not 

Sitting Bull's Sioux camp, as originally thought, but a Cheyenne camp on their way back to the reservation. This 

unprovoked attack on a peaceable village turned the Cheyenne against the United States government. The 

Cheyenne sided with the Sioux and participated in most of the subsequent phases of the war. 

Reynolds Battlefield meets the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC 

designation.

BIG SHEEP MOUNTAIN ACEC: 

Designated for unique cultural values (363 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The site meets relevance criterion 1 as a significant cultural resource property. The significance is 

derived from the site’s unique properties and potential to contribute important scientific information on nearly 

the full range of cultural traditions from the Paleo-Indian period to the Late Plains Archaic period.

Importance: The site meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. It possesses information that is regionally

significant, fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable to vandalism and adverse change. Natural or

human-caused changes could result in the loss of significant scientific data. In addition, the site warrants 

allocation to conservation use, carrying out the mandates of cultural resource protection within FLPMA and the 

cultural resource management planning system. Special management attention is needed to preserve the buried 

deposits for maximum value to the scientific community.

Summary: The site (24PE210) meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for 

continued ACEC designation. The site is located in Prairie County and measures 360 acres in size. It is 

considered eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The site is considered significant for its span of cultural

periods over some 10,000 years. The site contains important information on prehistory and history of the 

American Indian in the plains environment. A cultural resource management plan proposed for the site will take 

the place of an ACEC activity plan. The cultural resource management plan will allocate the site to conservation 

use. BLM management objectives should involve the long-term conservation of this site for future generations 

to study and enjoy. Specific research questions could be formulated in order to study artifacts and records from 

the site, which could be used to demonstrate a number of prehistoric activities that were present or conducted at 

the site.

HOE ACEC: 

Designated for unique cultural values (147 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The site meets relevance criterion 1 as a significant cultural resource property. The significance is 

derived from the site’s unique properties and its potential to contribute important scientific information 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-15

regarding possible agricultural traditions from the Late Prehistoric period that relate to the Middle Missouri 

tradition.

Importance: The site meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. It possesses information that is regionally

significant, fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable to vandalism and adverse change. Natural or

human-caused changes could result in the loss of significant scientific data. In addition, the site warrants 

allocation to conservation use, carrying out the mandates of cultural resource protection within FLPMA and the 

cultural resource management planning system. It is important that buried deposits be preserved to be of

maximum value to the scientific community. The need for preservation necessitates special management 

attention.

Summary: The site (24PE263) meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for 

continued ACEC designation. Located in Prairie County, the site measures 144 acres in size and has been 

determined eligible for nomination to the NRHP. It is significant for late prehistoric agricultural subsistence 

strategies and an associated habitation site. The site represents the westernmost findings of possible agricultural 

practices of the middle Missouri tradition. It contains important information on prehistory of the American 

Indian in the plains environment. A cultural resource plan will be developed and take the place of an ACEC

activity plan and allocate the site to conservation use. BLM management objectives should involve the longterm conservation of the site for future generations to study and enjoy. Specific research questions could be 

formulated in order to study artifacts and records from the site, which could be used to demonstrate a number of 

prehistoric activities that were present or conducted at the site.

JORDAN BISON KILL ACEC:

Designated for unique cultural values (160 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The site meets relevance criterion 1 as a significant cultural resource property. The significance is 

derived from the site’s unique properties and potential to contribute important scientific information on bison 

procurement and subsistence strategies from the Late Prehistoric period.

Importance: The site meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. The site possesses information that is regionally 

significant, fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable to vandalism and adverse change. Natural or 

human-caused changes could result in the loss of the site’s significant scientific data. In addition, the site 

warrants allocation to conservation use, carrying out the mandates of cultural resource protection within

FLPMA and the cultural resource management planning system. Special management attention is needed to 

preserve the site’s buried deposits, for maximum value to the scientific community.

Summary: The site (24GF271) meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for 

continued ACEC designation. Located in Garfield County, the 160-acre site is considered eligible for 

nomination to the NRHP. It is significant for Late Prehistoric period bison kill procurement and subsistence

strategies and associated habitation and processing site. The site contains important information on prehistory of 

the American Indian in the plains environment. The site has a cultural resource management plan that will be

updated and take the place of an ACEC activity plan. The site is allocated to scientific use but will be 

reallocated to conservation use. BLM management objectives should involve the long-term conservation of the

site for future generations to study and enjoy. Specific research questions could be formulated in order to study 

artifacts and records from the site, which could be used to demonstrate a number of prehistoric activities that 

were present or conducted at the site.

POWDER RIVER DEPOT ACEC: 

Designated for unique cultural values (1,401 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The site meets relevance criterion 1 as a significant cultural resource property. The site has 

important scientific information on the historic use of the area by the late 19th century military. The 

archeological findings can be compared with written records.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-16

Importance: The site meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. The site possesses information that is both regionally 

and nationally significant. The site is fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable to adverse change, 

vandalism, and unauthorized metal-detector use. Natural or human-caused changes could result in the loss of 

the significant scientific data. In addition, the site warrants allocation to conservation use, which would carry

out the mandates of cultural resource protection within FLPMA and the cultural resource management planning 

system. Special management attention is needed to study the historic information at the site, which necessitates 

preservation of buried deposits for maximum benefits to the scientific community.

Summary: The site meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC 

designation. The site (24PE231) is 1,386 acres in size and has been determined eligible for nomination to the 

NRHP. The area includes Sheridan Butte located along the Yellowstone River, where historic graffiti dating to 

the Indian War period is on the butte’s rock outcrops. The Powder River Depot was the location of General 

Terry’s supply depot that supplied General Custer’s troops before they headed to the Little Big Horn River. It 

was the main supply depot for the armies that pursued the fleeing Sioux and Cheyenne Tribes throughout the 

summer of 1876. The site contains a wealth of archeological information on the encampment and the everyday 

life of the soldiers of that period. The numerous buried metallic artifacts are subject to looting and vandalism 

through unauthorized use of metal detectors. A cultural resource management plan will take the place of an 

ACEC activity plan. The cultural resource management plan will allocate the site to conservation use. BLM 

management objectives should involve the long-term conservation of this site for future generations to study 

and enjoy. Specific research questions could be formulated in order to study artifacts and records from the site, 

which could be used to demonstrate a number of prehistoric activities that were present or conducted at the site.

SELINE ACEC: 

Designated for unique cultural values (80 BLM-administered acres; Map 88).

Relevance: The site meets relevance criterion 1 because it is a significant cultural resource property. The

significance is derived from the site’s unique properties and information potential that can contribute important

scientific information on cultural traditions from the middle prehistoric period.

Importance: The site meets importance criteria 1, 2, and 3. It possesses information that is regionally

significant, fragile, sensitive, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable to vandalism and adverse change. Natural or

human-caused changes could result in the loss of significant scientific data. In addition, the site warrants 

allocation to conservation use, carrying out the mandates of cultural resource protection within FLPMA, and the 

cultural resource management planning system. Special management attention is needed to preserve the site’s 

buried deposits to provide information to the scientific community.

Summary: The site (24DW250) meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for 

continued ACEC designation. Located in Dawson County, the site measures some 80 acres in size and is 

considered eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The site possesses important information on prehistory of the 

American Indian in the plains environment. The cultural resource management plan for the area, when updated,

will take the place of an ACEC activity plan. The plan will allocate the site to conservation use. BLM 

management objectives should involve the long-term conservation of this site for future generations to study 

and enjoy. Specific research questions could be formulated in order to study artifacts and records from the site, 

which could be used to demonstrate a number of prehistoric activities that were present or conducted at the site.

SMOKY BUTTE ACEC: 

Designated for unique geological values (80 BLM-administered acres; Map 92).

Relevance: Smoky Butte is a 250-foot high prominence located about eight miles west of Jordan in Garfield

County. The Smoky Butte area meets relevance criteria 1 and 3. The area has regionally significant scenic

values. It is a landmark feature that can be seen for miles; a striking contrast to the surrounding rolling plains. It 

was used by early day travelers as a guide when traveling through the area. Pioneers traveling the “Green Trail” 

west to Lewistown, Montana, could see Smoky Butte for a considerable distance (BLM 1995). It is considered
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-17

to possess significant local and regional scenic and historic values. The rocks that are present at Smoky Butte 

consist of a rare mineral assemblage. 

The area is an excellent example of the geologic process of igneous intrusion. Smoky Butte is located in the 

middle of a 2-mile long line of narrow igneous intrusive dikes and plug-like features. These igneous intrusives 

form a narrow, linear group of low buttes and knobs, oriented northeast to southwest, that rise out of the 

otherwise rolling prairie. The igneous rocks were intruded into the flat-lying sedimentary rocks of the Paleocene 

Fort Union formation and Late Cretaceous Hell Creek sandstones and were emplaced along the axis (obliquely) 

of the Blood Creek Syncline (Mitchell, Platt, and Downey 1987). The intrusive igneous rocks at Smoky Butte 

are hard and resist erosion, as do the adjacent sedimentary rocks, which were slightly baked and hardened by 

the hot igneous intrusive. This hardness “holds up” the buttes by providing more resistance to erosion than the 

surrounding sedimentary rocks. Although Smoky Butte is an interesting example of igneous intrusion and many 

geologic features associated with such an event are present there, the primary importance of the butte lies in the 

unique mineral assemblage of the igneous rocks.

The igneous rocks at Smoky Butte have been categorized as a lamproite, which is a type of volcanic or 

hypabyssal igneous rock. Matson (1960) noted that one of the most striking features of the intrusive rock 

complex was rocks that were high in potassium and titanium and similar to rocks found at West Kimberly, 

Australia, and the Leucite Hills of Wyoming. Matson (1960) and Velde (1975) observed that the igneous rock is 

a mixture of minerals. Velde (1975) further classified it as an armalcolite-ti-phlogopite-iopside-analcite-bearing

lamproite. Velde’s analysis revealed that the Smoky Butte lamproite contains a rare mineral called armalcolite, 

a mineral found in samples of rock from the moon (1975). Velde (1975) reported that the armalcolite at Smoky

Butte has the closest composition to the lunar armalcolite of any known terrestrial rocks. In addition, Wagner 

and Velde (1986) discovered that the mineral davanite, an alkali titanosilicate mineral found in Siberia, is also 

present in the Smoky Butte lamproite. Smoky Butte contains a rare mineralogic assemblage and is an excellent 

example of the geologic process of igneous intrusion.

Importance: Smoky Butte meets importance criteria 1 and 2. Smoky Butte has more than locally significant

qualities that give it special worth, consequence, and meaning. Scientists from the United States, Canada, and 

France have studied the special geologic features present in this area. The Smoky Butte area has been the 

subject of an M.S. thesis study, and a study published by the USGS. It has been reported in scientific trade 

journals, such as American Mineralogist, Journal of Petrology, and Earth and Planetary Science Letters. Smoky 

Butte is discussed in Mitchell and Bergman’s Petrology of Lamproites (1991), published by Plenum Press, and

Alt and Hyndmans’ Roadside Geology of Montana (1986), published by Mountain Press Publishing Company. 

The area was also the subject of a special July 1989 field trip of the 28th International Geological Congress, 

which was studying the Montana High Potassium Igneous Province. 

Information gleaned from these rocks has been used to draw conclusions and advance theories about the origin 

of the rocks and the composition and geotectonics of the mantle of the earth. Scientists believe that the source 

material for the lamproite at Smoky Butte is derived from the earth’s mantle; because the crust has been 

estimated to be about 45 kilometers thick in this area (Velde 1975), this conclusion would mean the material 

originated deep in the earth’s crust.

The Smoky Butte lamproite is also unique because it is the easternmost known intrusive feature in Montana. 

The nearest intrusive rocks to Smoky Butte occur 55 to 60 miles to the southwest, on Porcupine Dome and near 

Ingomar Dome (Matson 1960). Smoky Butte is also the youngest, dated at 27 million years (Oligocene), and 

taken together with the Missouri Breaks diatremes, may represent the last phases of igneous activity in the 

north-central Montana alkalic province (Marvin, Hearn, Mehnert, Naeser, Zartman, and Lindsey 1980). Smoky 

Butte would be vulnerable to damage from exploration and mining activities carried out under a locatable

mineral entry (mining claim). Smoky Butte was quarried many years ago for riprap to face a nearby dam. The

present quarry site is small and actually provides an excellent exposure of the rocks that compose Smoky Butte.

However, further mining activity would not improve viewing or enhance research and would only serve to 

destroy the surface exposure of this rare geologic feature.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-18

Summary: Smoky Butte is 80 acres in size and is located in Garfield County. It meets both the relevance and 

importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC designation. Smoky Butte contains public land 

with a variety of unique values and needs protection and special management attention.

FINGER BUTTES ACEC: 

Designated for scenery (1,520 BLM-administered acres; Map 90).

Relevance: Finger Buttes meets relevance criteria 1 and 2. The area represents more than badlands topography, 

a rather typical topographic type for southeastern Montana. Finger Buttes has scenic qualities of color, line, and 

form consisting of bare sandstone pinnacle topography that is outlined on the horizon, creating an interesting 

view. These scenic values are unique and do not exist elsewhere in the local or regional area.

Importance: Finger Buttes meets importance criteria 1 and 2. The area consists of a series of pipestem and 

tower sandstone outcrops not found elsewhere in the area. The Finger Buttes area is fragile, irreplaceable, and 

vulnerable to adverse change.

Summary: Finger Buttes meets both relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC 

designation. It is approximately 1,520 public surface acres located in Carter County. There is no legal access 

into the area, which consists of tall, slim, smokestack-like tan and gray sandstone monuments, towers, and 

prominences. These buttes are formed in the Arikaree formation, a formation that appears in southeastern 

Montana. The area possesses outstanding scenery.

ASH CREEK DIVIDE ACEC: 

Designated for paleontological values (7,921 BLM-administered acres; Map 42).

Relevance: The area meets relevance criterion 3, “a natural process or system.” The Hell Creek geologic 

formation and associated fossils preserve a record of the end of the dinosaur age at the close of the Cretaceous 

Period. The area preserves a high-quality record of this period, which is relatively rare worldwide. The area has 

produced fossils for display and research, and field studies of depositional patterns and earth history have

occurred within the area. The necessary combination of bedrock exposure of the proper age and quality 

preservation of fossils provides research and collecting opportunities rare for this geological time period.

Importance: The Ash Creek Divide area meets importance criteria 1 and 2. It has produced fossils and provided 

research data that has proven to be significant to the scientific community within the United States as well as 

worldwide. Comparison of fossils and other data collected here has provided scientists with insight about the 

end of the dinosaur age, such as the types of animals and plants present, the environment in which they lived, 

and the cause of the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous Period. The fossil material and information is

fragile and needs to be researched in place. In addition, the resource is best served by public ownership of the 

land, which would ensure access for the scientific community.

Summary: Ash Creek Divide meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for 

continued ACEC designation. The Hell Creek formation is significant for paleontological resources spanning 

the end of the Cretaceous Period. The outcrops of these beds are some of the few places in the world that 

preserve a continuous record just before the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and other life forms. The Ash 

Creek Divide area is an example of this record, owing to the good exposures of the bedrock and the preservation 

of the fossils. As a result of the quality bedrock exposure and the preservation of the fossils in this area, the Ash 

Creek Divide area provides an example of this fossil record. Several scientific papers have been written based 

on research done in this area. The area will continue to provide information as new material weathers out of the 

rock.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-19

BUG CREEK ACEC: 

Designated for paleontological values (3,837 BLM-administered acres; Map 43).

Relevance: The area meets relevance criterion 3, a “natural process or system.” The geologic formations and the 

associated fossils are a rare example of a continuous record of the end of the dinosaur age (Cretaceous Period) 

and the beginning of the age of the mammals during the Tertiary Period. The area preserves one of the best 

records of this period. The area has produced fossils for display and research. Field studies of depositional 

patterns and earth history have taken place within the area. The necessary combination of bedrock exposures of 

the proper age and quality preservation of fossils provides research and collecting opportunities rare for this 

geological time period.

Importance: The Bug Creek area meets importance criteria 1 and 2. It has produced fossils and provided 

research data that has proven to be highly significant to the national and global scientific communities. 

Comparison of fossils and other data collected here has given scientists insight about the end of the dinosaur age 

and the start of the mammal age, such as the types of animals and plants present, the environment in which they 

lived, and the cause and effects of the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous Period. The fossil material 

and information is fragile and needs to be researched in place. Special management attention is needed to afford 

proper protection. In addition, the resource is best served by public ownership of the land, thereby assuring 

access to the scientific community.

Summary: Bug Creek meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued 

ACEC designation. The Hell Creek formation and the overlying Tullock member of the Fort Union formation

are significant for paleontological resources spanning the time from the late Cretaceous Period to the early 

Tertiary Period. The outcrops of these beds are some of the few places in the world that preserve a continuous 

record before, during, and after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and other life forms. As a result of the 

extensive exposures of the bedrock and the preservation of the fossils, the Bug Creek area is one of the best and 

most studied examples of this record. Many scientific papers have been written based on research from this 

area. The area will continue to provide information as new material weathers out of the rock. Protection of the 

area is important to preserve the paleontological values in this significant area. 

HELL CREEK ACEC:

Designated for paleontological values and the Hell Creek National Natural Landmark (NNL) (19,373 BLMadministered acres; Map 44).

Relevance: The area meets relevance criterion 3, a “natural process or system.” The geologic formations and the 

associated fossils are a rare example of a continuous record of the end of the dinosaur age at the close of the 

Cretaceous Period and the subsequent beginning of the age of the mammals during the start of the Tertiary 

Period. The area preserves one of the best records of this period. The area has produced fossils for display and 

research. Field studies of depositional patterns and earth history have occurred within the area. The necessary

combination of bedrock exposure of the proper age and quality preservation of fossils provides research and 

collecting opportunities rare for this geological time period.

Importance: The Hell Creek area meets importance criteria 1 and 2. It has produced fossils and provided 

research data that has proven to be highly significant to the national and global scientific communities. 

Comparison of fossils and other data collected here has given scientists insight about the end of the dinosaur age 

and the start of the mammal age, such as the types of animals and plants present, the environment in which they 

lived, and the cause and effects of the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous Period. The fossil material 

and information is fragile and needs to be researched in place. Special management attention is needed to afford 

proper protection. In addition, the resource is best served by public ownership of the land, which would ensure 

access for the scientific community.

Summary: Hell Creek meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued 

ACEC designation. The Hell Creek formation and the overlying Tullock member of the Fort Union formation

are significant for their paleontological resources spanning the time from the late Cretaceous Period to the early 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-20

Tertiary Period. The outcrops of these beds are some of the few places in the world that preserve a continuous 

record before, during, and after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and other life forms. As a result of the 

extensive exposures of the bedrock and the preservation of the fossils, the Hell Creek area is probably the best 

and most studied example of this record. The area has provided museums with displays of dinosaurs and 

scientific papers based on research from this area. Approximately one-half of the Hell Creek NNL is included 

within the boundaries of this area. The area will continue to provide information as new material weathers out 

of the rock. Protection of the area is important to preserve the paleontological values in this significant area.

SAND ARROYO ACEC: 

Designated for paleontological values (9,052 BLM-administered acres; Map 45).

Relevance: The area meets relevance criterion 3, a “natural process or system.” The geologic formations and the 

associated fossils are a rare example of a continuous record of the end of the dinosaur age at the close of the 

Cretaceous Period and the subsequent beginning of the age of the mammals during the start of the Tertiary 

Period. The area preserves a good record of this period and is relatively rare worldwide. The area has produced 

fossils for display and research. Field studies of depositional patterns and earth history have occurred within the 

area. The necessary combination of bedrock exposure of the proper age and good preservation of fossils 

provides research and collecting opportunities rare for this geological period.

Importance: The Sand Arroyo area meets importance criteria 1 and 2. It has produced fossils and provided 

research data that has proven to be highly significant to the national and global scientific communities. 

Comparison of fossils and other data collected here has given scientists insight about the end of the dinosaur age 

and the start of the mammal age, such as the types of animals and plants present, the environment in which they 

lived, and the cause and effects of the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous Period. This fossil material 

and information is fragile and needs to be researched in place. Special management attention is needed to afford 

proper protection. In addition, the resource is best served by public ownership of the land, which would ensure 

access for the scientific community.

Summary: Sand Arroyo meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued 

ACEC designation. The Hell Creek formation and the overlying Tullock member of the Fort Union formation

are significant for their paleontological resources spanning the late Cretaceous Period to the early Tertiary 

Period. The outcrops of these beds are some of the few places in the world that preserve a continuous record 

before, during, and after the mass extinction of the dinosaurs and other forms of life. The Sand Arroyo area is a 

good example of this record, owing to the extensive exposures of the bedrock and the preservation of the fossils. 

A number of scientific papers have been written based on research done in this area. The area will continue to 

provide information as new material weathers out of the rock. Protection of the area is important to preserve the 

significant paleontological values.

BLACK-FOOTED FERRET REINTRODUCTION ACEC: 

Designated for its potential as a black-footed ferret reintroduction area as well as habitat for associated wildlife

species (11,221 BLM-administered acres; Map 89).

Relevance: The area meets relevance criterion 2 because it is habitat for an endangered species, the black-footed 

ferret. Prairie dog complexes of 1,000 acres or more are potential habitat for the black-footed ferret. The area is 

considered a potential reintroduction area for the black-footed ferret because it has 455 public acres of active 

prairie dog towns within the current ACEC boundary and an additional 2,178 acres of active prairie dog towns 

located on private and public lands in close proximity to the ACEC. Additionally, the prairie dog complexes

provide habitat for associated species.

Importance: The area meets importance criterion 1 for having more than locally significant qualities. Habitat for 

the black-footed ferret is rare, significant, and valuable. The area derives its importance from its national 

significance for potential black-footed ferret reintroduction. The area warrants protection under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA) and FLPMA 1976 guidelines. In addition, prairie dog towns provide habitat for over 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-21

30 associated wildlife species, including the burrowing owl (a species of special interest), swift fox (a category 

2 species), and the mountain plover (a category 1 species).

Summary: The area meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC 

designation. The black-footed ferret is an endangered species dependent on prairie dog colonies. Black-footed 

ferrets have been released in approximately 16 locations throughout the United States with limited success of 

establishing wild populations. In order for the black-footed ferret to recover, it will be necessary to establish 10

separate self-sustaining colonies, and all potential reintroduction areas are nationally important. One possible

reintroduction site is the Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC located in Prairie and Custer counties 

(Custer Creek site). The area lies west of Terry and is generally composed of the Hunter and Custer Creek 

drainages north of the Yellowstone River. The area was chosen because it has 455 public acres of prairie dog

colonies within the ACEC boundary and is adjacent to an additional 2,178 acres of active prairie dog colonies 

on private and BLM-administered lands.

PIPING PLOVER ACEC: 

Designated for a piping plover nesting area (15 BLM-administered acres; Map 91).

Relevance: The area is habitat for a threatened species and so meets the relevance criteria.

Importance: The area meets all of the importance criteria. Habitat for the piping plover has substantial 

significance and value because the area is of regional significance (due to the presence of a threatened species); 

saline wetlands are somewhat rare because they are fragile, sensitive, unique, and vulnerable to adverse change; 

and inhabitancy by a threatened species warrants protection under the ESA, as amended ,and complies with 

FLPMA guidelines.

Summary: The area meets both the relevance and importance criteria and is recommended for continued ACEC 

designation. The piping plover is a threatened species associated with saline wetland, typical of northeastern 

Montana. This species is protected because the ESA, as amended, classifies it as a threatened species. One

parcel of BLM-administered land located in Sheridan County is known to contain nesting piping plovers. This 

parcel of BLM-administered land is 15.51 acres in size and borders a saline wetland near the town of Westby.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

The following is a record of the wild and scenic river evaluation conducted concurrently with this RMP. This 

report documents the BLM’s examination of planning areas river segments as they relate to eligibility, 

suitability, and classification criteria in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS).

INTRODUCTION

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), directs federal 

agencies to consider potential wild and scenic rivers in their land and water planning processes:

“In all planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given 

by all Federal agencies involved to potential national wild, scenic and recreational river areas...” 

WHAT IS A WILD AND SCENIC RIVER?

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to provide a national policy for preserving and protecting 

selected rivers and river segments in their free-flowing condition for the benefit and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides criteria that must be considered during the 

analysis. As per the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, eligibility for inclusion in the NWSRS requires a river or river 

segment that is free flowing, within its immediate environment, and which contains one or more outstandingly 

remarkable values.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-22

Free flowing is defined in Section 16(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as:

"...existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other 

modification of the waterway. The existence, however, of low dams, diversion works, and other minor 

structures at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the national wild and scenic river system shall not 

automatically bar its consideration for such inclusion..."

The term "outstandingly remarkable" is not clearly defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Generally, 

outstandingly remarkable means something that is more than ordinary when considered within a regional 

(planning-area wide) context. In order for the river to be considered eligible in this study, the outstandingly 

remarkable value or values must occur on BLM-administered public lands within 0.25 miles of the river. 

Outstandingly remarkable values consist of the elements described below.

Scenic: the landscape elements of landform, vegetation, water, color, and related factors must result in notable 

or exemplary visual features or attractions within the geographic region. As per the BLM Visual Resource 

Inventory Handbook, H-8410-1, which may be used in assessing visual quality and evaluating the extent of 

development upon scenic values, the rating area must be scenic quality “A”. When analyzing scenic values, 

additional factors such as seasonal variations in vegetation, scale of cultural modifications, and length of time 

negative intrusions are viewed may be considered. Scenery and visual attractions may be highly diverse over 

the majority of the river segment length and not common to other rivers in the geographic region.

Recreational: recreational opportunities are, or have the potential to be, unusual enough to attract visitors to the 

geographic region. Visitors are willing to travel long distances to use the river resources for recreational 

purposes. Recreation-related opportunities could include, but are not limited to, sightseeing, wildlife 

observation, camping, photography, hiking, fishing, hunting, and boating. Interpretive opportunities may be 

exceptional and attract or have the potential to attract visitors from outside the geographic area. The river may 

provide, or have the potential to provide, settings for national or regional commercial usage or competitive 

events. In addition, the river may be eligible if it is determined to provide a critically important regional 

recreation opportunity or be a significant component of a regional recreation opportunity spectrum setting.

Geologic: the river or the area within the river corridor contains an example or examples of a geologic feature, 

process, or phenomenon that is rare, unusual, or unique to the geographic region. The features may be in an 

unusually active stage of development, represent a textbook example, or represent a unique or rare combination 

of geologic features (erosional, volcanic, glacial, and other geologic structures).

Fish: fish values may be judged on the relative merits of either fish populations or habitat or a combination of 

these river-related conditions.

Populations: the river is nationally or regionally one of the top producers of resident, indigenous, or anadromous 

fish species. Of particular significance may be the presence of wild or unique stocks or populations of state, 

federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species.

Habitat: the river provides exceptionally high quality habitat for fish species indigenous to the region. Of 

particular significance is habitat for state, federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species.

Wildlife: wildlife values may be judged on the relative merits of either wildlife populations or habitat or a 

combination of these conditions.

Populations: the river or area within the river corridor contains nationally or regionally important populations of 

resident or indigenous wildlife species dependent on the river environment. Of particular significance may be 

species considered unique or populations of state, federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered 

species.

Habitat: the river or area within the river corridor provides exceptionally high quality habitat for wildlife of 

national or regional significance or may provide unique habitat or a critical link in habitat conditions for state, 

federally listed, or candidate threatened and endangered species. Contiguous habitat conditions are such that the 

biological needs of the species are met.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-23

Cultural: the river or area within the river corridor contains a site or sites where there is evidence of occupation 

or use by American Indians. Sites must be rare, have unusual characteristics, or exceptional human-interest 

values. Sites may have national or regional importance for interpreting prehistory; may be rare; may represent 

an area where culture or cultural period was first identified and described; may have been used concurrently by 

two or more cultural groups; or may have been used by cultural groups for rare or sacred purposes.

Historic: the river or area within the corridor contains a site or feature associated with a significant event, an 

important person, or a cultural activity of the past that was rare or unusual in the region. A historic site or 

feature in most cases is 50 years old or older. Sites or features listed in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP

may be of particular significance.

Other Similar Values: while no specific evaluation guidelines have been developed for the other similar values 

category, additional values deemed relevant to the eligibility of the river segment should be considered in a 

manner consistent with the previous guidance, which would include, but would not be limited to, hydrologic, 

ecologic or biologic diversity, paleontologic, botanic, and scientific values.

No rivers in the planning area are currently managed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

EVALUATION PROCESS AND RESULTS

The wild and scenic river study process comprises two main components: the inventory phase and the study 

phase. The inventory phase includes identifying eligible river and stream segments, assigning tentative 

classification (wild, scenic, or recreational), and describing protective management for the eligible segments. 

The study phase includes determining the suitability of eligible segments for inclusion in the NWSRS and 

describing interim management measures. The inventory was conducted during the data-gathering stage of the 

RMP revision, and the study phase was done during formulation of this RMP.

INVENTORY PHASE

The purpose of the inventory is to identify eligible rivers and river segments in the planning area and assign 

them a tentative classification. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act directs agencies to consider a wide variety of 

internal and external sources to identify potentially eligible rivers. The goal is to avoid overlooking river 

segments that could be included in the NWSR. In cases where a particular river segment is predominantly 

nonfederal in ownership and contains interspersed BLM-administered lands, the BLM shall evaluate only the 

BLM-administered segments and defer to the state or private landowners’ discretion regarding their 

determination of eligibility.

Resource specialists from the MCFO were consulted to conduct the wild and scenic rivers inventory in support 

of the RMP. The interdisciplinary team comprised BLM staff specialists in lands and realty; wildlife, fisheries, 

and riparian biology; range and riparian resources; recreation; visual resources; cultural and historical resources; 

minerals; and geology.

ELIGIBILITY

The BLM applies standard criteria to identified river segments to determine eligibility. There are several 

sources generally used to identify potentially eligible rivers, as described below.

 The Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NPS 2009) was initially completed in 1982 and is maintained and 

periodically updated by the National Park Service. Additions have been made following BLM and 

United States Forest Service inventories completed as part of each agency’s land use planning 

processes. This inventory contains a listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the 

United States believed to possess one or more outstandingly remarkable natural or cultural values 

judged to be of more than local or regional significance. A review of this list did not identify any rivers 

or river segments within the planning area.

 The Yellowstone River downstream from Forsyth to the state line with North Dakota is listed by 

MFWP as a blue ribbon fishery.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-24

 MFWP’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008 to 2012 outlines Montana’s 5-year 

plan for outdoor recreation management, conservation, and development (MFWP 2008). It provides 

the strategic framework for recreation facility managers to use as a guideline in planning and 

prioritizing resources for staff and funding and includes a timeline for implementation.

 Public scoping during the RMP revision process may identify specific river segments for 

consideration. No river segments in the planning area were identified using this source.

CLASSIFICATION

Once a river segment is considered eligible, it is assigned a tentative classification. Section 2(b) of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act defines three classes for these rivers, as described below.

 Wild river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail. These areas contain watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and 

waters unpolluted and represent vestiges of primitive America. “Wild” means undeveloped; roads, 

dams, or diversion works are generally absent from a quarter-mile corridor on both sides of the river.

 Scenic river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are accessible in places via road but 

generally free of impoundments and containing shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and 

shorelines largely undeveloped. Scenic does not necessarily mean the river corridor has to have 

scenery as an outstandingly remarkable value, but it does mean the river segment may contain more 

development (except for major dams or diversion works) than a wild segment and less development 

than a recreational segment. For example, roads may cross the river in places but generally do not run 

parallel to it. In certain cases, however, the presence of an unpaved, parallel road that is well screened 

from the river by vegetation could retain qualification for classification as a scenic river area.

 Recreational river areas are those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road or 

railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some 

impoundment or diversion in the past. Parallel roads or railroads or small dams or diversions can be 

allowed in this classification. A recreational river area classification does not imply that the river will 

be managed or prioritized for recreational use or development.

The classification assigned during the inventory phase is tentative. Final classification and designation of a river 

segment as part of the NWSRS are congressional legislative determinations.

STUDY PHASE

The suitability evaluation does not result in actual designation but only a suitability determination for 

designation. Only Congress can designate a wild and scenic river. In some instances, the Secretary of the 

Interior may designate a wild and scenic river when the governor of a state, under certain conditions, petitions 

for a river to be designated. Congress would ultimately choose the legislative language if any suitable segments 

are presented before them. Water-protection strategies and measures to meet the purposes of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act would be the responsibility of Congress in any legislation proposed. Rivers found unsuitable 

would be dropped from further consideration and would be managed according to the objectives outlined in the 

RMP.

The preliminary suitability evaluation is completed as the RMP is prepared, and impacts that would occur from 

designation and non-designation of the eligible river segments would be analyzed in the EIS associated with the 

RMP. Public review and comment on preliminary suitability determinations included in the Draft RMP would 

be considered before the BLM makes final suitability determinations in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS.

SUITABILITY CRITERIA

The following eight factors, identified in BLM Manual Section 8351, are considered for each eligible river 

segment during the suitability determination:

 characteristics that do or do not make the river a worthy addition to the NWSRS;
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-25

 the status of land ownership, minerals, use in the area (including the amount of private land involved)

and associated or incompatible uses;

 reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and related waters that would be enhanced, 

foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the NWSRS and values that would be foreclosed or 

diminished if the area were not protected as part of the NWSRS;

 federal, state, tribal, local, public, or other interests in designation or nondesignation of the river, 

including the extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, including the costs 

thereof, be shared by state, local, or other agencies and individuals;

 estimated cost to the United States of acquiring necessary lands, interests in lands, and administering 

the area should it be added to the NWSRS;

 the federal agency’s ability or other mechanisms to protect and manage the identified river-related 

values other than designation into the NWSRS;

 historical or existing rights that could be adversely affected with designation; and other issues and 

concerns, if any.

INTERIM MANAGEMENT OF SUITABLE SEGMENTS

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires that interim management measures be developed to protect the freeflowing nature, outstandingly remarkable values, and recommended classification of suitable segments until 

Congress acts on the designation. Identification of Eligible River Segments

To avoid overlooking potentially eligible river segments, a combination of sources was used. The primary 

source was the BLM’s geographic information system (GIS) rivers and streams layer, which is a comprehensive 

list of potentially free-flowing waterbodies within the planning area. The GIS was cross-referenced with 

additional sources, which include the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NPS 2009) and the Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008 to 2012 (MFWP 2008). 

RESULTS IN THE PLANNING AREA

From these sources, the BLM interdisciplinary team compiled an inventory of all rivers on BLM-administered 

surface lands in the planning area. The team focused on BLM-administered lands, per direction contained 

within BLM Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers-Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, 

and Management, which states:

“In cases where a particular river segment is predominantly non-Federal in ownership and contains 

interspersed BLM-administered lands, BLM shall evaluate only its segment as to eligibility and defer 

to the State or to the private landowners’ discretion as to their determination of eligibility (p. 10).”

Initial inventory identified 144 rivers or streams for further evaluation, and 42 of these rivers or streams were

determined to have 99 segments of BLM-administered land along their shorelines (Table 2). Additional 

evaluation was conducted to determine which of the 42 rivers or streams met the free-flowing criteria and 

contained any outstandingly remarkable values, as defined in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as 

amended. 

Of the 99 segments identified, all were determined to be free flowing along some part of their stretch. Four 

BLM-administered land segments, two along the Yellowstone River and two along the Missouri River 

(downstream of the Fort Peck Reservoir dam), were evaluated further because they contained values associated 

with the route of the Corps of Discovery and the presence of pallid sturgeon (an endangered species). 

Subsequently, all four of these segments were determined to be along the route of the Corps of Discovery. 

However, in evaluating this value with respect to the four segments, it was determined that there was no 

physical feature or aspect related to the four segments that would warrant this value to be classified 

outstandingly remarkable. 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-26

In addition, the two BLM-administered segments on the Missouri River both have pallid sturgeon populations. 

One of the segments along the Yellowstone River is located upstream of Forsyth near Howrey Island, which 

does not support a pallid sturgeon population. The other segment along the Yellowstone River is located 

downstream of Glendive, which does support a pallid sturgeon population. In evaluating the two Missouri River 

segments and the one Yellowstone River segment associated with pallid sturgeon populations, the team 

considered the presence, or lack of presence, of features associated with the three segments that would warrant a 

designation of outstandingly remarkable. However, none of the three segments were found to contain spawning, 

breeding, or feeding habitat that would warrant consideration as outstandingly remarkable. 

Therefore, as a result of a lack of specific features associated with either the Corps of Discovery or the pallid 

sturgeon along the four BLM-administered segments identified, none were found to meet the eligibility criteria 

of containing one or more outstandingly remarkable values.

Since none of the river or streams evaluated were determined to be eligible, it was not necessary to proceed with 

the classification or suitability determinations.

TABLE 2.

RIVER SEGMENTS IN THE PLANNING AREA ELIGIBLE FOR

DESIGNATION AS WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

River/Stream 

Name

Location

County(s)

No. of 

BLM 

Segments 

Along 

River/

Stream

Total 

Segment 

Miles

Free 

Flowing Values Present

Bear Creek Powder River 1 1.68 Yes No remarkable values.

Big Dry Creek Garfield 1 1.97 Yes

Scenic downstream from 

junction with Frazier Creek. 

Geologic and paleontologic 

values along the same reach due 

to cutting from Fort Union to 

Pierre shale. Neither 

outstandingly remarkable.

Big Porcupine 

Creek

Garfield/

Rosebud 1 1.12 Yes No remarkable values.

Buffalo Creek Carter 3 4.21 Yes No remarkable values.

Cabin Creek Fallon/Prairie/

Dawson 3 4.37 Yes No remarkable values.

Calf Creek Garfield 1 1.33 Yes Geologic and scenic values but 

not outstandingly remarkable.

Cedar Creek 

(1)1 Prairie 8 11.66 Yes

Many geologic and scenic 

values but not outstandingly 

remarkable.

Cedar Creek (2)

Wibaux/

Prairie/

Dawson

2 16.85 Yes

Some geologic, paleontologic, 

and scenic values but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

Cherry Creek Prairie 8 17.88 Yes Geologic and scenic values but 

not outstandingly remarkable.

Corral Creek Carter 1 5.70 Yes No remarkable values.

Cottonwood 

Creek (2) Carter 2 4.22 Yes No remarkable values.

Crow Creek Carter/

Powder River 2 3.64 Yes No remarkable values.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-27

TABLE 2.

RIVER SEGMENTS IN THE PLANNING AREA ELIGIBLE FOR

DESIGNATION AS WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

River/Stream 

Name

Location

County(s)

No. of 

BLM 

Segments 

Along 

River/

Stream

Total 

Segment 

Miles

Free 

Flowing Values Present

Custer Creek Prairie/Custer 1 4.21 Yes Geologic and scenic values but 

not outstandingly remarkable.

East Fork Cedar 

Creek Prairie 1 1.36 Yes No remarkable values.

Grimes Creek Custer 1 1.56 Yes No remarkable values.

Hell Creek Garfield 1 5.00 Yes

Scenic with geologic and 

paleontologic values due to 

cutting from Fort Union to 

Pierre shale but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

Lame Jones 

Creek

Fallon/

Prairie/

Dawson

1 1.02 Yes No remarkable values.

Lisk Creek Prairie/

McCone 2 4.45 Yes No remarkable values.

Locate Creek Custer 2 2.87 Yes No remarkable values.

McGinnis 

Creek

Garfield/

Rosebud 2 2.61 Yes No remarkable values.

Missouri River McCone/

Richland 2 2.96 Yes

Historic value due to its 

association with Lewis and 

Clark and the Corps of 

Discovery. It is also widely 

used for recreational boating 

and fishing. Some intact 

cottonwood gallery; however, it 

is somewhat decadent with poor 

age class distribution due to 

flood control. Unique fish 

habitat due to presence of pallid 

sturgeon from the Fort Peck 

Reservoir dam downstream to 

the state line with North 

Dakota. Values are present 

within BLM segments but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

North 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Carter 1 1.64 Yes No remarkable values.

O'Fallon Creek

Carter/

Fallon/

Custer/ Prairie

6 8.46 Yes No remarkable values.

Owl Creek Carter 3 8.20 Yes No remarkable values.

Pennel Creek Fallon/

Custer 5 6.40 Yes No remarkable values.

Phillips Creek Garfield 1 1.07 Yes No remarkable values.
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-28

TABLE 2.

RIVER SEGMENTS IN THE PLANNING AREA ELIGIBLE FOR

DESIGNATION AS WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

River/Stream 

Name

Location

County(s)

No. of 

BLM 

Segments 

Along 

River/

Stream

Total 

Segment 

Miles

Free 

Flowing Values Present

Pine Creek Fallon 3 4.98 Yes No remarkable values.

Powder River

Powder 

River/Custer/

Prairie

3 5.79 Yes

Scenic along the reach within 

the Powder River Breaks, from 

the state line to Broadus but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

Redwater River

Prairie/

McCone/

Dawson

1 1.17 Yes No remarkable values.

Seven 

Blackfoot 

Creek

Garfield 2 9.67 Yes

Scenic with geologic and 

paleontologic values due to 

cutting from Fort Union to 

Pierre shale but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

Sheep Creek (2) Custer 2 3.07 Yes No remarkable values.

South 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Carter 1 3.04 Yes No remarkable values.

South Fork 

Tusler Creek

Prairie/

McCone 1 1.00 Yes No remarkable values.

Spring Creek Carter 1 1.58 Yes No remarkable values.

Squaw Creek Garfield 2 2.83 Yes

Scenic with geologic and 

paleontologic interest due to 

cutting from Fort Union to 

Pierre shale but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

Stellar Creek Rosebud 1 2.89 Yes No remarkable values.

Taylor Creek Garfield 1 1.19 Yes No remarkable values.

Timber Creek Prairie/

McCone 2 4.50 Yes

Geologic and paleontologic 

values due to cutting from Fort 

Union to Pierre shale but not 

outstandingly remarkable.

West Fork 

Horse Creek Rosebud 1 1.45 Yes No remarkable values.

Whitney Creek Custer/

Prairie 6 8.32 Yes No remarkable values.

Woody Creek Garfield 1 2.17 Yes No remarkable values.

Yellowstone 

River

Treasure/

Rosebud/ 

Custer/

Prairie/

Dawson/ 

Richland

2 2.05 Yes

Historic value due to its 

association with Lewis and 

Clark and the Corps of 

Discovery. It is also widely 

used for recreational boating 

and fishing. Scenic downstream 

of Glendive with intact 

cottonwood gallery. Unique fish 
SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS APPENDIX

SPE-29

TABLE 2.

RIVER SEGMENTS IN THE PLANNING AREA ELIGIBLE FOR

DESIGNATION AS WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

River/Stream 

Name

Location

County(s)

No. of 

BLM 

Segments 

Along 

River/

Stream

Total 

Segment 

Miles

Free 

Flowing Values Present

habitat and population due to 

presence of pallid sturgeon 

from the mouth of the Tongue 

River downstream to the state 

line with North Dakota. Values 

present within BLM segments 

but not outstandingly 

remarkable.

1-Numbers (1) designate different rivers/streams that share the same name.

Cattle grazing at Strawberry Hill Recreation Area in the planning area

Photo of the Powder River 

in the planning area
This page intentionally left blank.
TRAVEL AND MAINTENANCE APPENDIX

TRA-1

TRAVEL AND MAINTENANCE APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for travel and maintenance in the planning area. Information 

includes guidelines for maintenance intensities.

MAINTENANCE INTENSITIES

<The following is from Roads and Trails Terminology, Technical Note 422 (BLM 2006c).>

BLM Route Maintenance Intensities provide guidance for appropriate “standards of care” to recognized routes 

within the BLM. Recognized Routes by definition include Roads, Primitive Roads, and Trails carried as Assets 

within the BLM Facility Asset Management System. 

Maintenance intensities provide consistent objectives and standards for the care and maintenance of BLM 

routes based on identified management objectives. Maintenance Intensities are consistent with land-use 

planning management objectives (for example, natural, cultural, recreation setting and visual). Maintenance 

Intensities provide operational guidance to field personnel on the appropriate intensity, frequency, and type of 

maintenance activities that should be undertaken to keep the route in acceptable condition and provide guidance 

for the minimum standards of care for the annual maintenance of a route. 

Maintenance Intensities do not describe route geometry, route types, types of use or other physical or 

managerial characteristics of the route. Those items are addressed as other descriptive attributes to a route. 

Maintenance Intensities provide a range of objectives and standards, from “identification for removal” through 

frequent and intensive maintenance.

<End of Technical Note 422>

Table 1 describes Maintenance Intensities, per Technical Note 422. 

TABLE 1.

MAINTENANCE INTENSITIES

Level Maintenance 

Description Maintenance Objectives Maintenance Funding

0

Existing routes that 

will no longer be 

maintained and no 

longer be declared a 

route. Routes 

identified at Level 0 

are identified for 

removal from the 

Transportation 

System

 No planned 

maintenance

 Meet identified 

environmental needs

 No preventative 

maintenance or 

planned annual 

maintenance activities

No annual 

maintenance funds

1

Routes where 

minimum (low 

intensity) 

maintenance is 

required to protect 

adjacent lands and 

resource values. 

These roads may be 

 Low (minimal) 

maintenance intensity

 Emphasis is given to 

maintaining drainage 

and runoff patterns as 

needed to protect 

adjacent lands. 

Maintenance funds 

provided to address 

environmental and 

resource protection 

requirements. No 

maintenance funds 

provided to perform 

preventative 
TRAVEL AND MAINTENANCE APPENDIX

TRA-2

TABLE 1.

MAINTENANCE INTENSITIES

Level Maintenance 

Description Maintenance Objectives Maintenance Funding

impassable for 

extended periods of 

time

Grading, brushing, or 

slide removal is not 

performed unless route 

bed drainage is being 

adversely affected, 

causing erosion

 Meet identified 

resource management 

objectives

 Perform maintenance 

as necessary to protect 

adjacent lands and 

resource values

 No preventive 

maintenance

 Planned maintenance 

activities limited to 

environmental and 

resource protection

 Route surface and 

other physical features 

are not maintained for 

regular traffic

maintenance.

2 Reserved for Possible Future Use

3

Routes requiring 

moderate 

maintenance due to 

low volume use 

(e.g., seasonally or 

year-round for 

commercial, 

recreation, or 

administrative 

access). 

Maintenance 

Intensities may not 

provide year-round 

access but are 

intended to 

generally provide 

resources 

appropriate to keep 

the route in use for 

the majority of the 

year.

 Medium (moderate) 

maintenance intensity

 Drainage structures 

will be maintained as 

needed. Surface 

maintenance will be 

conducted to provide a

reasonable level of 

riding comfort at 

prudent speeds for the 

route conditions and 

intended use. Brushing 

is conducted as needed 

to improve sight 

distance when 

appropriate for 

management uses. 

Landslides adversely 

affecting drainage 

receive high priority 

for removal, otherwise 

they will be removed 

on a scheduled basis

 Meet identified 

environmental needs

 Generally maintained 

for year-round traffic

Maintenance funds 

provided to 

preserve the route 

in the current 

condition, perform 

planned preventive 

maintenance 

activities on a 

scheduled basis, 

and address 

environmental and 

resource protection 

requirements
TRAVEL AND MAINTENANCE APPENDIX

TRA-3

TABLE 1.

MAINTENANCE INTENSITIES

Level Maintenance 

Description Maintenance Objectives Maintenance Funding

 Perform annual 

maintenance necessary 

to protect adjacent 

lands and resource 

values

 Perform preventive 

maintenance as 

required to generally 

keep the route in 

acceptable condition

 Planned maintenance 

activities should 

include environmental 

and resource protection 

efforts, annual route 

surface

 Route surface and 

other physical features 

are maintained for 

regular traffic

4 Reserved for Possible Future Use

5

Routes for high 

(Maximum) 

maintenance due to 

year-round needs, 

high volume traffic, 

or significant use. 

Also may include 

routes identified 

through 

management 

objectives to be 

maintained open on 

a year-round basis 

or requiring highly 

intensive 

maintenance.

 High (maximum) 

maintenance intensity

 The entire route will 

be maintained at least 

annually. Problems 

will be repaired as 

discovered. These 

routes may be closed 

or have limited access 

due to weather 

conditions but are 

generally intended for 

year-round use

 Meet identified 

environmental needs

 Generally maintained 

for year-round traffic

 Perform annual 

maintenance necessary 

to protect adjacent 

lands and resource 

values

 Perform preventive 

maintenance as 

required to generally 

keep the route in 

acceptable condition

 Planned maintenance 

activities should 

include environmental 

Maintenance funds 

provided to 

preserve the route 

in the current 

condition, perform 

planned preventive 

maintenance 

activities on a 

scheduled basis, 

and address 

environmental and 

resource protection 

requirements
TRAVEL AND MAINTENANCE APPENDIX

TRA-4

TABLE 1.

MAINTENANCE INTENSITIES

Level Maintenance 

Description Maintenance Objectives Maintenance Funding

and resource protection 

efforts, annual route 

surface

 Route surface and 

other physical features 

are maintained for 

regular traffic
VEGETATION APPENDIX

VEG-1

VEGETATION APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for vegetation resources and management in the planning area. 

Information includes datum sources used in this plan and special status plant species in the planning area.

DATUM SOURCES

For this resource management plan (RMP), geographic information system analysis of existing vegetation on 

lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) was performed using an existing vegetation 

layer published by the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project (LANDFIRE) in 2006

(USFS and USDI 2007). The remainder of this appendix describes the origins and structure of the data layer 

used.

LANDFIRE is a 5-year, multi-partner project developed to consistently and comprehensively describe and map

vegetation, wildland fuel, and fire regimes across the United States. This project is supported by the United 

States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Office of Fire and Aviation Management, the United States

Department of Interior Office of Wildland Fire Coordination, and The Nature Conservancy.

Data mapped by the LANDFIRE Project is produced based on peer-reviewed science from the fields of remote 

sensing, ecosystem simulation, vegetation and disturbance ecology, predictive landscape mapping, landscape 

simulation, and fire behavior and effects modeling. Data products from this project are designed to facilitate

national- and regional-level strategic planning and reporting of wildland fire management activities and are 

created as 30-meter grid spatial resolution raster data sets.

The LANDFIRE existing vegetation layers describe the following elements of existing vegetation for each 

LANDFIRE mapping zone: existing vegetation type, existing vegetation canopy cover, and existing vegetation 

height. Vegetation is mapped using predictive landscape models based on extensive field reference data, 

satellite imagery, biophysical gradient layers, and classification and regression trees.

The existing vegetation layer represents the current distribution of the terrestrial ecological systems 

classification developed by NatureServe for the western hemisphere (Corner et al. 2003). Individual existing 

vegetation types are mapped in LANDFIRE using decision tree models, field reference data, LandSat imagery, 

digital elevation model data, and biophysical gradient data.

The existing vegetation types have been cross-walked to existing vegetation classifications. These attributes are 

provided to help characterize and describe the existing vegetation types on a nationwide basis in terms of these 

existing vegetation classifications. The division, macrogroup, and group attributes are based on the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee Vegetation Subcommittee's vegetation classification standard and pertain to upper 

physiognomic levels of the National Vegetation Classification System (NVCS) hierarchy. 

Division describes the dominant life forms (tree, shrub, dwarf shrub, herbaceous, or nonvascular) within the 

Vegetated Division of the hierarchy. Macrogroup describes the level in the classification hierarchy defined by 

the relative percent canopy cover of the tree, shrub, dwarf shrub, herb, and nonvascular life form in the 

uppermost strata during the peak of the growing season. Group describes the predominant leaf phenology of 

classes defined by tree, shrub, or dwarf shrub stratum (evergreen, deciduous, mixed evergreen-deciduous), and 

the average vegetation height for the herbaceous stratum (tall, medium, or short).

The LANDFIRE existing vegetation data layer obtained from the project has been updated at the Miles City 

Field Office (MCFO) for some site-specific conditions. A new attribute has been created to facilitate the Woody 

Ravines in Eastern Montana. Areas in Garfield County have also been validated by MCFO foresters.
VEGETATION APPENDIX

VEG-2

Table 1 lists the existing vegetation types as mapped by the LANDFIRE Project on BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area. These types are sorted by NVCS order, class, and subclass. NVCS order was used to 

map and analyze vegetation classifications for this RMP.

TABLE 1.

EXISTING NVCS VEGETATION CLASSIFICATIONS FOUND ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS 

WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

NVCS 

Division

NVCS 

MacroGroup NVCS Group Existing Vegetation Type

Great Plains 

Grassland and

Shrubland

Great Plains 

Mixedgrass 

Prairie and 

Shrubland

Northern Great 

Plains 

Mixedgrass 

Mesic Prairie 

Group

Andropogon gerardii

Festuca idahoensis

Hesperostipa curtiseta

Pascopyrum smithii – Bouteloua gracilis

Pascopyrum smithii

Prunus virginiana

Pseudoroegneria spicata – Bouteloua curtipendula

Pseudoroegneria spicata – Bouteloua gracilis

Pseudoroegneria spicata – Pascopyrum smithii

Schizachyrium scoparium – Bouteloua (curtipendula, 

gracilis)

Schizachyrium scoparium – Carex inops ssp. Heliophila 

Great Plains 

Grassland and

Shrubland

Great Plains 

Mixedgrass 

Prairie and

Shrubland

Northern Great 

Plains 

Mixedgrass Dry 

Prairie Group

Hesperostipa comata – Bouteloua gracilis

Hesperostipa comata – Carex filifolia

Hesperostipa comate – Carex inops ssp.

Hesperostipa curtiseta

Juniperus horizontalis/Carex inops ssp.

Juniperus horizontalis/Schizachyrium scoparium

Rhus trilobata/Carex filifolia

Rhus trilobata. Schizachyrium scoparium

Schizachyrium scoparium – Bouteloua curtipendula

Western North 

American Cool 

Temperate 

Forest

Northern Rocky 

Mountain Lower 

Montane and

Foothill Forest

Northwestern 

Great PlainsBlack Hills 

Ponderosa Pine 

Forest and

Woodland 

Group

Pinus ponderosa/(Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium 

scoparium) Woodland

Pinus ponderosa/Juniperus communis Woodland

Pinus ponderosa/Juniperus horizontalis Woodland

Populus tremuloides/Prunus virginiana Forest

Northern Rocky 

Mountain 

Ponderosa Pine 

Woodland and

Savanna

Pinus Ponderosa/Festuca idahoensis Woodland

Pinus ponderosa/Symphoricarpos albus Forest
VEGETATION APPENDIX

VEG-3

TABLE 1.

EXISTING NVCS VEGETATION CLASSIFICATIONS FOUND ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS 

WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA

NVCS 

Division

NVCS 

MacroGroup NVCS Group Existing Vegetation Type

Great Plains 

Cliff, Scree 

and Rock 

Vegetation

Great Plains 

Badlands 

Vegetation

Great Plains 

Badlands 

Vegetation 

Group

Eriogonum pauciflorum – Gutierrezia sarothrae

Eroding Great Plains Badlands Sparse Vegetation

Sarcobatus vermiculatus/Pseudoroegneria spicata 

Shrubland

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES PLANTS

LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES

Special status plant species management on BLM-administered land is authorized under and directed by the 

following laws, mandates, and guidance:

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended;

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended;

 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended;

 Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 24, 1610 and 4180;

 BLM Manual 6500 and 6840; and

 National and Montana BLM Policy.

BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES

The Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) maintains the statewide rare plant database for the state of 

Montana. In 2006, the MFWP and MNHP reported 3 BLM sensitive and 40 watch plant species of concern 

occurring in the planning area (Table 2). However, no federally listed, proposed, or candidate plants occur in the 

area (USFWS 2011). Detailed surveys were conducted in selected areas in Rosebud (Barton and Crispin 2003), Big 

Horn (Carlson and Cooper 2003), and Powder River (Heidel and Crispin 2002) counties, and researchers recorded 

no special status plant species in these areas. 
VEGETATION APPENDIX

VEG-4

TABLE 2.

BLM SPECIAL STATUS PLANTS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description BLM

Status

Counties of 

Occurrence

Lead plant Amorpha canescens Habitats include mesic to dry black soil prairies, sand 

prairies, gravel prairies, and hill prairies. Watch Carter, Rosebud

Ovalleaf milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia Open pine woodland in seasonally moist meadow Watch Carter, Sheridan

Narrowleaf milkweed Asclepias stenophylla Sandy soils of prairies and open pine woodland Watch Carter, Rosebud

Sweetwater milkvetch Astragalus aretioides Openings of Douglas-fir, exposed ridges and slopes, 

and foothills and mountain zone Watch Big Horn

Barr’s milkvetch Astragalus barrii Sparsely vegetated knobs and buttes with dry, finetextured, often calcareous soils Watch

Big Horn, Carter, 

Powder River, 

Rosebud

Geyer's milkvetch Astragalus geyeri Loose, sandy soils, primarily in sandy alluvial plains 

and terraces Sensitive Garfield

Roundleaf waterhyssop Bacopa rotundifolia Muddy shores of ponds and streams in the valleys 

and on plains Watch Garfield

Crawe’s sedge Carex crawei Wet, gravelly, or sandy soil along streams or pond 

margins in valleys and mountain foothills Sensitive Prairie

Pregnant sedge Carex gravida Green ash ravines and wooded draws Watch Big Horn, Powder 

River, Rosebud

New jersey tea Ceanothus herbaceus Open pine forests of hills and plains Watch Powder River

Bittersweet Celastrus scandens Riparian woodlands and thickets on the plains Watch Dawson

Chaffweed Centunculus minimus Vernally wet, sparsely vegetated soil around ponds 

and along streams in valleys and on plains Watch Sheridan

Birchleaf mountainmahoganyCercocarpus montanus 

var. glaber Open slopes and breaks on plains Watch Treasure

Smooth goosefoot Chenopodium 

subglabrum

Early successional, sparsely vegetated habitats in 

sand dunes and river sandbars or sandy terraces Watch Carter, Powder River, Sheridan

Yellow bee plant Cleome lutea Open, often sandy soil of sagebrush steppe in valleys Watch Big Horn

Fendler cat’s-eye Cryptantha fendleri Open areas of sand dunes in sandhill areas Watch Sheridan

Schweinitz’ flatsedge Cyperus schweinitzii Sparsely vegetated sand dunes on plains Watch Carter, Powder River, 

Sheridan

Nine-anther dalea Dalea enneandra Gravelly grassland slopes on plains Watch Richland, Rosebud
VEGETATION APPENDIX

VEG-5

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description BLM

Status

Counties of 

Occurrence

Silky Prairie clover Dalea villosa Loose sand of sand dunes or eroded from sandstone 

crops

Watch Carter, Richland, 

Sheridan

Scribner’s panic grass

Dichanthelium 

oligosanthes var. 

scribnerianum

Pinus ponderosa/Mahonia repens habitat at upper 

end of draws

Watch Powder River

Visher’s buckwheat Eriogonum visheri

Barren, sedimentary rock outcrops; alluvium from 

those outcrops; and small exposures of soil substrates 

in badlands topography

Watch Carter

Joe-pye weed Eupatorium maculatum Moist meadows, springs, margins of spring

-fed 

streams, and swamp thickets Watch Big Horn

Nuttall desert-parsley Lomatium nuttallii

Open, rocky, mid and lower slopes on sandstone, 

siltstone, or clayey shale from about 3,400- to 7,200-

foot elevation

Watch Big Horn, Rosebud

Bractless mentzelia Mentzelia nuda Sandy or gravelly soil of open hills and roadsides on 

plains Watch

Dawson, Powder 

River, Roosevelt, 

Rosebud

Dwarf mentzelia Mentzelia pumila Open, usually sandy soil in desert shrubland and 

woodland Watch Big Horn

Blue toadflax Nuttallanthus texanus Open, sandy, or acid shale soils of grasslands and 

woodlands on the plains Watch Carter, Dawson

Narrowleaf penstemon Penstemon 

angustifolius Sandy grasslands on plains Watch Carter

Hot Spring phacelia Phacelia thermalis Widely varying habitats in open to partially wooded 

settings Watch Garfield

Plains phlox Phlox andicola Sandy soils in grasslands and ponderosa pine 

woodland Watch

Mealy primrose Primula incana Wet meadow habitats with relatively stable water 

tables Watch Sheridan

Dwarf woolly-heads Psilocarphus 

brevissimus

Drying mud of ponds and other vernally wet soil in 

valleys and on plains Watch Rosebud

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa

On bentonitic shale ridges trending WNW to ESE; 

also at alluvial terraces along Thompson Creek 

tributary of Little Missouri River

Sensitive Carter
VEG-6

VEGETATION APPENDIX

Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Description BLM

Status

Counties of 

Occurrence

Persistent-sepal 

Yellow-cress

Rorippa calycina

Sparsely vegetated, moist sandy to muddy banks of 

streams, stock ponds, and man-made reservoirs near 

high water line

Watch Big Horn, McCone, 

Rosebud, Treasure

Few-flowered 

goldenrod Solidago sparsiflora Sandy, well-drained soils of unglaciated broken and rolling plains in variety of semi-open settings Watch Garfield

Slender wedgegrass Sphenopholis 

intermedia Wet areas in valleys or foothills Watch Big Horn

Longleaf dropseed Sporobolus asper Open forests and grasslands on plains Watch Carter

Wyoming sullivantia Sullivantia hapemanii Calcareous rock walls and bounders at springs, 

waterfalls, and streambanks Watch Big Horn
VEGETATION APPENDIX

VEG-7

Information on the three BLM sensitive species known to occur in the planning area is found below. 

GEYER’S MILKVETCH

In eastern Montana, Geyer’s milkvetch occurs only in the Hell Creek Recreation Area and the Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge. It grows on sandy outcrops and terraces. In the Hell Creek Recreation Area, it occurs in 

very early, unstable successional habitat dominated by prairie sandreed (Calamovilfa longifolia) and Indian rice 

grass (Oryzopsis hymenoides). In the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife refuge, Geyer’s milkvetch grows on 

outcrops of Fox Hill sandstone along the shores of Fort Peck Reservoir (MFWP and MNHP 2006). It is adapted to 

moderate levels of disturbance, but it may be affected by encroachment of nonnative annuals.

CRAWE’S SEDGE

Crawe’s sedge has been documented from only one county in eastern Montana in Prairie County. This plant usually 

occurs in early successional riparian habitats that are occasionally flooded. Its response to livestock grazing or 

trampling is unknown. Crowe’s sedge is a wetland plant and may be susceptible to hydrological changes.

BUR OAK

Bur oak is restricted in Montana to a single, but relatively large, occurrence in southern Carter County. It occurs on 

east-southeast trending bentonitic shale ridges and on alluvial terraces along the Thompson Creek tributary of the 

Little Missouri River (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Stands are generally open with native annuals and sedges or 

introduced grasses. Bur oak is fire resistant, and fire suppression may be reducing bur oak recruitment. Grazing of 

root sprouts and weeds may also reduce bur oak reproduction (MFWP and MNHP 2006).
This page intentionally left blank.
WATER APPENDIX

WAT-1

WATER APPENDIX

INTRODUCTION

This appendix contains in-depth information for water resources and management in the planning area. 

Information includes groundwater wells and impaired waterbodies in the planning area. 

GROUNDWATER WELLS IN THE PLANNING AREA

See Table 1 for information specific to the planning area. See Chapter 3, Affected Environment, for further 

information.

IMPAIRED WATERBODIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

The Clean Water Act requires the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to report to the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the condition and trend of waterbodies of the state. In 

particular, the report examines the use classification, the actual uses, and the ability of the waterbody to support 

that actual use. If the beneficial use is not supported or only partly supported because of water quality 

impairment, the sources and possible causes are listed in a 305(b) Water Quality Report (MDEQ 2010b). 

Impaired waterbodies have one or more impaired beneficial uses (Water Quality Categories 4A, 4B, 4C, and 5)

and may or may not require a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for various reasons (see Water Quality 

Categories). A new report is submitted to the USEPA every even-numbered year.

THE 303(d) LIST

Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act and Title 40, part 130 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

requires that all states develop a list of waters that do not meet water quality standards (beneficial uses are not 

fully supported). The 303(d) list is a subset (waterbodies with Water Quality Category 5) of all waterbodies

listed in the comprehensive 305(b) Water Quality Report. Waterbodies on the 303(d) list have one or more 

impairments caused by a pollutant and require a TMDL to be completed and approved by the USEPA. These 

waterbodies are not expected to meet water quality standards even after technology-based controls for point 

sources and other controls (e.g., best management practices) for nonpoint sources have been used. See Tables 2

and 3 for information specific to the planning area.

BENEFICIAL USES

The more common uses for surface waters within the planning area include agricultural, warm-water fisheries, 

primary contact recreation (swimming and other activities), and aquatic life. Drinking water and cold-water 

fisheries are uncommon but important uses in the area. Each of these uses will have its own water quality 

requirements and, if water quality is impaired, that particular waterbody may not support these uses. 
WAT-2

WATER APPENDIX

TABLE 1.

GROUNDWATER WELL AQUIFER USE BY COUNTY

Geologic Source

Big Horn1

Carter

Custer

Daniels

Dawson

Fallon

Garfield

McCone

Powder River

Prairie

Richland

Roosevelt

Rosebud

Sheridan

Treasure

Valley

Wibaux

Total

Alluvial Fan 

Deposits 

(Quaternary)

55

Alluvium 

(Holocene) 21

332 72 1945 861 17 25312 489

Alluvium 

(Quaternary) 237 110 27 60 258 18

1 83 90 236 410 363 254 664 436 19 2,672

Amsden group111271 13

Anderson Coal of 

the Fort Union formation3611 38

Anderson-Dietz 1 

and 2 Coals - Fort 

Union formation

141 15

Anderson-Dietz 1 

and 2 Overburden -

Fort Union 

formation

99

Anderson-Dietz 1 

Coals Combined -

Fort Union 

formation

131 14

Anderson-Dietz 1 

Clinker - Fort Union 

formation

33

Anderson-Dietz 1 

Clinker and Coal -

Fort Union 

formation

55

Bearpaw shale 17131776 42

Brewster-Arnold 

Coal - Fort Union 

formation

123

Canyon Coal of the 

Fort Union 

formation

1661 23

Canyon Coal 235
WAT-3

WATER APPENDIX

Geologic Source

Big Horn1

Carter

Custer

Daniels

Dawson

Fallon

Garfield

McCone

Powder River

Prairie

Richland

Roosevelt

Rosebud

Sheridan

Treasure

Valley

Wibaux

Total

Overburden - Fort 

Union formation

Carlile shale (of 

Colorado group)

55

Carney Coal Bed11

Chugwater 

formation

11

Claggett shale or 

formation

22

Cloverly formation44

Coal Mine Spoil 

Banks 22 70

1 93

Colorado shale or 

formation. (of 

Colorado group)

22

Cook Coal - Ft 

Union formation

617

Dietz 1 and 2 

Clinker and Coal -

Fort Union 

formation

11

Dietz 1 and 2 Coals 

Combined - Fort 

Union formation

141 15

Dietz 1 Coal of the 

Fort Union 

formation

44

Dietz 2 - 3 

Interburden - Fort 

Union formation

11

Dietz 2 Coal of the 

Ft Union formation 18 18

Dietz Coal of the Ft 

Union formation 24

12 27

Eagle sandstone 167312 29

Ellis group11

Fort Union 

formation 69 10 24 351 394 491 34 69 30 372 429 416 40 475 113 542

3,859

Fox Hills-Hell Creek 17 154 87 231 25 21 10 150 63 2336 26 87 51 810
WAT-4

WATER APPENDIX

Geologic Source

Big Horn1

Carter

Custer

Daniels

Dawson

Fallon

Garfield

McCone

Powder River

Prairie

Richland

Roosevelt

Rosebud

Sheridan

Treasure

Valley

Wibaux

Total

Aquifer

Hell Creek 

formation 49 313

5 28 506 270 26 30 12 54 25 141 519 95 531,667

Judith River 

formation (of 

Montana group)

37422 1944217 611 24 2074 379

Knoblock Coal of 

the Fort Union 

formation

147 12

Kootenai formation 12 12

Lakota sandstone (of 

the Inyan Kara group)42151541 23

Lance formation 10 129 139

Lance-Hell Creek 

Undifferentiated

4 131 272 137 83 627

Local Coals - Fort 

Union formation

11

Madison group or limestone 15

1152336253 46

Mission Canyon 

Limestone (of the 

Madison Group)

211341244241 29

Morrison formation4116

Muddy Sandstone

member (of the 

Thermopolis shale)

22211411 14

Parkman sandstone 

(of the Montana group)718

Pryor Conglomerate 

member (of the 

Cloverly formation)

22

Quaternary Clinker 

Deposits

213

Roland Coal - Fort 

Union formation

11

Shannon Sandstone

mbr. (of Cody or 18

2 181 39
WAT-5

WATER APPENDIX

Geologic Source

Big Horn

1

Carter

Custer

Daniels

Dawson

Fallon

Garfield

McCone

Powder River

Prairie

Richland

Roosevelt

Rosebud

Sheridan

Treasure

Valley

Wibaux

Total

Steele sh)

Smith Coal of the 

Fort Union 

formation

4 4

Smith Coal 

Overburden of the 

Fort Union 

formation

1 1

Smith/Anderson 

Interberdon - Fort 

Union formation.

1 1

Sub-Canyon Coal 

Sandstone - Fort 

Union formation

1 1

Telegraph Creek 

formation (of the 

Montana group)

1 1

Tensleep Sandstone 2 2 4

Terrace Deposits 

(Pleistocene) 46 21 7 173 16 8 1 272

Terrace Deposits 

(Quaternary) 223 44 1 1 11 30 20 10 2 342

Thermopolis shale 1 1

Tongue River 

member (of the Fort 

Union formation.)

645 164 5 930 14 3 106 1,424 316 1,251 940 5 75 227 6,105

Tullock member (of 

the Fort Union 

formation)

136 1 1,104 11 1 3 34 1,078 3 27 463 148 2 1 3,012

Wall Coal - Fort 

Union formation 5 2 7

Wasatch formation 4 1 5

Total 1,813 449 1,481 454 2,332 1,080 106 353 2,973 1157 2,497 981 2,100 578 758 965 903 20,980

1Portions of some counties may be outside of the planning area. Not all wells in a county have had the geologic source code assigned.
WAT-6

WATER APPENDIX

TABLE 2.

2010 MONTANA LIST OF IMPAIRED STREAMS AND RIVERS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLMadministered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Big Dry Big Dry 

Creek

Steves Fork 

to mouth 

(Fort Peck 

Reservoir)

99 6.0 C-3 5

Ammonia (Unionized), phosphorus 

(total), total Kjehldahl

nitrogen (TKN), 

nitrogen, nitrate, 

alteration in streamside or littoral 

vegetative covers

Municipal point source 

discharges, agriculture

Big and 

Little Dry

Big Muddy Big Muddy 

Creek

Canadian 

border to 

northern 

boundary of 

Fort Peck 

Reservation

120 0 C-3 5

TKN, mercury, 

phosphorus (total), 

copper, organic 

enrichment (sewage),

biological indicators, 

lead, zinc, alteration in 

stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Source unknown, 

grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones, nonirrigated crop 

production, agriculture

Lower 

Missouri

Big Muddy Big Muddy 

Creek

North corner 

of Fort Peck 

Reservation 

boundary to 

mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

82 0.4 C-3 5

Sedimentation/siltation, 

nitrogen (total), 

phosphorus (total), 

alteration in streamside or littoral 

vegetative covers, low 

flow alterations

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/

modification, 

agriculture, grazing in 

riparian or shoreline 

zones

Lower 

Missouri
WAT-7

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Charlie-

Little Muddy

Charlie 

Creek

East and 

Middle 

Charlie 

Creek to 

mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

33 0.7C-35

TKN, iron, specific 

conductance, fish-

passage barrier

Natural sources, 

highways, roads, 

bridges, infrastructure 

(new construction), 

crop production 

(cropland or dryland)

Lower 

Missouri

Charlie-

Little Muddy

Hard-

scrabble 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

360C-35

Specific conductance, 

nitrogen (total), total 

dissolved solids (TDS)

Natural sources, 

agriculture

Lower 

Missouri

Charlie-

Little Muddy

Missouri 

River

Poplar River 

to North 

Dakota 

border

92 25.5B-35

Temperature(water), 

other flow regime 

alterations

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/modification, 

dam or impoundment

Lower 

Missouri

Fort Peck 

Reservoir

Nelson 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Big Dry 

Creek arm of 

Fort Peck 

Reservoir)

36 0.6C-35

Copper nitrates, 

sulfates, cadmium, 

alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Source unknown, 

grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones

Redwater

Fort Peck 

Reservoir

Timber 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Big Dry 

Creek arm of 

Fort Peck 

Reservoir)

89 6.8C-35

TKN, phosphorus 

(total), alteration in 

stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Source unknown, 

natural sources Redwater

Little 

Powder

Little 

Powder 

River

The border 

to mouth 

(Powder 

River)

63 1.2C-35 Salinity Natural sources, source 

unknown Powder
WAT-8

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Bighorn

Bighorn 

River

Crow Indian 

Reservation 

Boundary to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

90B-25 Mercury, lead Source unknown

Yellowstone-

Lower 

Bighorn

Lower 

Bighorn

Tullock 

Creek

Crow Indian 

Reservation 

Boundary to 

mouth 

(Bighorn 

River)

310C-35

Sedimentation/siltation, 

TKN, phosphorus 

(total), iron, alteration 

in stream-side or 

littoral vegetative 

covers, low flow 

alterations

Irrigated crop 

production, rangeland 

grazing, natural 

sources, dam or 

impoundment, flow 

alterations from water 

diversions, loss of 

riparian habitat

Yellowstone-

Lower 

Bighorn

Lower Milk Milk River

Beaver 

Creek to 

mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

150B-35

Fecal coliform, lead, 

mercury

Source unknown, dam 

or impoundment, 

agriculture

Lower Milk

Lower 

Musselshell

Blood 

Creek

Dovetail 

County Road 

to mouth 

(Musselshell 

River)

80C-3 4C

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones, natural 

sources

Lower 

Musselshell
WAT-9

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Musselshell

Musselshell 

River

Flatwillow 

Creek to Fort 

Peck 

Reservoir

76 3.7C-3 4C

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, low 

flow alterations

Agriculture, impacts 

from resort areas 

(winter and non-winter 

resorts), flow 

alterations from water 

diversions, streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, grazing 

in riparian or shoreline 

zones, impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/

modification

Lower 

Musselshell

Lower 

Powder

Powder 

River

Little 

Powder 

River to 

Mizpah 

Creek

99 4.5C-35 Salinity Source unknown, 

natural sources Powder

Lower 

Powder

Powder 

River

Mizpah 

Creek to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

45 1.6C-35 Salinity Source unknown, 

natural sources Powder

Lower 

Powder

Stump 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Powder 

River)

30 3.6C-3 5,2B Salinity Natural sources Powder
WAT-10

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Tongue Otter Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Tongue 

River)

108 0.5C-3 5,2B

Solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

salinity, iron, alteration 

in stream-side or 

littoral vegetative 

covers

Site clearance (land 

development or 

redevelopment), natural 

sources, grazing in 

riparian or shoreline 

zones, agriculture, 

highways, roads, 

bridges, infrastructure 

(new construction)

Tongue

Lower 

Tongue

Pumpkin 

Creek

Headwaters 

to Little 

Pumpkin 

Creek

88 <0.1C-35

Temperature(water), 

salinity, low flow 

alterations

Natural sources, 

irrigated crop 

production

Tongue

Lower 

Tongue

Pumpkin 

Creek

Little 

Pumpkin 

Creek to the 

mouth 

(Tongue 

River)

92 8.4C-35

Temperature, water, 

salinity, low flow 

alterations

Irrigated crop 

production, natural 

sources

Tongue

Lower 

Tongue

Tongue 

River

Beaver 

Creek to 

Twelve Mile 

Dam, T6N 

R48E S29

720B-35

Solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

iron, low flow 

alterations

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/

modification, 

streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, natural 

sources, irrigated crop 

production

Tongue
WAT-11

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Tongue

Tongue 

River

Diversion 

dam just 

above 

Pumpkin 

Creek to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

21 3.6B-35

Nickel, sulfates, zinc, 

iron, lead, copper, 

salinity, solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

cadmium, low flow 

alterations

Dam construction 

(other than upstream 

flood control projects), 

impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/modification, 

natural sources, 

streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, 

irrigated crop 

production

Tongue

Lower 

Tongue

Tongue 

River

Hanging 

Woman 

Creek to 

Beaver 

Creek

75 0.5B-35

Solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

iron, low flow 

alterations

Irrigated crop 

production, streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, impacts 

from hydrostructure 

flow regulation/

modification, natural 

sources

Tongue

Lower 

Yellowstone

Bennie Peer 

Creek

North 

Dakota 

border to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

100C-3 4C

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, low 

flow alterations, 

physical substrate 

habitat alterations

Highways, roads, 

bridges, infrastructure 

(new construction), 

channelization, 

irrigated crop 

production

Lower 

Yellowstone
WAT-12

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone Burns Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

54 0.2C-35

TKN, iron, solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

phosphorus (total),

fish-passage barrier, 

other flow regime 

alterations, 

chlorophyll-a

Crop production 

(cropland or dryland), 

irrigated crop

production, 

hydrostructure impacts 

on fish passage, natural 

sources

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone Cabin Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

103 9.7C-35

TKN, oxygen, 

dissolved 

sedimentation/siltation

Rangeland grazing, 

natural sources, dam or 

impoundment

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone Cedar Creek

26 miles 

upstream to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

27 17.6C-35

Iron, arsenic, lead, 

copper

Spills from trucks or 

trains, grazing in 

riparian or shoreline 

zones, natural sources

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone Cedar Creek

26 to 45 

miles above 

the mouth

20 2.5C-3 5,2B

Copper, selenium, iron,

lead, alteration in 

stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Natural sources Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

Cottonwood 

Creek

Headwaters

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

22 1.0C-35

Iron, cadmium, fish-

passage barrier, 

physical substrate 

habitat alterations

Flow alterations from 

water diversions, source 

unknown, natural 

sources, hydrostructure 

impacts on fish 

passage, channelization

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone Crane Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

240C-35

Sedimentation/siltation,

alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, other 

flow regime alterations

Channelization, 

irrigated crop 

production

Lower 

Yellowstone
WAT-13

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone

First Hay 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

330C-35

Copper, TKN, iron, 

phosphorus (total), 

lead, solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), TDS, 

fish-passage barrier, 

other flow regime 

alterations

Source unknown, 

irrigated crop 

production, transfer of 

water from an outside 

watershed, 

hydrostructure impacts 

on fish passage

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

Fourmile 

Creek

Headwaters 

to North 

Dakota 

border

300C-35

TKN, nitrate/nitrite 

(nitrite + nitrate as N), 

TDS, chlorophyll-a, 

other flow regime 

alterations

Dam or impoundment, 

source unknown

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone Fox Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River), T22N 

R59E S19

50 0.8B-25

TKN, iron, mercury, 

phosphorus (total), 

sulfates, lead, arsenic, 

solids 

(suspended/bedload),

TDS, low flow 

alterations, physical 

substrate habitat 

alterations, excess algal 

growth

Natural sources, 

channelization, source 

unknown, irrigated crop 

production

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

Glendive 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

56 1.4C-35

Copper, selenium, iron,

chromium (total),

nickel, solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

zinc, lead, cadmium,

alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones, source 

unknown, natural 

sources

Lower 

Yellowstone
WAT-14

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lone Tree 

Creek

Confluence 

of North 

Fork to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

170C-35

Iron, solids 

(suspended/bedload),

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), alteration 

in stream-side or 

littoral vegetative 

covers, chlorophyll-a, 

other flow regime 

alterations

Habitat modification-

other than 

hydromodification, 

irrigated crop 

production, 

channelization

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

Morgan 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

200C-3 4C

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

North Fork 

Fox Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth

(Fox Creek), 

T22N R58E 

S21

200B-25

TKN, iron, mercury,

phosphorus (total),

sulfates, lead, arsenic,

solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

TDS, low flow 

alterations, physical 

substrate habitat 

alterations, excess algal 

growth

Source unknown, 

channelization, 

irrigated crop 

production, natural 

sources

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

O'Brien 

Creek

State line to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

16 0.1C-35

Selenium, nitrate/nitrite 

(nitrite + nitrate as N), 

excess algal growth

Irrigated crop 

production, animal 

feeding operations 

(NPS)

Lower 

Yellowstone
WAT-15

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone Sears Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

150C-35

Copper, solids 

(suspended/bedload),

iron, lead, alteration in 

stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers, fish-

passage barrier, excess 

algal growth, high flow 

regime

Irrigated crop 

production, 

channelization, 

hydrostructure impacts 

on fish passage, source 

unknown, rangeland 

grazing, transfer of 

water from an outside 

watershed

Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone Smith Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

45 0.9C-3 4C Fish-passage barrier Low water crossing Lower 

Yellowstone

Lower 

Yellowstone

Yellowstone 

River

Lower 

Yellowstone 

Diversion 

Dam to

North 

Dakota 

border

54 5.5B-35

Nitrogen (total), 

chromium (total), pH, 

copper, 

sedimentation/siltation,

lead, phosphorus 

(total), TDS, alteration 

in stream-side or 

littoral vegetative 

covers, fish-passage 

barrier

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/

modification, natural 

sources, source 

unknown, rangeland 

grazing, streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, 

irrigated crop 

production

Yellowstone 

River

Lower 

Yellowstone

Yellowstone 

River

Powder 

River to 

Lower 

Yellowstone 

Diversion 

Dam

77 23.9B-3 4C Fish-passage barrier

Dam construction 

(other than upstream 

flood control projects)

Yellowstone 

River
WAT-16

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Deadman 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(North Fork 

Sunday 

Creek)

17 3.5C-35

TKN, phosphorus 

(total) Source unknown

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

East Fork 

Armells 

Creek

Colstrip to 

mouth 

(Armells 

Creek)

32 0.6C-35

Specific conductance, 

TDS, TKN,

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N)

Coal mining, 

agriculture, transfer of 

water from an outside 

watershed

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

East Fork 

Armells 

Creek

Headwaters 

to Colstrip 25

0C-3 4C,2B

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers

Surface mining

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Harris 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

27 6.4C-35

Solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

phosphorus (total),

other flow regime 

alterations, 

chlorophyll-a

Grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones, 

transfer of water from 

an outside watershed, 

livestock (grazing or 

feeding operations), 

natural sources

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Little 

Porcupine 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

119 1.1C-35

TKN, TDS, 

phosphorus (total), 

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), 

chlorophyll-a

Rangeland grazing, 

source unknown

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries
WAT-17

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Muster 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

31 1.1C-35

Phosphorus (total), 

solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), 

chlorophyll-a, other 

flow regime alterations

Transfer of water from 

an outside watershed, 

irrigated crop 

production

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

North Fork 

Sunday 

Creek

Custer/

Rosebud 

County 

border to 

mouth 

(Sunday 

Creek)

34 0.3C-35

Specific conductance, 

TDS, 

sedimentation/siltation, 

sodium, solids 

(suspended/bedload)

Channelization, crop 

production (cropland or 

dryland), natural 

sources

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Sarpy Creek

Crow Indian 

Reservation 

Boundary to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

630C-35

TKN, phosphorus 

(total), nitrate/nitrite 

(nitrite + nitrate as N),

nitrogen (total)

Grazing in riparian or 

shoreline zones, non-

irrigated crop 

production

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Stellar 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Little 

Porcupine 

Creek)

43 5.2C-35

pH, phosphorus (total), 

cadmium, chlorophyll-

a

Source unknown, 

rangeland grazing

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries
WAT-18

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Sunday 

Creek

The North 

and South 

Forks to 

mouth 

(Yellowstone 

River)

15 0.1C-35

Copper, TKN, nitrogen 

(total), iron, lead,

phosphorus (total), 

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), physical 

substrate habitat 

alterations, 

chlorophyll-a

Source unknown, 

irrigated crop 

production, non-

irrigated crop 

production, rangeland 

grazing, natural sources

Middle 

Yellowstone 

Tributaries

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Yellowstone 

River

The Big 

Horn to 

Cartersville 

Diversion 

Dam

59 4.7B-3 4CFish-passage barrier

Dam construction 

(other than upstream

flood control projects)

Yellowstone 

River

Lower 

Yellowstone-

Sunday

Yellowstone 

River

The 

Cartersville 

Diversion 

Dam to 

Powder 

River

89 8.6B-35

pH, TDS, copper, 

solids 

(suspended/bedload), 

lead, zinc, 

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), alteration

in stream-side or 

littoral vegetative 

covers

Source unknown, 

rangeland grazing, 

agriculture, irrigated 

crop production, natural 

sources, post-

development erosion 

and sedimentation, 

municipal point source 

discharges, streambank 

modifications/

destabilization

Yellowstone 

River

Middle 

Musselshell

Musselshell 

River

HUC 

boundary 

near 

Roundup to 

Flatwillow 

Creek

48 3.3C-3 4C

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, low 

flow alterations, 

physical substrate 

habitat alterations

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/modification, 

streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, 

channelization, 

agriculture

Upper/

Middle 

Musselshell
WAT-19

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Middle 

Powder

Powder 

River

Wyoming 

border to 

Little 

Powder 

River

78 7.9C-35 Salinity Source unknown, 

natural sources

Powder

Mizpah Mizpah 

Creek

Headwaters 

to Corral 

Creek

132 1.7C-35 Salinity Natural sources Powder

O` Fallon Pennel 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(O'Fallon 

Creek)

66 10.8C-35TDS Source unknown O` Fallon

O` Fallon Sandstone 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(O'Fallon 

Creek)

73 2.5C-35

TKN, nitrate/nitrite 

(nitrite + nitrate as N)

Agriculture, municipal 

point source discharges O` Fallon

Poplar Butte Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Poplar 

River)

420B-25

Specific conductance, 

TKN, iron, phosphorus 

(total), nitrate/nitrite 

(nitrite + nitrate as N), 

sodium

Natural sources, crop 

production (cropland or 

dryland), source 

unknown

Lower 

Missouri

Poplar

East Fork 

Poplar 

River

Canada 

border to 

mouth 

(Poplar 

River)

220B-2 5,2B

Iron, chlorophyll-a, 

other flow regime 

alterations

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/

modification, source 

unknown, natural 

sources

Lower 

Missouri
WAT-20

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Poplar

Middle Fork 

Poplar 

River

T37N R45E 

S6 to the 

mouth 

(Poplar 

River), T36N 

R48E S33

360B-25

Escherichia coli, 

sedimentation/siltation, 

temperature (water)

Rangeland grazing, 

natural sources, source 

unknown

Lower 

Missouri

Poplar Poplar 

River

T35N R48E 

S17 to the 

mouth (Fort 

Peck 

Reservation), 

T33N R48E 

S12

300B-25

Escherichia coli, 

sedimentation/siltation, 

temperature (water)

Rangeland grazing, 

source unknown, 

natural sources

Lower 

Missouri

Porcupine Porcupine 

Creek

Confluence 

of West and 

Middle 

Forks to 

mouth (Milk 

River)

49 0.4B-35

Salinity, phosphorus 

(total), nitrogen (total)

Non-irrigated crop 

production

Lower Milk -

Rock

Prairie Elk-

Wolf

Missouri 

River

Fort Peck 

Dam to Milk 

River

100B-25

Temperature (water), 

alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, other 

flow regime alterations

Impacts from 

hydrostructure flow 

regulation/

modification

Lower 

Missouri

Prairie Elk-

Wolf

Missouri 

River

Milk River 

to Poplar 

River

82 1.8B-35

Temperature (water), 

alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, other 

flow regime alterations

Loss of riparian habitat, 

impacts from 

hydrostructure, flow 

regulation/

modification

Lower 

Missouri
WAT-21

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Prairie Elk-

Wolf

Prairie Elk 

Creek

East and 

Middle 

Forks to 

mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

39 0.6C-35

TKN, phosphorus 

(total), alteration in 

stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers, 

physical substrate 

habitat alterations

Agriculture, grazing in 

riparian or shoreline 

zones

Redwater

Prairie Elk-

Wolf Sand Creek

Confluence 

of East and 

West Forks 

to mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

20 0.5C-35

Sedimentation/siltation, 

TKN, phosphorus 

(total), physical 

substrate habitat 

alterations

Agriculture, rangeland 

grazing, non-irrigated 

crop production

Redwater

Redwater

East 

Redwater 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth 

(Redwater 

River)

51 0.4C-35

TKN, sulfates, 

phosphorus (total), 

specific conductance, 

nitrate/nitrite (nitrite + 

nitrate as N), 

sedimentation/siltation, 

TDS, chlorophyll-a

Agriculture, source 

unknown Redwater

Redwater Horse Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth at 

Redwater 

River near 

town of 

Circle

320C-35

Salinity, alteration in 

stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers, 

physical substrate 

habitat alterations

Rangeland grazing, 

source unknown, non-

irrigated crop 

production

Redwater

Redwater Pasture 

Creek

Headwaters 

to mouth at 

Redwater 

River

400C-35 TKN

Animal feeding 

operations (NPS), 

source unknown

Redwater
WAT-22

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Redwater Redwater 

River

Hell Creek to 

Buffalo 

Springs 

Creek

80C-35

Nitrogen (total), 

phosphorus (total), 

cause unknown

On-site treatment 

systems (septic systems 

and similar 

decentralized systems), 

natural sources, 

municipal point source 

discharges

Redwater

Redwater Redwater 

River

Pasture 

Creek to 

mouth 

(Missouri 

River)

60 3.1C-3 4C

Alteration in stream-

side or littoral 

vegetative covers, 

physical substrate 

habitat alterations

Rangeland grazing, 

natural sources Redwater

Rosebud Rosebud 

Creek

From the 

mouth 3.8 mi 

upstream to 

an irrigation 

dam

40C-3 4C Physical substrate 

habitat alterations Loss of riparian habitat Rosebud

Rosebud Rosebud 

Creek

Northern 

Cheyenne 

Reservation 

boundary to 

an irrigation 

dam 3.8 mi 

above the 

mouth

112 <0.1C-35 Other

Dam construction 

(other than upstream 

flood control projects)

Rosebud

Upper Little 

Missouri

Little 

Missouri 

River

Highway 

323 bridge to 

South 

Dakota 

border

61 0.7C-35

Copper, iron, zinc, 

lead, cadmium

Source unknown, 

natural sources

Little 

Missouri
WAT-23

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Upper Little 

Missouri

Little 

Missouri 

River

Wyoming 

border to the 

Highway 

323 bridge

45 1.0C-35

Copper, TKN, 

phosphorus (total), 

zinc, lead, cadmium

Source unknown, 

natural sources, 

agriculture

Little 

Missouri

Upper Little 

Missouri

Thompson 

Creek

Wyoming 

border to 

mouth (Little 

Missouri 

River)

41 0.1C-3 5,2B Copper, iron, zinc, 

cadmium Natural Sources Little Missouri

Upper 

Tongue

Hanging 

Woman 

Creek

Stroud Creek 

to mouth 

(Tongue 

River)

180C-3 5,2B

Salinity, iron, 

sedimentation/siltation, 

low flow alterations

Rangeland grazing, 

natural sources, grazing 

in riparian or shoreline 

zones, irrigated crop 

production, streambank 

modifications/

destabilization

Tongue

Upper

Tongue

Hanging 

Woman 

Creek

Wyoming 

border to 

Stroud Creek

31 0.3C-3 5,2B Salinity, low flow 

alterations

Natural Sources, 

irrigated crop 

production

Tongue

Upper 

Tongue

Tongue 

River

Prairie Dog 

Creek to 

Hanging 

Woman 

Creek

120B-3 4C Low flow alterations

Streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, impacts 

from hydrostructure 

flow regulation/

modification, irrigated 

crop production

Tongue
WAT-24

WATER APPENDIX

Subbasin Name Location Mi.

Mi. on 

BLM-

administered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Causes Probable Sources TMDL Area

Upper 

Tongue

Tongue 

River

Tongue 

River Dam 

to Prairie 

Dog Creek

22 0.1B-2 4C Low flow alterations

Streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, 

irrigated crop 

production, impacts 

from hydrostructure 

flow regulation/

modification

Tongue

Upper 

Tongue

Tongue 

River

Wyoming 

border to 

Tongue 

River 

Reservoir

60B-25 Iron

Irrigated Crop 

production, impacts 

from hydrostructure 

flow regulation/

modification, 

streambank 

modifications/

destabilization, natural 

sources

Tongue
WAT-25

WATER APPENDIX

TABLE 3.

2010 MONTANA LIST OF IMPAIRED RESERVOIRS AND LAKES IN THE PLANNING AREA

Subbasin Name Acres

Acres on 

BLMadministered 

land

Use 

Class

Water 

Quality 

Cat.

Cause Probable Sources TMDL 

Area

Big Muddy Medicine Lake 9,720 0 C-3 5

Cadmium, mercury, 

nickel

Atmospheric 

Deposition-Toxics, 

Source Unknown

Lower 

Missouri

Fort Peck 

Reservoir

Fort Peck 

Reservoir 123,960 0 B-2 5 Lead, mercury

Agriculture, 

atmospheric 

deposition-toxics, 

historic bottom 

deposits (not 

sediment), impacts 

from abandoned mine 

lands (inactive)

Missouri 

River

Beaver

Lamesteer 

National 

Wildlife 

Refuge

73 0 C-3 5 Other Agriculture Little 

Missouri

Upper 

Tongue

Tongue River 

Reservoir 2,158 4.8 B-2 5

Oxygen, dissolved, 

solids 

(suspended/bedload)

Irrigated crop 

production, municipal 

point source 

discharges

Tongue
WATER APPENDIX

WAT-26

WATER QUALITY CATEGORIES

The MDEQ places each waterbody in the Montana’s Water Quality Integrated Report (305(b)) in one unique 

assessment category as described below.

 Category 1: all applicable beneficial uses have been assessed and all uses are fully supported.

 Category 2: those beneficial uses assessed are fully supported but some applicable uses have not been 

assessed.

 Category 3: there are insufficient data to assess the use in support of any applicable beneficial use, 

therefore, no use support determinations have been made.

 Category 4: one or more of the beneficial uses have been assessed as impaired or threatened and all 

necessary TMDLs have been either been completed or are not required.

o Subcategory 4A- refers to situations where TMDLs are needed to rectify all identified threats or 

impairments and have been completed and approved;

o Subcategory 4B-refers to situations where waterbodies are located on lands where “other pollution 

control measures required by local, state, or federal authority (see 40 CFR 130.7(b)(1) (iii))” are in 

place, are expected to address all waterbody pollutant combinations, and have met all water 

quality standards in a reasonable period. These control requirements act in lieu of a TMDL thus no 

actual TMDLs are required;

o Subcategory 4C-refers to situations where identified threats or impairments result from pollution 

categories such as dewatering or habitat modification, and thus, the calculation of a TMDL is not 

required.

 Category 5: one or more applicable beneficial uses have been assessed as impaired or threatened, and a 

TMDL is required to address the factors causing the impairment or threat (MDEQ 2010b). 

IMPAIRMENT SOURCES

Impairment sources can include specific inorganic and organic compounds, suspended solids, dissolved solids, pH, 

vegetation alteration, habitat alteration, flow alterations, and water temperature (Table 4).

POSSIBLE CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT

Many sources can have several possible causes of impairment. Assigning possible causes is tentative and depends 

upon the association of impairment sources and the geographical setting. The most frequent causes of impairment in 

the planning area are natural sources, unknown sources, and irrigated crop production (Table 5).

TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOAD DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA

In compliance with the provisions of the Montana Water Quality Act adopted by MDEQ in 2000, a new 

methodology was employed to develop and determine the TMDL values for waterways. This methodology was 

developed with the assistance of the Statewide TMDL Advisory Group. It employed a weighted scoring system, 

based on the 13 prioritization criteria mandated by the Montana Water Quality Act, to assign a high, moderate, or 

low planning priority to each waterway segment. Each planning area was then scheduled for plan development. This 

schedule was also compiled in response to a June 2000, United States District Court order requiring USEPA and 

MDEQ to adopt a schedule that would ensure the development (by May 5, 2007) of all necessary TMDLs for 

waterways on the 1996, 303(d) list. To avoid having two separate TMDL planning schedules in effect at the same 

time, MDEQ adopted a single schedule, addressing waterways appearing on either the 1996 or 2000 list, and 

published this schedule in the 2000 Montana 303(d) list. When the 2002 303(d) list was published, an appeal of the 

court order was underway and, therefore, MDEQ did not attempt a full prioritization update. Only some minor 

rescheduling was completed, which was permissible within the time limit of the court order.
WATER APPENDIX

WAT-27

On July 23, 2001, the USEPA notified the 

MDEQ that it would continue to approve or 

reject TMDLs for waterways impaired by 

pollutants, but would no longer take action to 

approve or disapprove TMDLs for waterways 

impaired solely by pollution. “Pollutants” 

include specific substances, such as nutrients, 

sediment, or metals, while “pollution” is 

considered a water quality problem created by 

conditions, such as flow alterations, or habitat 

degradation. USEPA expanded on this policy 

change in its guidance during the 2004 

Integrated Report preparation. Under this 

guidance, waterways impaired only by pollution, 

are listed separately as Category 4C waters, 

while waterways impaired by pollutants, are 

listed as Category 5 waters. Because the 

calculation of TMDLs is only appropriate where 

the impairing factor is an excessive pollutant 

load, TMDLs are required only for Category 5 

waters. 

On July 25, 2003, the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on the 

USEPA’s appeal of the District Court order and 

found that the District Court had the authority to 

require the USEPA and MDEQ to establish and 

follow a schedule for developing TMDLs but did 

not have the discretion to refuse permit 

modifications on the 1996 list of impaired 

waters.

The court order schedule allows flexibility for 

the MDEQ and USEPA to respond to 

contingencies as long as the pace of TMDL 

development is maintained. The determination of 

TMDLs for some planning areas may be delayed 

if others are accelerated to maintain the pace. In 

its 2002 update list, MDEQ made several 

schedule modifications. Since the publication of 

the 2002 list, consultations between MDEQ and 

USEPA have identified additional rescheduling 

needs and allocated lead responsibility for the 

development of specific TMDLs to either the 

MDEQ or the USEPA Montana Office. These 

proposed schedule modifications and workload 

allocations were presented for consideration by 

the Statewide TMDL Advisory Group on 

September 16, 2003. The advisory group 

provided positive comments on these changes 

and encouraged MDEQ to complete the TMDLs as quickly as possible. In 2003, the Montana State Legislature 

extended (by an additional 5 years) the original 10-year date for completing TMDLs for waterways appearing on the

1996 list.

TABLE 4.

SOURCES OF SURFACE WATER IMPAIRMENT IN 

THE PLANNING AREA

Impairment Source

Number of 

Mentions on 2008 

303(d) List

Phosphorus 24

Alteration in stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers 23

Iron 21

TKN 19

Lead 16

Solids (suspended/bedload) 14

Copper 13

Nitrate/Nitrite 13

TDS 12

Low flow alterations 11

Physical substrate habitat alterations 11

Salinity 11

Chlorophyll-a 10

Other flow regime alterations 10

Sedimentation/Siltation 10

Fish-Passage Barrier 9

Cadmium 8

Nitrogen 7

Mercury 6

Specific Conductance 6

Temperature (water) 6

Zinc 6

Sulfates 5

Arsenic 3

Excess Algal Growth 3

Oxygen, Dissolved 3

Nickel 3

pH 3

Selenium 3

Agriculture, Atmospheric DepositionToxics, Historic Bottom Deposits (Not 

Sediment), Impacts from Abandoned 

Mine Lands (Inactive)

2

Other 2

Ammonia 1

Biological Indicators 1

Escherichia coli 1

Fecal Coliform 1

Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands 

(Inactive) 1

Historic Bottom Deposits (Not 

Sediment) 1

Organic Enrichment (Sewage) 1
WATER APPENDIX

WAT-28

During the development of 

the 2000, 2002, and 2004 

lists, MDEQ determined that 

several waterways in the 

Tongue River, Powder River, 

and Little Powder River 

basins considered impaired 

on the 1996 list were actually 

meeting water quality 

standards (e.g., Mizpah Creek 

was found to be fully 

supportive for nutrients, 

dissolved oxygen, inorganics, 

and suspended solids). 

However, it should be noted 

that assessments commonly 

indicate that flow or habitat 

alterations result in high 

levels of pollutants; therefore, 

some of these waterways may 

require additional assessment 

prior to developing TMDLs 

for the associated TMDL 

planning areas. It is possible 

that MDEQ will determine 

that additional waterways 

have attained the standards 

for listed pollutants. If so, 

completion of a TMDL will 

not be required, even though 

the waterway and the 

pollutants appeared on the 

1996 list. Conversely, 

additional TMDLs may be 

required if the assessment 

demonstrates that a waterway 

is impaired for other 

pollutants not identified on 

the 1996 list. The Rosebud, 

Tongue River, and Powder 

River planning areas are 

undergoing pre-TMDL 

planning and assessment.

TABLE 5.

POSSIBLE CAUSES OF IMPAIRMENT IN THE PLANNING AREA

Possible Cause Number of Mentions 

on 2008 303(d) List

Natural sources 34

Source unknown 31

Irrigated crop production 30

Agriculture 16

Impacts from hydrostructure flow 

regulation/modification 14

Rangeland grazing 14

Grazing in riparian or shoreline zones 13

Streambank modifications/ destabilization 11

Channelization 9

Non-irrigated crop production 6

Dam or impoundment 5

Municipal point source discharges 5

Transfer of water from and, outside of, the watershed 5

Crop Production (cropland or dryland) 4

Hydrostructure impacts on fish passage 3

Highways, roads, bridges 3

Dam construction (other than upstream flood control 

projects) 3

Infrastructure (new construction) 3

Loss of riparian habitat 3

Animal feeding operations (NPS) 2

Flow alterations from water diversions 2

Coal mining 1

Livestock (grazing or feeding operations) 1

Habitat modification-other than hydromodification 1

Low water crossing 1

Impacts from resort areas (winter and non-winter 

resorts) 1

On-site treatment systems (Septic systems and similar 

decentralized systems) 1

Post-development erosion and sedimentation 1

Site clearance (land development or redevelopment) 1

Spills from trucks or trains 1

Surface mining 1