CHAPTER 3: 

 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Miles City Field Office 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 

BLM
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3-1 

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides a description of the existing biological, physical, and socioeconomic characteristics, 

including human uses that could be affected by implementing the action alternatives as described in Chapter 2 

for this resource management plan (RMP). Information from broad-scale assessments were used to help set the 

context for the planning area. The information and direction for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

resources has been further broken into fine-scale assessments and information where possible. The public and 

agency scoping process raised specific aspects of each resource discussed in this section (e.g., weeds, fire, and 

off-highway vehicle [OHV] use). The level of information presented in this chapter is used to help assess 

potential effects of the action alternatives in Chapter 4. 

Because acre figures and other numbers used are approximate projections, readers should not infer that they 

reflect exact measurements or precise calculations. Acreages were calculated using geographic information 

systems (GIS) technology and there may be slight variations in total acres between resources. 

HOW TO READ THIS CHAPTER 

This chapter is organized into 

four sections, including 

Resources, Resource Uses, 

Special Designations, and 

Social and Economic 

Conditions. These sections are 

further divided into resources or 

programs, which are also 

presented in Chapter 3. 

Summer in Eastern Montana 

near Chalk Buttes. 

For a description of the affected 

environment, see below or, for 

electronic drafts, click on the 

following link to take you to a 

specific section: 

Air Resources and Climate, 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern, Back Country Byways, Coal, Cultural Resources, Environmental Justice, Facilities, Fish and Wildlife, 

(Aquatics, Terrestrial, and Special Status Species), Forestry and Woodland Products, Geology, Geothermal, 

Hazardous Materials and Waste, Invasive Species (Vegetation), Lands and Realty, Lands with Wilderness 

Characteristics, Livestock Grazing, Locatable Minerals, Mineral Materials, Minerals, Oil and Gas, 

Paleontological Resources, Recreation, Renewable Energy, Riparian and Wetland Areas, Social and Economic, 

Soils, Special Designation Areas, Special Recreation Management Areas, Special Status Species-Plants,

Transportation, Travel Management and OHV, Vegetation, Visual Resources, Water Resources, Wilderness, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wildland Fire Management and Ecology. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3-2 

RESOURCES 

This section contains a description of the existing biological and physical resources of the Miles City Field 

Office (MCFO) planning area and follows the order 

of topics addressed in Chapter 2 as follows: 

 Air Resources and Climate, 

 Soil, 

 Water Resources, 

 Vegetation, 

o Special Status Species – Plants, 

o Riparian and Wetland Areas, 

o Invasive Species, 

 Fish and Wildlife 

o Aquatics, 

o Terrestrial, 

o Special Status Species – Fish and 

Wildlife, 

 Wildland Fire Ecology and Management, 

 Cultural Resources, 

 Paleontological Resources, 

 Visual Resources, and 

 Lands with Wilderness Characteristics. 

Winter on the Yellowstone River at Matthews 

Recreation Area north of Miles City. 

AIR RESOURCES AND CLIMATE 

The air quality of any region is controlled primarily by the magnitude and distribution of pollutant emissions 

and the regional climate. Pollutant transport from specific source areas is affected by local topography and 

meteorology. In the mountainous western United States, topography is particularly important in channeling 

pollutants along valleys, creating upslope and downslope circulations that may entrain airborne pollutants and 

block the flow of pollutants toward certain areas. In general, local effects are superimposed on the general 

synoptic weather regime and are most important when the large-scale wind flow is weak. 

This section begins with a description of current climate and currently identified climate change trends. 

Following this discussion, air resources will be described in terms of air quality, air quality related values 

(AQRV), specifically acid deposition and visibility, current emissions in the planning area, and smoke 

management. 

CLIMATE

Climate is the combination of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, sunshine, cloudiness, 

and other meteorological characteristics in a given region over a long period of time. Climate differs from 

weather, which is the present condition of these characteristics and their variations over shorter periods. Climate 

change involves long-term trends indicating a noticeable shift in climate. 

Primary climate indicators that can be monitored include ambient air temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind, 

relative humidity, precipitation amounts and timing, annual snowpack levels, streamflow volume and timing, 

and solar radiation. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-3 

Current Conditions 

The planning area is within the Great Plains-Palouse Dry Steppe Province (Eco-region 331) of the Temperate 

Steppe Division (Division 330) in the Dry Domain (Bailey 1995). The planning area is in the rain shadow of the 

Rocky Mountains and is characterized as a semi-arid continental regime of the Great Plains grasslands. 

Average annual temperature is about 45 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Winters are cold and dry while the summers 

are warm to hot. The frost-free season ranges from 100 days per year in the north to more than 200 days further 

east. Maximum rainfall occurs in summer, with about 10 inches of precipitation per year. Because evaporation 

exceeds precipitation, the total supply of moisture is low. 

Specific climate data from seven Cooperative Observer Program (COOP) weather stations (Baker, Broadus, 

Glendive, Jordan, Lame Deer, Miles City, and Sidney) within the planning area are shown in Tables 1 through 7 

in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix. Data for each site spans 50 or more years. The average annual 

temperature is approximately 45 °F at most of the sites. Winters are cold and dry, with the lowest average 

minimum monthly temperature occurring in January and varying from 1°F in Sidney to 9.4°F in Baker. 

Summers are warm to hot with average maximum monthly temperatures occurring in July and varying from 

84.9°F in Sidney to 90.7°F in Baker. The frost-free season ranges from 100 days per year in the north to more 

than 200 days further east. 

Mean annual precipitation at locations throughout the planning area varies from 11.7 to approximately 15.0 

inches (Tables 1 through 7 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix and Figure 3-1). Maximum rainfall 

occurs in summer. Because evaporation exceeds precipitation, the total supply of moisture is low. Average total 

annual snowfall varies from 27.4 to 46.3 inches (Tables 1 through 7 in the Air Resources and Climate 

Appendix). 

Based on hourly wind data from airport locations in Baker, Glendive, Jordan, Miles City, and Sidney (Table 8 

in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix), average annual wind speeds varied over the region from 8.6 to 

11.1 miles per hour (mph), while the average monthly wind speeds varied from approximately 7.7 to 12.7 mph. 

March, April, and May are typically the windiest months of the year. Wind roses shown in Figures 1 through 5 

of the Air Resources and Climate Appendix illustrate wind direction and wind speed at five locations within the 

planning area. Each wind rose consists of 16 arms whose radial positions indicate the frequency of wind 

blowing from the indicated direction. Longer arms indicate that the wind more frequently originates from the 

illustrated direction. Colored bands within each arm indicate the proportion of time that the wind blows with a 

given speed. 

Trends 

Climate trends are discussed in the Climate Change section. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change includes two separate issues: cause and effect. Climate change is caused by physical and 

chemical changes in the environment, such as increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases 

(GHGs) and changes in albedo (surface reflectivity). The effects of climate change are widespread and include 

changes in climate indicators, such as temperature and precipitation, as well as effects on many natural 

resources, including air quality, water quality, flora, fauna, and many other resources on local, regional, 

national, and global scales. Climate change also affects human health and economic resources. 
Air Resources and Climate

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTCHAPTER 3

3-4

FIGURE 3-1.

AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION IN MONTANA (1971 TO 2000)

Source: MNRIS 2004
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-5 

Primary climate change indicators that can be monitored are similar to those for climate, with some additions. 

Atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, surface albedo, and ocean temperatures are also important climate 

change indicators, although these additional indicators are not monitored in the planning area. 

Current Conditions 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that “warming of the climate system is 

unequivocal” (IPCC 2007b, p. 5) and “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the 

mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations” 

(IPCC 2007b, p. 10). Chapter 9 of Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working 

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change addressed the 

causes of climate change. Some of the conclusions included: 

 human-induced warming of the climate system is widespread, 

 “it is likely” that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature 

increases since the mid-20th century, and 

 surface temperature extremes have “likely” been affected by anthropogenic forcing. 

As with any field of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of climate change. This 

does not imply that scientists do not have confidence in many aspects of climate change science. Some aspects 

of the science are known with virtual certainty because they are based on well-known physical laws and 

documented trends. 

The temperature of the planet’s atmosphere is determined by the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the earth 

and its atmosphere. GHGs (primarily carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide [N2O]) increase 

the earth’s temperature by reducing the amount of solar energy that re-radiates back into space. In other words, 

more heat is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere when atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are greater. While 

GHGs have occurred naturally for millennia and are necessary for life on earth, increased atmospheric 

concentrations of GHGs, as well as land use changes, are contributing to an increase in average global 

temperature (IPCC 2007b). This warming, which is associated with climatic variability that exceeds the historic 

norm, is known as climate change. Extensive explanations of climate change causes and effects are provided in 

the Climate Change Supplementary Information Report: Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota Bureau of 

Land Management, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 

Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change Indicators in 

the United States, and Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 

Table 3-1 summarizes annual GHG emissions for Montana, the United States, and the world. Annual emissions 

of GHGs are usually quantified in units of metric tons (mt). An mt is equivalent to approximately 2,005 pounds 

(1.102 short tons). The combined effect of emissions of multiple GHGs is reported in terms of carbon dioxide 

equivalent (CO2e), which is calculated by multiplying emissions by a global warming potential number that 

takes into account each gas’s atmospheric longevity and its heat-trapping capability. The global warming 

potential of carbon dioxide is set at 1. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

determined other GHGs’ relative climate change potentials over a 100-year period. In USEPA regulations, 

global warming potentials for methane and nitrous oxide are 21 and 310, respectively. Other organizations, such 

as the IPCC, have set slightly different global warming potentials.

Planning area GHG emission sources include combustion equipment such as heaters and engines, oil and gas 

development and production, coal mining, fire events, motorized vehicle use (construction equipment, cars and 

trucks, and OHVs), livestock grazing, facilities development, and exhaust and fugitive emissions from other 

equipment. Contributions to climate change also result from land use changes (conversion of land to less 

reflective surfaces that absorb heat, such as concrete or pavement), changes in vegetation, and soil erosion 

(which can reduce snow’s solar reflectivity and contribute to faster snowmelt). Emission controls on some 

sources can reduce GHG emissions. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-6 

Global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are 

determined by the quantity of GHGs emitted to 

and removed from the atmosphere. Global 

concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and 

nitrous oxide in 2009 were 387 parts per million 

(ppm), 1,744 parts per billion (ppb), and 323 

ppb, respectively (USEPA 2011c). Atmospheric 

concentrations of carbon dioxide can be reduced 

by carbon storage in forests, woodlands, and 

rangelands, as well as in underground carbon 

sequestration projects. Vegetation management 

can provide a source of carbon dioxide (e.g., 

prescribed burns) or it can provide a sink of carbon dioxide through vegetation growth. The net storage or loss 

of carbon on rangelands and grasslands in the planning area is generally small and difficult to estimate or 

measure. Most soils within the planning area contain relatively little organic matter compared to forest soils 

(forests and woodlands compose approximately 7 percent of the total acres on public lands in the planning 

area). 

Trends 

Climate change trends include two types of trends: historic and predicted. Historic trends describe climate 

changes that have already been observed. Predicted climate change indicates modeled future changes based on 

assumptions of future global GHG emission and resulting environmental effects. Climate change will continue 

into the future even if GHG emissions remain at current levels or decrease. Long lag times are associated with 

the massive thermal energy stored in oceans, which can take decades, or even centuries, to adjust to climate 

changes (USEPA 2010i). In addition, the long lifetimes of many GHGs contribute to committed climate change. 

For example, carbon dioxide typically remains in the atmosphere for 50 to 200 years, depending on how long it 

takes carbon dioxide molecules to be absorbed by plants, land, or the ocean. Nitrous oxide is also long lived; it 

remains in the atmosphere for approximately 120 years. In contrast, methane has a shorter lifetime and remains 

in the atmosphere for approximately 12 years (USEPA 2010i). Additional types of GHGs also contribute to 

climate change, but their impact is substantially less because of their relatively small concentrations in the 

atmosphere. 

Temperature and Precipitation 

Historical global mean surface temperatures have increased nearly 1.3°F from 1906 through 2008 (GISS and 

Sato 2010). Northern latitudes (above 23.6 through 90.0° N) have exhibited greater temperature increases of 

nearly 2.1°F since 1900, with nearly a 1.8 °F increase since 1970 alone (GISS and Sato 2010). In the planning 

area, data from 1941 through 2005 indicate a long-term temperature increase between 0.40 to 0.80°F per decade 

since 1976 (Figure 3-2). Over a recent 32-year period, planning area observed winter temperatures increased up 

to 7°F (see Figure 7 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix) (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). With 

regard to precipitation, data from 1931 through 2005 indicated little change in total annual precipitation in 

eastern Montana since 1976. However, the timing of precipitation may have changed. 

Predictions of future temperature changes compared to a 1961 to 1979 baseline indicate that temperatures in the 

planning area may increase 2 to 3°F by 2010 to 2029 (Figure 3-3). Temperatures are predicted to continue 

increasing through the century by 3 to 5°F by the mid-21st century and increase by 5 to 9°F by the end of the 

century, compared to the 1961 to 1979 baseline (see Figure 6 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix) (Karl 

et al. 2009). The lower end of these ranges is based on a lower future GHG emission scenario, while the upper 

end of the ranges is based on a higher GHG emission scenario. Along with generally increasing temperatures, 

many more days are predicted to have maximum temperatures greater than 100°F (see Figure 8 in the Air 

Resources and Climate Appendix) (Karl et al. 2009). In 2001, the IPCC indicated that by the year 2100, global 

average surface temperatures would increase 2.5 to 10.4°F above 1990 levels (IPCC 2001). The National 

Academy of Sciences confirmed these findings, but also indicated that there are uncertainties regarding how 

TABLE 3-1.

ESTIMATED ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS

Entity Data Year

CO2e 

Emissions 

(106 mt)

Montana 2007 50.4

United States 2009 6,633

Global 2004 49,000

Emissions exclude GHG emissions and sequestration due to land 

use and land use changes.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-7 

climate change may affect different regions (NAS 2008). Computer model predictions indicate that increases in 

temperature will not be equally distributed but are likely to be accentuated at higher latitudes. Warming during 

the winter months is expected to be greater than during the summer, and increases in daily minimum 

temperatures are more likely than increases in daily maximum temperatures. Rising temperatures would 

increase water vapor in the atmosphere and reduce soil moisture, increasing generalized drought conditions 

while at the same time enhancing heavy storm events. 

Prediction of future precipitation changes from the recent past to 2080 to 2099 indicate that precipitation in the 

planning area will increase 15 to 20 percent in winter and spring and decrease no more than 5 percent in 

summer. During fall, precipitation in the northern part of the planning area will increase by up to 5 percent 

while the southern portion of the planning will experience a 0- to 5-percent decrease (see Figure 9 in the Air 

Resources and Climate Appendix) (Karl et al. 2009). 

In addition to temperature and total precipitation changes, predicted climate changes include changes in 

precipitation timing by season and an increase in extreme rainfall events and other extreme weather events. 

Warming temperatures, melting glaciers, and thermal expansion within the seawater will cause ocean levels to 

rise. These changes will affect a broad 

array of ecosystems and affect food 

supplies and human health. 

Climate Change Impacts on Resources 

Climate change affects nearly all resources 

at local, regional, and global levels. The 

impacts of climate change are so 

widespread that they cannot all be 

described in this RMP. To illustrate the 

effects of global temperature change, 

Figure 3-4 provides broad examples of 

climate change impacts. As global 

temperatures increase, impacts to resources 

become more significant. 

Temperature and precipitation changes could directly affect air quality. Air quality would be improved if 

increased precipitation reduces wind-blown dust but degraded if dry periods caused increased particulate 

emissions. Ground-level ozone (O3) may also be affected. High temperatures are a contributing factor in 

ground-level ozone formation, which is highly dependent on nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic 

compound (VOC) concentrations. End-of-century ozone concentrations in the planning area are predicted to 

decrease during the months of June through August based on a lower GHG emission scenario and increase 

based on a higher emission scenario (Figure 10 of the Air Resources and Climate Appendix) (Karl et al. 2009).

Climate change will affect water quality in the planning area. Increasing temperatures in the planning area are 

likely to contribute to increased evaporation, drought frequencies, and declining water quantity. The warming of 

lakes and rivers will adversely affect the thermal structure and water quality of hydrological systems, which will 

add additional stress to water resources in the region (IPCC 2007b). The planning area depends on temperaturesensitive springtime snowpack to meet demand for water from municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational 

uses, and BLM-authorized activities. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) notes that mountain 

ecosystems in the western United States are particularly sensitive to climate change, particularly in the higher 

elevations (where much of the snowpack occurs) that have experienced three times the global average 

temperature increase over the past century (USGS 2010a). Higher temperatures are causing more winter 

precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow, which contributes to earlier snowmelt. Additional declines in 

snowmelt associated with climate change are projected, which would reduce the amount of water available 

during summer (Karl et al. 2009). Rapid spring snowmelt resulting from sudden and unseasonal temperature 

increases can also lead to greater erosive events and unstable soil conditions. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-8 

Source: NOAA 2010a

FIGURE 3-2.

RATE OF LONG-TERM TREND TEMPERATURE CHANGE AND PRECIPITATION 

CHANGE
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-9 

FIGURE 3-3.

NEAR-TERM PREDICTED TEMPERATURE INCREASES. 

Source: Karl et al. 2009 

Increases in average summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt in the planning area are expected to 

increase the risk of wildfires by increasing summer moisture deficits (Karl et al. 2009). Studies have shown that 

earlier snowmelts can lead to a longer dry season, which increases the incidence of catastrophic fire 

(Westerling, Hidalgo, Cayan, and Swetnam 2006b). Together with historic changes in land use, climate change 

is anticipated to increase the occurrence of wildfire throughout the western United States. Predicted climate 

change impacts to wildfires show large increases in the annual average acreage burned. Based on modeling that 

assumed a 1°Celsius (1.8°F) increase in global average temperature, a 393 percent increase in acreage burned in 

wildfires is predicted in the planning area (see Figure 11 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix) (Karl et 

al. 2009). Air quality, ecosystem, and economic impacts from wildfires are extensive. Wildfires also release 

large quantities of carbon dioxide that would increase atmospheric GHG concentrations. 

There is evidence that recent warming is affecting terrestrial and aquatic biological systems (IPCC 2007b). 

Warming temperatures are leading to earlier timing of spring events such as leaf unfolding, bird migration, and 

egg-laying (IPCC 2007b). The range of many plant and animal species has shifted poleward and to higher 

elevations, as the climate of these species’ traditional habitats change. As future changes in climate are 

predicted to be even greater past changes, there will likely be even larger range shifts in the coming decades 

(Lawler et al. 2009). Warming temperatures are also linked to earlier vegetation growth in the spring and longer 

thermal growing seasons (IPCC 2007b). In aquatic habitats, increases in algal abundance in high-altitude lakes 

have been linked to warmer temperatures, and range changes and earlier fish migrations in rivers have been 

observed (IPCC 2007b). Climate change is likely to combine with other human-induced stressors to further 

increase the vulnerability of ecosystems to additional pests, additional invasive species, and loss of native 

species. Climate change is likely to affect breeding patterns, water and food supply, and habitat availability to 

some degree. Sensitive species in the planning area, such as sage-grouse, which are already stressed by 

declining habitat, increased development, and other factors, could experience additional pressures because of 

climate change. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-10

FIGURE 3-4.

EXAMPLES OF RESOURCE IMPACTS FROM CLIMATE CHANGE. 

Source: IPCC 2007b 

High-frequency flooding events, erosion, wildfires, and hotter temperatures pose increased threats to cultural 

and paleontological sites and artifacts. Heat from wildfires, suppression activities, and equipment, as well as 

greater ambient daytime heat can damage sensitive cultural resources. Similarly, flooding and erosion can wash 

away artifacts and damage cultural and paleontological sites. However, these same events may also uncover and 

promote discoveries of new cultural and paleontological localities. 

Climate change also poses challenges for many resource uses on BLM-administered lands. Increased 

temperatures, drought, and evaporation may reduce seasonal water supplies for livestock and could impact 

forage availability. However, in non-drought years, longer growing seasons resulting from thermal increases 

may increase forage availability throughout the year. Shifts in wildlife habitat resulting from climate change 

may influence hunting and fishing activities, and early snowmelt may affect winter and water-based recreational 

activities. Drought and resulting stress on vegetation is likely to increase the frequency and intensity of 

mountain bark beetle and other insect infestations, which further increases the risk of fire and reduces the 

potential for sale of forest products on BLM-administered lands. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-11

National Action to Reduce GHGs 

United States GHG emissions are expected to decline as a result of the USEPA’s listing of GHGs as a regulated 

air pollutant and the implementation of several recent GHG regulatory programs. Facilities with large emissions 

of GHGs must report these emissions to the USEPA, and new facilities with large expected GHG emissions 

must obtain air quality permits and potentially control GHG emissions. 

Within the United States Department of the Interior (USDI), several initiatives have been launched to improve 

the ability to understand, predict, and adapt to the challenges of climate change. The Secretary of the Interior 

signed Secretarial Order 3289 on February 22, 2010, establishing a Department-wide, scientific-based approach 

to increase understanding of climate change and to coordinate an effective response to impacts on managed 

resources. The order reiterated the importance of analyzing potential climate change impacts when undertaking 

long-range planning issues and established several initiatives including the development of eight Regional 

Climate Science Centers. Regional Climate Science Centers would provide scientific information and tools that 

land and resource managers can apply to monitor and adapt to climate changes at regional and local scales. The 

North Central Climate Science Center, which will incorporate the planning area, has a target establishment date 

of 2011. 

Given the broad spatial influence of climate change, which requires response at the landscape-level, the USDI 

also established Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, which are management-science partnerships that help to 

inform management actions addressing climate change across landscapes. These Cooperatives, which are 

formed and directed by land, water, wildlife, and cultural resource managers and interested public and private 

organizations, are designed to increase the scope of climate change response beyond federal lands. 

Rapid ecoregional assessments are one of the tools the BLM uses to monitor and respond to the effects of 

climate change. Ecoregional assessments are geospatial landscape evaluations designed to identify areas of high 

ecological value within an ecoregion that may warrant conservation, adaptation, or restoration. These 

assessments can help to identify resources that are being affected by climate change and provide information to 

facilitate the subsequent development of an ecoregional conservation strategy for plants, wildlife, and fish 

communities on public lands. Ecoregional assessments can identify changes in climatic conditions and areas, 

species, and ecological features and services that are sensitive to ecosystem instability. One of the objectives of 

the BLM rapid ecoregional assessment is to provide guidance for adaptation and mitigation planning in 

response to climate change. 

In addition to efforts to better respond and adapt to climate change, other federal initiatives are being 

implemented to mitigate climate change. The Carbon Storage Project was implemented to develop carbon 

sequestration methodologies for geological (i.e., underground) and biological (e.g., forests and rangelands) 

carbon storage. The project is a collaboration of federal agency and external stakeholders to enhance carbon 

storage in geologic formations and plants and soils in an environmentally responsible manner. The Carbon 

Footprint Project is a project to develop a unified GHG-emission reduction program for the USDI, including 

setting a baseline and reduction goal for the Department’s GHG emissions and energy use. More information 

about the USDI’s efforts to respond to climate change is available at www.doi.gov/archive/climatechange/. 

AIR QUALITY 

Indicators 

Air quality indicators include air pollutant concentrations, which indicate the quality of the air humans breathe. 

AQRVs include other air resource characteristics such as light transmission (i.e., visibility) and acidic 

deposition. This RMP addresses air quality within the study area, which extends beyond the planning area and 

includes nearby areas in which air quality could potentially be affected by activities within the planning area. In 

some cases, data sources used to describe air resource characteristics in the planning area are located outside of 

the planning area. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-12

Air pollutant concentration monitoring networks in Montana include the State and Local Air Monitoring 

Stations (SLAMS), Tribal monitoring networks, and the Clean Air Status and Trends Network (CASTNet). 

SLAMS are usually located in urban areas and measure criteria pollutants. The Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) operates the SLAMS network to determine compliance with regulatory 

concentration standards. CASTNet stations are located in remote areas and measure concentrations of 

compounds of interest to ecosystem health. Air pollutant concentrations are usually reported on a volume basis 

as ppm or ppb for gaseous substances and on a mass basis as micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3

) for solid 

substances such as particulate. 

Monitors that provide information on AQRVs include the National Acid Deposition Program (NADP) network 

and the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. Table 3-2 provides a 

list of monitoring stations in or near the planning area. 

Current Conditions 

Criteria Air Pollutants 

Criteria air pollutants are those for which national health-based concentration standards have been established 

under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. Criteria air pollutants include carbon 

monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone, particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal 

to 10 microns (PM10), fine particulate matter (diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns) (PM2.5), and sulfur 

dioxide (SO2). Criteria air pollutant concentrations are compared to NAAQS (USEPA 2010c) and Montana 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) (Table 3-3). The NAAQS include both primary and secondary 

standards. Primary standards protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as 

asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards protect public welfare by preventing damage to 

buildings, infrastructure, and vegetation. 

The MDEQ performs regulatory monitoring of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, 

particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to determine compliance with NAAQS and 

MAAQS. Areas that do not meet federal standards are known as nonattainment areas. The community of Lame 

Deer in Rosebud County is the only nonattainment area within the planning area. Particulate matter (PM10) 

concentrations within Lame Deer exceed the particulate matter (PM10) NAAQS. Montana counties containing 

nonattainment areas are shown in Map 50. The actual geographic extent of the Lame Deer nonattainment area is 

much smaller than the shaded county shown on the map. Similarly, the SO2 nonattainment area in nearby 

Yellowstone County is limited to a small area in Laurel, Montana. Several other nonattainment areas are 

restricted to portions of the counties highlighted on the map. The entire state of Montana is considered to be 

attainment for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and ozone, while small areas are nonattainment for fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), lead, and sulfur dioxide. A relatively large area in northwestern Montana is 

designated nonattainment for particulate matter (PM10).

The sources and effects of each criteria pollutant are explained below. A summary of recent ambient air quality 

monitoring data is provided in Figure 3-5, which shows the percentage of the monitored concentration 

compared to the NAAQS. In addition to the monitor located in Sidney, Montana (Richland County), two 

monitors were established in the planning area during 2009 at Broadus (Powder River County) and Birney 

(Rosebud County).

Carbon Monoxide 

Carbon monoxide can have significant effects on human health because it combines readily with hemoglobin 

and consequently reduces the amount of oxygen transported in the bloodstream. Effects on humans from 

exposure to high carbon monoxide concentrations can include slight headaches, nausea, or death. 

Motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines are the dominant source of carbon monoxide emissions in 

most areas. High carbon monoxide levels develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine 

with ground-level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-13

result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Carbon monoxide is also created during refuse, agricultural, 

and wood-stove burning and through some industrial processes. 

TABLE 3-2.

AIR QUALITY MONITORING STATIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA OR VICINITY

Monitoring

System Station Identifier Pollutant or AQRV Location Lat Long

SLAMS

30-111-0066 SO2 Billings-Coburn 

Road 45.7883 -108.4595

30-111-0085 CO, PM2.5 Billings-St. Luke’s 45.7822 -108.5115

30-087-0001 NO, NO2, NOx, O3, 

PM10, PM2.5

Birney-Tongue 

River 45.3662 -106.4894

30-075-0001 NO, NO2, NOx, O3, 

PM10, PM2.5

Broadus-Powder 

River 45.4401 -105.3702

30-083-0001 NO, NO2, NOx, O3, 

SO2, PM10, PM2.5

Sidney-Oil Field 47.8034 -104.4856

CASTNET THR422

O3, SO2, 

Deposition

Theodore 

Roosevelt 

National Park

(North Dakota)

46.8947 -103.3778

NADP

MT00

Wet Deposition Little Bighorn 

Battlefield 

National 

Monument

45.5686 -107.4375

MT96 Wet Deposition Poplar River 48.3100 -105.1000

MT98

Wet Deposition Havre-Northern 

Agricultural 

Research Center

48.4992 -109.7975

ND00

Wet Deposition Theodore 

Roosevelt 

National Park

(North Dakota)

46.8951 -103.378

IMPROVE

FOPE1 Visibility Fort Peck 48.308 -105.102

MELA1 Visibility Medicine Lake 48.4872 -104.476

NOCH1 Visibility Northern 

Cheyenne 45.6493 -106.557

YELL2

Visibility Yellowstone 

National Park

(Wyoming)

44.5654 -110.4003

NOAB1 Visibility North Absaroka 

(Wyoming)

44.7448 -109.3816

THRO1

Visibility Theodore 

Roosevelt 

National Park

(North Dakota)

44.8948 -103.3777

ULBE1 Visibility UL Bend 47.5823 -108.72
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-14

Carbon monoxide is not monitored within the planning area but is monitored west of the planning area in 

Billings, Montana. In 2011, the second highest 1-hour carbon monoxide concentration in Billings (Yellowstone 

County) was approximately 2.5 ppm, or approximately 7 percent of the corresponding primary NAAQS. This 

concentration was 11 percent of the more stringent 1-hour carbon monoxide MAAQS. The second highest 8-

hour carbon monoxide concentration was 1.3 ppm during the same year, approximately 14 percent of the 

corresponding primary NAAQS and MAAQS. 

TABLE 3-3.

FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Federal NAAQS1 State MAAQS2

Averaging Time Level Standard Type Level

CO 8-hour 9 ppm3

Primary 9 ppm12

1-hour 35 ppm3Primary 23 ppm12

Fluoride in 

Forage

Monthly N/A N/A 50 μg/g

Grazing Season N/A N/A 35 μg/g

Pb 3-month (rolling) 0.15 μg/m3, 5

Primary, Secondary N/A

90-day N/A N/A 1.5 μg/g5

NO2

Annual 0.053 ppm5Primary, Secondary 0.05 ppm13

1-hour 0.100 ppm10 Primary 0.30 ppm12

PM2.5

Annual 15.0 μg/m3, 

11 Primary, Secondary N/A

24 hour 35 μg/m3, 7Primary, Secondary N/A

PM10

Annual N/A N/A 50 μg/m3 4

24-hour 150 μg/m3, 8Primary, Secondary 150 μg/m3

Settleable 

Particulate 30-day N/A N/A 10 g/m2

O3 8-hour 0.075 ppm6Primary, Secondary 0.10 ppm12

SO2

Annual 0.030 ppm5Primary 0.02 ppm13

24-hour 0.14 ppm3Primary 0.10 ppm12

3-hour 0.5 ppm3Secondary N/A

1-hour 0.075 ppm9Primary 0.50 ppm14

Visibility Annual N/A N/A 3 x 10-5/m15

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

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

Rules of Montana (ARM).

3Not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year.

4Not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over 3 years.

5Not to be exceeded.

6Not to be exceeded, based on the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations per 

calendar year. 

7Not to be exceeded based on the 98th percentile of 24-hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor.

8Not to be exceeded more than once per calendar year, based on a 3-year average of maximum 24-hour values.

9Not to be exceeded, based on a 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum concentrations. 

10Not to be exceeded, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum concentrations. 

11Not to be exceeded, based on a 3-year average of the weighted annual mean from one or more community 

monitors.

12Not to be exceeded more than once over any 12 consecutive months.

13Arithmetic average not to be exceeded more than once over any 4 consecutive quarters.

14Not to be exceeded more than 18 times in any 12 consecutive months.

15This standard applies only in certain Class I areas (Table 3-5).
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-15

Lead 

The primary historical source of lead emissions has been certain types of industrial sources and lead in gasoline 

and diesel fuel. However, since lead in fuels has decreased substantially, the processing of metals containing 

trace amounts of lead is now the primary source of lead emissions. The highest levels of lead in air are generally 

found near lead smelters. Other stationary sources include waste incinerators, utilities, and lead-acid battery 

manufacturing plants. The effects of lead exposure include brain and other nervous system damage; children 

exposed to lead are particularly at risk. Lead levels in the planning area are expected to be well below the 

NAAQS and MAAQS because the planning area does not contain large lead emissions sources. 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Oxides of nitrogen, including nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide are formed when naturally occurring 

atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen are combusted with fuel in automobiles, power plants, industrial processes, 

and home and office heating. At high exposures, nitrogen dioxide causes respiratory system damage of various 

types, including bronchial damage. Its effects are exhibited by increased susceptibility to respiratory infection 

and changes in lung function. Within the atmosphere, nitrogen dioxide contributes to visibility impacts and may 

be visible as reddish-brown haze. Nitrogen dioxide (and other nitrogen oxide compounds) also forms nitric acid 

(HNO3), a component of atmospheric deposition (e.g., acid rain). 

Miller Creek prescribed fire in southeastern Montana 

Scenic view of the Musselshell Breaks 

Wilderness Study Area 
3-16

Air Resources and ClimateAFFECTED ENVIRONMENTCHAPTER 3

 

Billings: CO values are based on 2011 data. Birney and Broadus monitors: Values are based on 2010-2011 data, except for NO2 values, which are based on 2011 data. 

Sidney monitor: Annual NO2 and 1-hour SO2 values are based on calendar year 2011 data. Other Sidney values are 3-year averages based on 2009 to 2011 data. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CO 1-hourCO 8-hour NO2 1-

hour

NO2

Annual

O3 8-hour PM2.5 24-

hour

PM2.5

Annual

PM10 24-

hour

SO2 1-

hour

Criteria Pollutant Concentration

(Percentage of NAAQS)

Pollutant and Averaging Time

FIGURE 3-5.

BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS IN AND NEAR THE PLANNING AREA 2009 TO 2011

Billings (30-111-

0085)

Birney (30-087-

0001)

Broadus (30-075-

0001)

Sydney (30-083-

0001)

Billings (30-

111-0085)

Birney (30-

087-0001)

Broadus (30-

075-0001)

Sidney (30-

083-0001)
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-17

The 98th percentile 1-hour nitrogen dioxide concentrations at Birney and Broadus were 8 and 20 percent, 

respectively, of the NAAQS from 2010 to 2011. Because full calendar year 2009 data were not available, 3-year 

averages were not calculated. The Sidney 2009 to 2011 3-year average of the 98th percentiles was 9 percent of 

the NAAQS and 3 percent of the MAAQS. During 2011, annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations were 3 

to 14 percent of the NAAQS at the three sites. 

Ozone 

Ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere. Instead, it is formed by photochemical reactions of precursor 

air pollutants, including VOCs and nitrogen oxides. These precursors are emitted by mobile sources, stationary 

combustion equipment, and other industrial sources. Ozone is produced year-round, but urban ozone 

concentrations are generally greatest during the summer months, when there is greater sunlight and increased air 

temperatures. Elevated ozone concentrations may also occur during winter in snow-covered rural areas. 

Ozone is a severe eye, nose, and throat irritant. A potent oxidant, it increases susceptibility to respiratory 

infections and may cause substantial damage to vegetation (leaf discoloration and cell damage) and other 

materials (attacking synthetic rubber, textiles, paints, and other substances). 

The 2009 to 2011 3-year average of the fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour ozone concentration at the Sidney 

monitor was 0.056 ppm, which is 74 percent of the NAAQS and MAAQS. From 2010 to 2011, average fourthhighest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations were 0.056 ppm at Birney and 0.055 ppm at Broadus. 

Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter includes PM10 (inhalable particles and aerosols less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter) 

and PM2.5 (fine particles and aerosols less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter). Particulate matter (PM10) 

impacts include health effects (because PM10 is small enough to reach the lungs when inhaled), deposition on 

plants and surfaces (including soiling of snow, which can contribute to climate change), localized reductions in 

visibility, and potential corrosion. Particulate matter (PM10) emissions are generated by a variety of sources, 

including agricultural activities, industrial emissions, and road dust re-suspended by vehicle traffic. Within the 

planning area, primary sources of particulate matter (PM10) include smoke from wildland fire, residential wood 

burning, street sand, physically disturbed soils, and dust from unpaved roads. 

Fine particulate matter (smaller-sized PM2.5) poses greater health concerns than particulate matter (PM10) 

because fine particulate matter can pass through the nose and throat and become trapped deep in the lungs. Fine 

particulate also contributes to reduced visibility in nationally important areas such as national parks. Fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions are primarily generated by internal combustion diesel engines, soils with 

high silt and clay content, and secondary aerosols formed by chemical reactions in the atmosphere.

The 2009 to 2011 3-year average second highest 24-hour particulate matter (PM10) concentration was 96 μg/m3

or 64 percent of the corresponding primary and secondary NAAQS and MAAQS at the Sidney monitor. During 

2011, second highest concentrations were 55 ppm and 99 ppm at Birney and Broadus, respectively, which was 

equivalent to 37 and 66 percent of the NAAQS. The 3-year average 98th percentile 24-hour fine particulate 

matter (PM2.5) concentration at Sidney was 14 μg/m3, which was 40 percent of the corresponding primary and 

secondary NAAQS. The 3-year average weighted mean fine particulate matter (PM2.5) annual concentrations at 

Sidney were 6.0 μg/m3, or approximately 40 percent of the corresponding primary and secondary NAAQS. 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas with a pungent odor. Prolonged exposure to high levels of sulfur dioxide can 

lead to respiratory failure, and sulfur dioxide plays an important role in the aggravation of chronic respiratory 

illnesses such as asthma. Sulfur dioxide is emitted primarily from stationary sources that burn fossil fuels (i.e., 

coal and oil) containing trace amounts of elemental sulfur. Although other sources of sulfur dioxide include 

metal smelters and petroleum refineries, sulfur dioxide is also emitted on occasion from natural sources such as 

volcanoes. In the atmosphere, sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid, a component of atmospheric deposition 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-18

(acid rain), and forms secondary aerosols, subsequently contributing to visibility impacts in nationally important 

areas. 

The 2011 single-year average 99th percentile 1-hour sulfur dioxide concentration was 6 ppb in Sidney. This 

concentration was 8 percent of the primary NAAQS and 1 percent of the MAAQS. Sulfur dioxide 

concentrations are not measured at the Birney or Broadus monitors. 

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have adverse health effects. Concentrations of many 

VOCs are consistently higher indoors than outdoors. VOCs are emitted from thousands of products, including 

paints, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials, office equipment, glues, and permanent markers 

(USEPA 2010i). VOCs are not subject to a NAAQS. However, since they react with nitrogen oxides to form 

ground-level ozone, VOCs are a precursor to ozone and regulated by the USEPA. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

Hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious 

health problems, including chronic respiratory disease, reproductive disorders, or birth defects. Of the 187 

regulated HAPs, several are commonly emitted from planning area engines and other sources. Currently emitted 

HAPs include formaldehyde, benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylenes, and hexane (i.e., n-hexane). Potential 

concentrations of HAPs are compared to health-based thresholds to estimate the risk of health effects. 

Mercury is a HAP and its emissions are largely associated with large coal-burning facilities, such as electrical

utilities. Ambient concentrations of mercury are not monitored within the planning area. During 2008, monitors 

in or near Montana indicated that ambient average mercury concentrations were 6.4 nanograms per liter (ng/L) 

in Glacier National Park, 8.8 ng/L in Yellowstone National Park, and 11.4 ng/L in the Lostwood Wilderness in 

North Dakota (see Figure 23 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix). 

Other Pollutants

Other air pollutants of interest include nitrogen and sulfur compounds, which contribute to acid deposition and 

regional haze. Nitrogen compounds include particulate nitrate (NO3

–

), nitric acid, and ammonium (NH4

+

), and 

sulfur compounds include particulate sulfate (SO4

–2

) and sulfur dioxide. Concentrations of nitric acid, sulfur 

dioxide, ammonium, particulate nitrate, and sulfate are low in Montana in relation to concentrations across the 

United States (see Figures 21 and 22 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix). 

Criteria Pollutant Emissions

Current air quality reflects the impacts of emissions of existing sources of air pollution. Table 3-4 provides an 

estimate of recent emissions within the MCFO based on a compilation of available emission inventory sources. 

Emissions of HAPs and GHGs are not included in Table 3-4 because these emissions have not been reported to 

the MDEQ and the information is generally not available. Many facilities within the MCFO will begin reporting 

GHG emissions to the USEPA because of the recent implementation of a new federal air quality rule. 

Trends 

Carbon Monoxide 

Carbon monoxide 1-hour and 8-hour concentrations monitored in Billings from 2009 to 2011 show no 

discernible trend. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-19

Lead 

No data are available to determine the trend in lead concentrations. However, decreasing lead levels in gasoline 

and diesel fuel indicate a likely decrease in lead levels within the planning area. 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

Hourly nitrogen dioxide concentrations in Sidney remained relatively constant from 2009 to 2011. In contrast, 

concentrations monitored at the Birney and Broadus monitors decreased from 2010 to 2011. One-hour nitrogen 

dioxide 98th percentile concentrations decreased by approximately 38 percent at Broadus and 22 percent at 

Birney. 

With regard to annually averaged nitrogen dioxide concentrations, Sidney data show a decreasing trend from 

2009 to 2011. Based on 2010 to 2011 data, average concentrations decreased by 15 percent at Birney and 

increased by 6 percent at Broadus. 

Ozone 

Ozone concentrations based on fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour averages decreased by 10 percent from 

2009 to 2011 at the Sidney monitor. Ozone concentrations also decreased at Birney and Broadus by 15 percent 

and 4 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2011. 

Particulate Matter 

Particulate matter concentrations are affected by the weather, leading to substantial variability from year to 

year. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 98th percentile 24-hour concentrations were variable in Sidney (2009 to 

2011), stable in Birney (2010 to 2011), and increased by approximately 21 percent in Broadus (2010 to 2011). 

With regard to particulate matter (PM10), second maximum 24-hour concentrations were variable in Sidney 

from 2009 through 2011, and increased from 2010 to 2011 by approximately 16 percent and 54 percent in 

Birney and Broadus, respectively. 

Sulfur Dioxide 

Because the Sidney sulfur dioxide monitoris new (2011), sulfur dioxide concentration trends are not available. 

TABLE 3-4.

ESTIMATE OF CURRENT MCFO STATIONARY AND OIL AND GAS INDUSTRIAL

EMISSIONS IN TONS PER YEAR

Source Group CO NO1 VOC SO2 PM10 PM2.5

2010 Oil and Gas Well Sources12,796.3 2,404.4 12,356.5 22.4 407.4 147.4

2009 MDEQ and other point 

sources2 3,822.2 20,150.7 392.3 1,8115.9 4,302.3 126.2

2008 Non-road sources319,273.0 14,768.9 2,910.9 339.3 960.5 925.4

2008 On-road sources336,259.9 3,609.6 2,406.0 14.4 127.8 97.9

Current Estimate of Emissions 62,151.4 40,933.6 18,065. 18,492.0 5,798.0 1,296.9

Source: URS 2011

Emission estimates are provided in short tons per year. Emissions are not available for HAPs and GHGs.

1This source group does not include gas compression engine emissions, which are included in the MDEQ emission inventory.

2The MDEQ emission inventory includes stationary (i.e., “point”) sources. Mobile sources such as cars, trucks, and OHVs 

(including heavy construction equipment) are not included in the inventory.

3These data were derived from Western Regional Air Partnership emission inventories.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-20

Volatile Organic Compounds

VOC concentration trend data are not available. 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

HAP concentration trend data are not available. 

Other Pollutants

From 1999 through 2008, concentrations of nitrogen compounds, including particulate nitrate, nitric acid, and 

ammonium have been variable at Theodore Roosevelt National Park (see Figure 22 in the Air Resources and 

Climate Appendix). Mean annual concentrations of sulfur compounds (sulfate and sulfur dioxide)show a 

decreasing tend between 2001 and 2008 (see Figure 23 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix). 

AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES 

AQRVs include visibility or a specific scenic, cultural, physical, biological, ecological, or recreational resource 

identified for a particular area. Air pollution can impact AQRVs through ambient exposure to elevated 

atmospheric concentrations, such as ozone effects to vegetation, through impairment of scenic views by 

pollution particles in the atmosphere, and through deposition of air pollutants, such as sulfur and nitrogen 

compounds, on the earth’s surface through precipitation or dry deposition. AQRVs on federal lands are 

identified and managed within the respective jurisdictions of several land management agencies, including the 

United States Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), and BLM. Class I areas are afforded specific AQRV protection under the Clean Air Act. Under 

NEPA, Class II areas may be analyzed to assess AQRV impacts if they are identified as sensitive Class II areas. 

Table 3-5 lists Class I and potential sensitive Class II areas in or near the planning area. Class I areas in or 

adjacent to the planning area include the Fort Peck IR, Northern Cheyenne IR, Medicine Lake Wilderness, and 

UL Bend Wilderness. Additional Class I areas located near the planning area are also shown in Table 3-5. 

Potential sensitive Class II areas within the planning area include the large Charles M Russell National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) and several other NWRs. Sensitive Class II areas will be identified in the Final Proposed 

RMP/EIS, based on information provided by the relevant agencies. 

Current Conditions 

Deposition 

Atmospheric deposition refers to the processes by which air pollutants are removed from the atmosphere and 

deposited on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Deposition is reported as the mass of material deposited on an 

area in a given period (e.g., kilogram per hectare per year [kg/ha-yr]). Wet deposition refers to air pollutants 

deposited by precipitation, such as rain and snow. One expression of wet deposition is precipitation pH, a 

measure of the acidity or alkalinity of the precipitation. Dry deposition refers to gravitational settling of 

particles and adherence of gaseous pollutants to soil, water, and vegetation. Total deposition refers to the sum of 

airborne material transferred to the Earth’s surface by both wet and dry deposition. Total nitrogen deposition is 

calculated by summing the nitrogen portion of wet and dry deposition of nitrogen compounds, and total sulfur 

deposition is calculated by summing the sulfur portion of wet and dry deposition of sulfur compounds. 

The normal range of precipitation pH is 5.0 to 5.6 (Seinfeld 1986). Annual average precipitation pH in 2008 

was approximately 5.3 at the Poplar River station (Figures 14 and 15 in the Air Resources and Climate 

Appendix). The planning area has low nitrate and ammonium deposition compared to the rest of the United 

States (see Figure 20 of the Air Resources and Climate Appendix).

Total nitrogen compound deposition at Theodore Roosevelt National Park was 2.8 kg/ha-yr in 2006. Nitrogen 

compound speciation indicates that most nitrogen is deposited as wet ammonium (see Figure 16 of the Air 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-21

Resources and Climate Appendix). The planning area has low nitrate and ammonium deposition compared to 

the rest of the United States (see Figure 18 of the Air Resources and Climate Appendix).

With regard to sulfur compound deposition, 

approximately 1.1 kg/ha-yr of sulfur compounds 

were deposited at Theodore Roosevelt National 

Park in 2006 (see Figure 17 of the Air Resources 

and Climate Appendix), with wet sulfates 

accounting for the largest sulfur contribution. 

Mercury wet deposition in the planning area is not 

well characterized. A mercury monitoring station 

located in the Lostwood Wilderness in North 

Dakota indicates mercury deposition is less than 4 

μg/m3, which is low compared to most areas of 

the United States (see Figure 19 of the Air 

Resources and Climate Appendix).

Atmospheric deposition can also cause 

acidification of lakes and streams. One expression 

of lake acidification is the change in acid 

neutralizing capacity, the lake’s capacity to resist 

acidification from atmospheric deposition. Acid 

neutralizing capacity is expressed in units of 

micro-equivalents per liter (μeq/L). Lakes with 

acid neutralizing capacity values of between 25 to 

100 μeq/L are considered to be sensitive to 

atmospheric deposition, those with values of 

between 10 to 25 μeq/L are considered to be very 

sensitive, and those with values of less than 10 are 

considered to be extremely sensitive (Fox et al. 

1989). 

Visibility 

Visibility is a measure of how far and how well an 

observer can see a distant and varied scene. 

Pollutant particles in the atmosphere can impair 

scenic views, degrading the contrast, colors, and 

distance an observer is able to see. Light 

extinction is used as a measure of visibility and is 

calculated from the monitored components of fine 

particle mass (aerosols) and relative humidity. Light extinction is expressed in terms of deciviews, a measure 

for describing perceived changes in visibility. One deciview is defined as a change in visibility that is just 

perceptible to an average person, which is an approximate 10-percent change in light extinction. To estimate 

potential visibility impairment, monitored aerosol concentrations are used to estimate visibility conditions for 

each monitored day. Aerosol species affecting visual range include ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, 

organic mass, elemental carbon, soil elements, and coarse mass. 

Daily visibility values are ranked from clearest to haziest and divided into three categories to indicate the mean 

visibility for all days (average), the 20 percent of days with the clearest visibility (20 percent clearest), and the 

20 percent of days with the worst visibility (20 percent haziest). Visibility can also be defined by standard 

visual range, which is the farthest distance at which an observer can see a black object viewed against the sky 

above the horizon; the larger the standard visual range, the cleaner the air. Since 1980, the IMPROVE network 

TABLE 3-5.

FEDERAL CLASS I AREAS AND 

POTENTIAL SENSITIVE CLASS II AREAS 

IN OR NEAR THE PLANNING AREA

Class I Area Jurisdictional 

Agency

Class I Areas

Badlands Wilderness NPS

Fort Peck Indian Reservation Tribal

Lostwood Wilderness USFWS

Medicine Lake Wilderness Area USFWS

Theodore Roosevelt National 

Park NPS

UL Bend Wilderness Area USFWS

Wind Cave National Park NPS

Potential Sensitive Class II Areas

Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS

Charles M Russell National 

Wildlife Refuge USFWS

Crow Indian Reservation Tribal

Devil’s Tower National 

Monument NPS

Lake Ilo National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS

Lake Zahl National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS

Lamesteer National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS

Stewart Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS

White Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge USFWS
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-22

has measured visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. These are managed as high visual quality Class I 

and II areas under the federal visual resource management (VRM) program. 

Three IMPROVE stations are located in the planning area, including one in the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, 

the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. Three more 

IMPROVE stations are located near the planning area, including Theodore Roosevelt National Park (North 

Dakota), the North Absaroka Wilderness (Wyoming), and Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming). 

The average standard visible range at the Fort Peck Indian Reservation IMPROVE monitor was 44 miles during 

the average haziest 20 percent of days and 135 miles during the clearest 20 percent of days. Similar standard 

visual range data are 58 to 171 miles at the Northern Cheyenne Indian reservation and 42 to 133 miles at the 

Medicine Lake Wilderness. Outside the planning area, nearby data indicate visual ranges of 57 to 168 miles at 

the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, 36 to 107 miles at Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and 76 to 182 

miles at Yellowstone National Park. 

Trends 

Deposition 

Precipitation pH trends are not discernible at the Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, Poplar River, 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park, and Glacier National Park (see Figures 14 and 15 in the Air Resources 

Appendix). 

Nitrogen and sulfur deposition at Theodore Roosevelt National Park was variable between 1999 and 2006 (see 

Figures 26 and 27 in the Air Resources and Climate Appendix). 

Visibility 

Visibility has remained relatively constant over the last 6 to 10 years in the planning area and nearby areas. 

Standard visual range trends are illustrated for four IMPROVE stations in Figures 24 through 27 of the Air 

Resources and Climate Appendix. From 1996 through 2006, visibility on the 20 percent worst visibility days 

remained constant at all Montana, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota monitors, except for a slight increase 

in haze (orange arrow) in the Gates of the Mountains Wilderness and a slight decrease in haze (blue arrow) in 

Yellowstone National Park (Figure 3-6). When the 20 percent best visibility days are considered, haze 

decreased throughout eastern Montana, the western Dakotas, and Wyoming while remaining relatively constant 

or decreasing slightly in western Montana. 

SMOKE MANAGEMENT 

Smoke management indicators include concentrations of carbon monoxide and particulate matter. 

Current Conditions 

Smoke management for prescribed fire activity in the study area is managed by the Montana/Idaho Airshed 

Group (more information is available at http://www.smokemu.org/) under the authority of the Montana Open 

Burning Regulations (ARM Title 17, Section 8, Subchapter 6). The planning area is contained in Airsheds 9 and 

10. Average annual prescribed burn acres for Airshed 10 are about 3,850 acres. 

Trends 

Smoke management remained approximately the same in the planning area from 2005 to 2011. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-23

NOISE 

Noise is unwanted sound. Sound-measurement equipment has been designed to adjust the actual sound pressure 

to correspond with human hearing. A-weighted correction factors deemphasize the very low and very high 

frequencies of sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear. Therefore, the A-weighted decibel 

(dBA) is a good correlation to a human’s subjective reaction to noise. The dBA measurement is based on a 

logarithmic scale of sound pressure. Assuming 60 dBA is the noise level experienced in normal conversation 

with two people standing 5 feet apart, a noise of 50 dBA would be half as loud, and a noise of 70 dBA would be 

twice as loud. For humans, a change in sound level of 3 dBA is generally just noticeable when the intruding 

noise is of a similar character to the background noise (e.g., an increase in existing traffic noise), and a change 

of 5 dBA would clearly be noticeable. However, when the intruding noise is of a different character than the 

background noise (e.g., a motorcycle within existing car traffic), a noise level less than 1 dBA may be 

discernible. 

Great Plains toad 

in the planning area

Badlands creek in southeastern 

Montana 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-24

FIGURE 3-6.

HAZE TRENDS ON THE 20 PERCENT BEST AND 

WORST VISIBILITY DAYS 

Source: Hand et al. 2011 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Air Resources and Climate 

3-25

SOILS 

Soils are the foundation of terrestrial ecosystems, which are driven by soil potential and productivity, and the 

quality of ecosystem services and renewable resources depend on the health of the soil system. Consequently, 

maintaining soil resilience is fundamental for ecosystem recovery from disturbance (natural or anthropogenic). 

Over time, soils, which develop through the actions climate and biota exert on parent material, are further 

altered by topography and land management. Such soil-forming factors are variable across the planning area, 

resulting in dynamic soils with diverse physical and chemical properties). Soils in the planning area have 

generally developed from sedimentary parent material (sandstone, siltstone, limestone, and shale) from the Fort 

Union formation. Soil textures range from very gravelly to clays. The planning area is characterized by gently 

rolling hills interrupted by scoria ridges, rugged badlands, buttes, and the breaks of major rivers. Soils are 

commonly calcareous, poorly developed, and contain few coarse fragments. See the Soils Appendix for more 

soil resource information. 

The planning area’s soils are grouped into two Land Resource Regions, the Northern Great Plains Spring Wheat 

Region and the Western Great Plains Range and Irrigated Region. Soils are then grouped into Major Land 

Resource Areas, which are described in the Soils Appendix. Although there are eight Major Land Resource 

Areas in the planning area, the primary Major Land Resource Area is the northern rolling high plains-northern 

part (NRCS 2006). 

Healthy soils maintain air and water quality and biotic productivity. Naturally functioning soil systems sustain 

biotic activity, diversity, and productivity; capture, store, and release water; store and cycle nutrients; filter, 

buffer, degrade, immobilize, and detoxify contaminants; and provide biotic system habitat. Such functions are 

determined by the soil system structure, which includes physical properties (e.g., bulk density, texture, 

structure, parent material, and porosity), chemical properties (e.g., pH, salts, calcium carbonate, clay, and 

humus), and biotic properties (e.g., microorganisms, macroorganisms, and organic matter). 

Soil biodiversity, which is important for ecosystem resilience (Perrow and Davy 2003), increases with increased 

soil heterogeneity (variable characteristics) because there are more niches to be filled by species. Biotic ground 

cover (including biological soil crusts and litter), plant roots, and organic matter additions promote water 

infiltration and storage, soil productivity, and stability. Microorganisms (e.g., mycorrhizae and bacteria) provide 

nutrients and aggregation and metabolize contaminates. Macroorganisms (e.g., worms) cycle nutrients and 

increase porosity. 

Many invasive plants alter the soil environment through allelopathy or by reducing soil fertility or moisture, 

which results in accelerated erosion and altered biodiversity (DiTomaso 2000; Radosevich et al. 2007). Surfacedisturbing actions and changes to soil moisture content and chemical characteristics (e.g., from produced 

discharge water) provide opportunities for the establishment of invasive plants. 

The planning area evolved with large ungulate herbivory, predominantly by bison (Bos bison). Livestock 

grazing regimes enhance soil systems when they are used to mimic natural disturbance regimes that promote 

nutrient cycling, soil development, soil biodiversity, and vegetative ground cover. However, the action of 

trampling and trailing reduces ground cover, exposing soils to erosion and invasive vegetation associated with 

disturbed soil systems (Perrow and Davy 2003). 

Although fires remove ground cover and expose soils to wind and water erosion, the magnitude of these effects 

is a function of the severity of the fire. Fires of low severity or intensity promote nutrient cycling (which 

increases the nutritional value and productivity of vegetation), soil development, and biodiversity (Arno and 

Allison-Bunnell 2002). Stand-replacing fires (fires of high severity) increase the risk of erosion and mass 

movement of unstable soils (Arno and Allison-Bunnell 2002). High-intensity fires sterilize soils, increase pH, 

reduce fertility, increase overland flow, or produce a hydrophobic surface layer, which inhibits water infiltration 

(Arno and Allison-Bunnell 2002). Fire suppression in conjunction with grazing, development, and nonnative 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Soils 

3-26

vegetation has caused altered fire regimes in eastern Montana. Depending on the vegetation type, moderate to 

high departures from the natural regime have occurred (USFS and USDI 2007), resulting in altered erosion 

rates, soil development, nutrient cycling, and soil biodiversity. 

Historic and ongoing activities adjacent to or within the planning area include mineral exploration and 

development, livestock grazing, on- and off-road vehicle use, recreation, infrastructure development, fire 

suppression, altered fire regimes, forestry, urbanization, invasive weed infestation, pollution, and agriculture. 

The cumulative effects of such activities have contributed to compaction, increased overland flow, mass 

movement, mixed soils, and accelerated erosion by wind and water and resulted in sedimentation and the 

irretrievable loss of topsoil and nutrients. Generally, within 2 to 5 years of reclamation, vegetative cover and 

rates of erosion have returned to pre-disturbance conditions (BLM 2008g). However, in some instances 

disturbance of sensitive soils has resulted in perpetually altered vegetation and erosion rates. 

Surface disturbances have resulted in changes to soil structure, heterogeneity (variable characteristics), 

temperature regimes, nutrient cycling, biotic richness, and diversity. Mixed soils have decreased bulk density 

and altered porosity, infiltration, air-water relationships, salt content, and pH (Perrow and Davy 2003; 

Bainbridge 2007). Soil compaction has resulted in increased bulk density and reduced porosity, infiltration, 

moisture, air, nutrient cycling, productivity, and biotic activity (Logan 2001; Perrow and Davy 2003; 

Bainbridge 2007). Altering such characteristics has reduced the soil system’s ability to adapt to climate change 

and withstand future disturbances. 

Long-term impacts to disturbed soils include altered pH and reduced soil stability, organic matter content, 

microbial mass, biotic richness and diversity, and phosphorus and nitrogen content (Perrow and Davy 2003). 

Permanent impacts include altered texture class, rock fragment content, structure, and depth to bedrock. Such 

activities have also caused habitat fragmentation, which has resulted in altered soil heterogeneity, microclimate, 

hydrology, nutrient cycling, biotic richness, and diversity (Perrow and Davy 2003). In addition, natural 

disturbance regimes (e.g., fire and grazing) have been altered, resulting in altered rates of soil formation 

(Perrow and Davy 2003). 

PROPOSED CARTER MASTER LEASING PLAN AREA

An area in Carter County has been identified for an oil and gas master leasing plan (MLP) (see Oil and Gas for 

more information on MLPs).The Carter MLP area contains sensitive soils and slopes greater than 25 percent 

(Table 3-6). 

Soils within the proposed Carter MLP area are highly variable. The area is located within four watersheds 

(Hydrological Unit Code [HUC] 8; subbasins): Little Powder River (0.17 percent of the MLP area), Lower 

Powder River (2.9 percent), Upper Little Missouri River (1.7 percent), and Boxelder Creek (Little Missouri 

River) (24 percent) (USGS 2009). Soils in the area generally developed from the Pierre formation. Ecological 

sites are typically saline uplands or clayey (Major Land Resource Area 60B, 10 to 14 inches precipitation zone). 

Terrain within the MLP area varies, and slopes reach up to approximately 200 percent. Approximately 0.9 

percent (approximately 850 acres) of BLM-administered surface lands have 25 percent slopes or greater. 

Approximately 67 percent (approximately 93,000 acres) of BLM-administered surface lands are considered 

poorly suited to reclamation while about 2 percent (approximately 3,200 acres) potentially contain hydric soils. 

CLIMATE CHANGE 

Soils can be either a source or a sink for the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Such 

gases are commonly produced by the decomposition of soil organic matter. Carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide 

are produced by the respiration of soil biota and the oxidation of aerated organic matter. Methane is respired by 

bacteria in flooded soils and metabolized by bacteria in aerated soils. 

Organic matter is classified by its resistance to microbial decomposition. Passive organic matter (e.g., humus) is 

highly resistant to decomposition, remaining in soils for hundreds to thousands of years. Slow organic matter 

(e.g., wood) takes decades to decompose. Active organic matter (e.g., fine roots) is ephemeral, can be 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Soils 

3-27

decomposed within a matter of months to years, and rarely makes up more than 20 percent of total organic 

matter content (Brady and Weil 2004). The amount of organic carbon in soils is variable and localized, and is 

dependent on additions from organic matter and 

removal by decomposition, fire, and erosion. 

However, soils can store a finite amount of 

carbon. 

Active organic carbon is quickly degraded by 

disturbances such as fire or surface-disturbing 

actions. Conversely, reclaimed soils can recover 

active organic carbon within a few years of 

disturbance. Although much research is being 

conducted on carbon storage in soils, there is 

insufficient information available to estimate 

existing carbon stocks and storage potential 

within the planning area. 

Changes to the climate within the planning area 

may affect soils in various ways, including altered 

ground cover, soil biota, organic matter, 

temperature, moisture, decomposition rates, and 

erosion and deposition. For example, increased 

temperatures in conjunction with increased 

precipitation (as is predicted for winter and spring 

months) would result in increased rates of nutrient 

cycling. However, increased temperatures and 

decreased precipitation (as is predicted for 

summer months) would result in reduced soil 

moisture, loss of ground cover, and increased 

wind erosion. Increased occurrence or magnitude of high precipitation events would increase water erosion 

from overland flow, flooding, or mass movement. Reduced subsurface recharge would decrease the extent of 

hydric soils. Soil formation would be altered in areas of increased fire occurrence. For example, badlands may 

have formed within the planning area because of stand-replacing fires in areas of fine soils, which established a 

perpetual cycle of erosion (Hansen et al. 2008). Soil properties would be altered in areas in which invasive plant 

populations expanded. Increased carbon dioxide would increase cool season species growth resulting in 

increased organic matter. 

DATA SOURCES 

Soils within the planning area have been mapped and interpreted for land use and the information is available 

by county from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (2009b) through the Soil Survey 

Geographic Database. This database is used for site-specific evaluations, although on-site evaluations may also 

be recommended. Soil Survey Geographic Database Ecological Site Descriptions are often used to evaluate site 

potential. Field observations and previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses may be used in 

site-specific evaluations. Rangeland health and proper functioning condition (PFC) assessments are commonly 

used to evaluate soil health (see the Vegetation Appendix). General soil information can be found in the United 

States General Soil Map Database for Montana, known as STATSGO2, also provided by the NRCS. 

IMPORTANT SOIL CHARACTERISTICS 

Impacts to prime farmland were not analyzed in the RMP. Prime farmland includes those agricultural lands best 

suited to producing food, forage, feed, fiber, and oilseed crops. Although soils considered prime farmlands (if 

irrigated) occur within the planning area, the unavailability of dependable water in these areas prevents their 

classification as prime farmland. 

TABLE 3-6.

BLM-ADMINISTERED SOIL ACRES WITH OIL 

AND GAS DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN THE 

PROPOSED CARTER MASTER LEASING PLAN 

AREA

Type of Acres

Acres of 

Sensitive 

Soils

Acres of 

Slopes 25% 

or Greater

High Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Surface Acres

6,200 71

High Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Mineral Acres

17,000 320

Medium Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Surface Acres

47,000 240

Medium Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Mineral Acres

74,000 580

Low Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Surface Acres

43,000 540

Low Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Mineral Acres

77,000 1,100
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Soils 

3-28

Soils sensitive to disturbances occur within the planning area (Table 3-7); these soils would be difficult to 

reclaim following degradation. Criteria used to determine soil sensitivity to surface uses is continually adapted 

as conditions change or new information or technology becomes available. The following site characteristics are 

considered to be at high risk of degradation from disturbance: soils poorly suited to reclamation, soils on steep 

slopes, highly compactable soils, and hydric soils. 

Reclamation suitability describes the ability of the soil 

resource to restore functional and structural integrity 

following disturbance. The rate and degree of recovery is 

dependent on the action, time of year, and various site 

characteristics. Soils poorly suited to successful 

reclamation contain characteristics that include high salt 

content, limited precipitation, poor water-holding 

capacity, inadequate rooting depth, or highly erosive 

qualities (see Soils Appendix).

The planning area contains naturally erosive soils. Key 

factors used to determine erodibility within the planning 

area are percent slope, Kw factor values, and wind 

erodibility index values. The Kw factor expresses the 

effects of sheet and rill erosion and is determined by soil 

characteristics that include texture, rock fragments, 

organic matter, structure, and saturated hydraulic 

conductivity. Texture, clod composition, organic matter, 

rock fragments, and calcium carbonate determine the 

wind erodibility index. Disturbances that remove 

vegetation and other ground cover result in soil loss 

beyond natural rates (accelerated erosion); the loss of topsoil and nutrients degrades site productivity. 

Steep slopes (approaching 30 percent or greater) have a high risk of water erosion and mass movement 

following disturbance (Monsen, Stevens, and Shaw 2004). Management actions on steep slopes that alter 

ground cover, structure, permeability, and bulk density result in water erosion (Monsen et al. 2004). Vegetative 

cover is essential to soil stability on steep slopes, and water erosion severely limits reclamation potential once 

vegetation is removed. Successful revegetation decreases with increasing slope, particularly for slopes greater 

than 20 percent (Monsen et al. 2004). 

Accelerated eroded material transported and deposited into water systems (sediment) is considered a pollutant 

(MDEQ 2007; USEPA 2009c). Sedimentation alters stream conditions by increasing salt content, adding 

contaminants, reducing sunlight, changing temperatures, abrading or suppressing organisms, or smothering 

eggs. Nutrients in eroded topsoil such as nitrogen and phosphorous can cause eutrophication (enriched nutrient 

levels), which results in algal and vegetative blooms that reduce oxygen levels in waterbodies. Approximately 

60 percent of water-eroded soil enters streams (Pimentel 1998). 

Moist, but not saturated, soils with shallow depth to saturation, clayey texture, high organic matter content, and 

minimal rock fragment are very susceptible to compaction. Affected soils have increased bulk density and 

reduced porosity, infiltration, moisture, air, nutrient cycling, productivity, and biotic activity (Logan 2001; 

Perrow and Davy 2003; Bainbridge 2007). Soil compaction from mechanized and livestock uses degrades 

hydrologic (e.g., infiltration and storage) and nutrient cycling processes, resulting in increased overland flow, 

accelerated erosion, and sedimentation (Perrow and Davy 2003). Moderate traffic can reduce infiltration rates 

by up to 75 percent of natural rates (Bainbridge 2007).To some extent, annual freeze and thaw action, root 

penetration, or the shrink-swell action of clays alleviate compaction. 

Hydric soils are formed during saturated soil conditions, becoming anaerobic in the upper horizons. Properly 

functioning riparian and wetland soils are highly productive and capture and store water, recharge aquifers and 

TABLE 3-7. 

SENSITIVE SOIL RESOURCES IN THE 

PLANNING AREA

Soil Classification

Acres in the 

Planning 

Area1

Sensitive Soils 1,639,000

Hydric Soils 106,000

Soils with Poor Reclamation 

Suitability 1,549,000

Slopes 25 percent or Greater 154,000

Highly Erodible Soils in the Big 

Dry RMP Area 159,000

Slopes greater than 15 percent 

in the Big Dry RMP Area 284,000

Slopes 30 percent or Greater 90,000

Slopes 40 percent or Greater in 

the Big Dry RMP Area 15,000

1Acre figures may overlap, and adding these figures will 

not result in accurate total acreage values.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Soils 

3-29

streams, dissipate flow energy, reduce erosion and sedimentation, and filter contaminants (Lewis et al. 2003). 

Functional soils are protected by vegetation that dissipates flow energy, and the removal of this vegetation 

results in accelerated water erosion and sedimentation. Because hydric soils contain high organic matter and 

moisture content, they are very susceptible to compaction. Compaction of these soils would potentially degrade 

hydrologic function and nutrient cycling. Desiccation resulting from surface disturbances would reduce organic 

matter content (producing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide) and increase surface salts (which are toxic to 

biota). 

WATER RESOURCES 

Water resources across the planning area are present as surface water (e.g., rivers, streams, creeks, coulees, 

springs, reservoirs, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and canals) and groundwater from a variety of geologic strata. Water 

resources are essential to the residents of eastern Montana to support agriculture, public water supplies, 

industry, and recreation. Water resources, wetlands, and riparian health are crucial to the survival of numerous 

migratory bird species and BLM-designated sensitive birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians. 

WATERSHED CONDITION 

The planning area is located within the Upper Missouri River basin of the Missouri River Hydrologic Region. 

Hydrologic subbasins in the planning area, defined by the USGS National Hydrography Dataset (i.e., 4th order 

watershed), include the Beaver, Big Porcupine, Boxelder, Brush Lake, Charlie-Little Muddy, Fort Peck 

Reservoir, Little Dry, Little Powder, Lower Belle Fourche, Lower Musselshell, Lower Powder, Lower Tongue, 

Lower Yellowstone, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday, Middle Little Missouri, Middle Musselshell, Middle Powder, 

Mizpah, O'Fallon, Poplar, Porcupine, Prairie Elk-Wolf, Redwater, Rosebud, Upper Little Missouri, Upper 

Tongue, and the West Fork Poplar watersheds (Map 51). 

Watershed condition is determined by the physical and biological characteristics and processes that impact 

the function of a watershed. Watershed functionality includes hydrologic and ecologic functions (such as 

collection and transportation of precipitation and water storage and release) and characteristics (such as sites 

for plant and animal habitat and chemical reactions). Properly functioning or “healthy” watersheds have high 

biotic and soil integrity and connectivity, are resilient to disturbance, maintain water quality and quantity, 

recharge aquifers, and maintain riparian communities (Potyondy 2010). 

Disturbance in upland areas impact watershed hydrology by causing the removal of vegetation, exposing the 

soil to erosion, and contributing to soil compaction. Vegetation condition influences the quantity and quality of 

water within the watershed. Healthy vegetation communities provide ground cover, which facilitates 

infiltration, reduces overland and peak flows, and maintains base flows (WDFG 2010a). 

Soil erosion affects water quality. Erosion introduces metals, salts, chemicals, and nutrients (such as nitrogen, 

phosphorus, and sulfur) to water. Soil erosion can cause eutrophication in addition to altering water chemistry, 

increasing sedimentation, and increasing increased total dissolved solids (TDS). Fertilizer application, livestock 

grazing, feedlots, septic tanks, atmospheric deposition, and the release of sewage to water can also cause 

eutrophication. Eutrophication (high plant productivity and increased biomass of algae and other aquatic plants) 

is often caused by increases in nutrient levels, which can cause decreased water clarity, increased TDS, 

alteration of food webs, lower dissolved oxygen, higher pH, changes in community composition, and channel 

flow impediments. Algal blooms can contribute to taste and odor problems for drinking water and can be toxic 

to aquatic life or humans. 

SURFACE WATER 

Surface water in the planning area is capable of supporting a variety of beneficial uses (Table 3-8). Surface 

water is the primary source for all water use in Montana, representing 97 percent of the total water use 

throughout the state (Kenny et al. 2009). Most of the planning area is sparsely settled and land use consists 

primarily of family and cooperative ranches, coal mining, and oil and gas development. Irrigation is the 

predominate use of surface water, composing approximately 95 percent of the total surface water withdrawn. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-30

Thermoelectric power production (2.9 percent), livestock use (0.4 percent), public water supply (0.9 percent), 

industrial (0.4 percent), mining (0.2 percent), domestic water (less than 0.01 percent), and aquaculture (less than 

0.01 percent) account for the remaining surface water use in the planning area (USGS 2005). 

Hess Island along the Yellowstone River near 

Marsh, Montana. 

Windmill project for fish habitat at Homestead 

Reservoir in Prairie County.
3-31

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Water

TABLE 3-8. 

2005 SURFACE WATER WITHDRAWALS FOR COUNTIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

County

Millions of Gallons per Day

Public Supply Domestic Industrial Irrigation Livestock Aquaculture Mining Thermoelectric Total

Big Horn 0.84 0.00 0.00 267.34 0.28 0.00 2.67 0.00 271.13

Carter 0.00 0.01 0.00 8.37 0.89 0.00 0.23 0.00 9.50

Custer 1.38 0.00 0.00 117.87 1.10 0.01 0.01 0.00 120.37

Daniels 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.62

Dawson 1.52 0.00 0.00 50.36 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.39

Fallon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88

Garfield 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.26

McCone 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.80 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.99

Powder 

River 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.58 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.65

Prairie 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.39 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.75

Richland 0.00 0.00 0.87 349.47 0.82 0.00 0.08 20.07 371.31

Roosevelt 0.11 0.00 0.00 89.54 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 90.05

Rosebud 0.68 0.00 0.00 210.94 0.82 0.00 2.03 27.80 242.27

Sheridan 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.44 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.81

Treasure 0.14 0.00 0.00 71.07 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.57

Valley 1.00 0.02 0.00 229.64 0.81 0.00 0.05 0.00 231.52

Wibaux 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80 0.22 0.00 0.03 0.00 2.05

Total 29.35 0.03 11.09 2,971.59 11.65 0.01 6.25 89.62 3,119.59

Source: USGS 2005

Portions of the Fort Peck Reservoir, Porcupine, Upper Tongue, Rosebud, Lower Yellowstone-Sunday, and West Fork Poplar watersheds occur outside of the 

planning area
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-32

The Missouri and Yellowstone rivers are the largest rivers in the planning area, draining 91,557 and 69,083 

square miles respectively (Table 3-9). The Missouri River flows to the east and drains the northern portion of 

the planning area, with an average annual discharge of 7,272,000 acre-feet per year near Culbertson, Montana 

(USGS 2009a). The planning area includes the portion of the Missouri River located directly below Fort Peck 

Reservoir and east to the North Dakota border. Major tributaries of the Missouri River include the Big Dry and 

Box Elder creeks and the Little Missouri, Musselshell, Poplar, and Redwater rivers. Flowing northeast to the 

Missouri River, the Yellowstone River drains the southern and eastern portion of the planning area with an 

average annual discharge of 8,557,000 acre-feet per year near Sidney, Montana (USGS 2009b). Major 

tributaries of the Yellowstone River include the Rosebud, Otter, Armells, Hanging Woman, Mizpah, and 

O’Fallon creeks and the Little Powder, Powder, and Tongue rivers. 

According to the USGS National Hydrography Dataset, approximately 121,000 miles of streams and rivers are 

located within the planning area. Of these, approximately 13,000 miles (11 percent) of streams and rivers flow 

across BLM-administered lands. Perennial streams retain water year round and flow regimes are variable and 

subject to meteorological conditions. Intermittent streams do not flow year round. Discharge occurs during 

periods of sufficient input of groundwater or surface water sources such as snowmelt or rainstorms. Typically, 

ephemeral (which flow only in direct response to precipitation) and intermittent streams conduct water to 

perennial streams. More than 97 percent of stream miles in the planning area are intermittent and ephemeral. 

Intermittent and ephemeral streams play an important role in the hydrologic function of the ecosystems of the 

planning area by transporting water, sediment, nutrients, and debris through the stream network and providing 

connectivity within a watershed. These streams filter sediment, dissipate energy from snowmelt and storm water 

runoff, facilitate infiltration, and recharge groundwater (Levick et al. 2008). The pools within intermittent 

streams retain water in the dry months, supporting riparian vegetation and providing water resources for wildlife 

and livestock. 

A number of factors (including streamflow regime, topography, geology, soils, vegetation, climate, and land use 

history) influence stream morphology. Stream conditions on BLM-administered land within the planning area 

reflect a number of historical and current impacts, such as agriculture, mining, and oil and gas development. 

Tertiary bedrock (sandstones, siltstones, shales, and scoria), alluvium, and glacial till represent the surface 

geology in the planning area. This parent material tends to form highly erosive fine-grained soils (loams to silt 

loam). Streambeds typically consist of sand and silt, with few bedrock channels. Since streambeds and 

streambanks generally lack control features (e.g., rocks, cobbles, and bedrock), stream morphology and stability 

is highly influenced by the presence and type of riparian vegetation. These systems have high levels of natural 

instability and rapid degradation can occur from human disturbance (Elmore and Kauffman 1994). The 

potential for invasion by nonnative species is increased when development alters physical conditions (i.e., 

stabilizes flow regimes or reduces sediment loads) (WDFG 2010a).

The planning area climate is semi-arid to arid. The majority of the planning area receives less than 15 inches of 

precipitation annually. Typically, high runoff from snowmelt causes the highest streamflow across the planning 

area from May to June. Intense summer storms contribute to moderate flow rates that continue into July. The 

Tongue River near Decker, Montana, illustrates this typical annual flow pattern (Figure 3-7). 

Generally, there is an inverse relationship between in-stream flow (discharge) and salinity concentrations 

(electrical conductivity [EC]). EC is the ease with which electric current will pass through a water sample, and 

is proportional to the salinity of the sample (microSiemens per centimeter [μS/cm]). During the winter, instream flow rates are relatively low and salinity concentrations and sodium adsorption ratios (SAR) are high 

because stream flow is fed by saline, groundwater with a higher SAR (base flow). Because groundwater is in 

contact with soil and bedrock for extended periods, it contains higher concentrations of dissolved solids (ions 

such as chloride, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate) than meteoric water 

(snowmelt) and therefore has a higher EC. Conversely, during periods of heavy overland flow (May, June, and 

July), the groundwater contribution (base flow) is diluted by precipitation while meteoric water and salinity 

values are lower. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-33

TABLE 3-9.

RIVERS AND STREAMS IN THE PLANNING AREA BY SUBBASIN

HUC Subbasin Total Stream Miles (BLMadministered land)

Total 

Stream 

Miles

Subbasin Area 

within the 

Planning Area 

(mi2)

Subbasins Draining to the Missouri River

10110204 Beaver 6 1,050 461

10040105 Big Dry 564 4,654 1,547

10060006 Big Muddy 4 5,514 2,471

10110202 Box Elder 836 3,400 1,145

10060007 Brush Lake Closed 

Basin

0 122 277

10060005 Charlie-Little Muddy 193 3,332 1,162

10040104 Fort Peck Reservoir 1,537 6,288 2,086

10040106 Little Dry 277 3,437 1,222

10120202 Lower Belle Fourche 156 305 83

10050012 Lower Milk 0 210 80

10040205 Lower Musselshell 445 2,229 706

10110203 Middle Little Missouri 27 201 72

10040202 Middle Musselshell 63 1,529 396

10060003 Poplar <1 3,696 1,293

10050016 Porcupine 0 1,187 340

10060001 Prairie Elk-Wolf 611 6,233 1,950

10060002 Redwater 161 7,836 2,113

10110201 Upper Little Missouri 959 5,270 1,759

10060004 West Fork Poplar 0 1,507 573

Subbasins Draining to the Yellowstone River

10100002 Big Porcupine 257 3,184 872

10090208 Little Powder 269 1,997 652

10080015 Lower Bighorn 0 393 122

10090209 Lower Powder 1,333 5,653 1,876

10090102 Lower Tongue 513 8,873 2,871

10100001 Lower YellowstoneSunday1,251 14,593 4,534

10100004 Lower Yellowstone 1,796 14,141 4,577

10090207 Middle Powder 415 2,057 714

10090210 Mizpah 189 2,407 803

10100005 O’ Fallon 599 4,237 1,578

10100003 Rosebud 82 3,303 1,138

10090101 Upper Tongue 194 2,526 831

Total 12,738 121,364 40,304
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-34

FIGURE 3-7.

MEAN MONTHLY FLOW AND PRECIPITATION VERSUS ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY FOR 

THE TONGUE RIVER NEAR DECKER, MONTANA, FOR 2001

The variability of surface water quality presents challenges to water users, specifically irrigators, since irrigation 

with saline water results in reduced crop yield (Hill and Koenig 1999). Higher sodium concentrations (sodic) 

are of concern in the Powder River and Mizpah Creek drainages. Irrigation with sodic water can adversely 

affect crop growth (by creating calcium, potassium, and magnesium deficiencies) and affect the physical 

properties of soils by promoting crusting and impeding drainage in soils containing large amounts of clay (see 

the Soils Appendix).

The planning area contains approximately 40,000 known lakes, reservoirs, and ponds; 3,300 (8 percent) are 

located on BLM-administered lands within the planning area and support beneficial uses including irrigation, 

stock water, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife. The majority of these features consist of small ponds and 

impoundments (less than 1 acre) built across intermittent streams to capture spring runoff for stock use during 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-35

the summer months (Table 3-10). There are numerous undocumented stock ponds, dugouts, and small 

impoundments across the planning area. 

Surface water impoundments have altered the natural hydrologic regime of streams and rivers by reducing 

streamflow, dissolved oxygen, and floodplain size and extent downstream (Vorosmarty 2000); increasing 

infiltration to groundwater, scour of the downstream streambed, and water temperature (Dodds 2004); 

substantially increasing evaporative losses; degrading water quality; and changing nutrient cycling, timing, and 

magnitude of peak and low flows, sediment load, and riparian vegetation recruitment and succession. 

According to the USGS 

National Hydrography 

Dataset, there are 1,920 

known springs and seeps 

in the planning area (80 

of which are on BLMadministered lands) and 

numerous undocumented 

springs. Springs are 

important for aquatic 

habitat, biodiversity 

support; sustained 

streamflow, wetland and 

riparian vegetation 

community support, and 

as a water source for 

livestock, wildlife, or 

drinking. 

The planning area contains approximately 1.4 million acres of 100-year floodplains, of which 42,000 occur on 

BLM-administered surface acres and 330,000 on BLM-administered mineral estate acres. Floodplain function is 

essential to watershed function, water quality, soil development, stream morphology, and wetland and riparian 

community composition (Scott 1997). Floodplains reduce flood peaks and velocities, thereby reducing erosion; 

enhancing nutrient cycling; reducing frequency and duration of low flows; and increasing infiltration, water 

storage, and aquifer recharge. Floodplains enhance water quality by facilitating sedimentation and filtering 

overland flow. Floodplains support high plant productivity, high biodiversity, and habitat for wildlife. 

Hydrologic modification via water diversions, dams, and channelization have altered the natural flooding 

regime across the planning area and reduced or eliminated floodplain functionality. 

Hydrologic modification and channelization, in addition to other factors, have led to a decline in riparian forests 

across the Great Plains, in particular cottonwood species (Populus sp.). Cottonwood communities reduce 

sedimentation and floodwater velocity and provide critical erosion control, large woody debris input, thermal 

cover, and streambank stability (Hansen 2008). Periodic flooding is essential to riparian communities of active 

floodplains (Eubanks 2004). In particular, plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) recruitment is dependent on 

flood scour and the maintenance of the historical magnitude, frequency, and duration of floods of a recurrence 

interval of 9.3 years or greater (Scott 1997).

WATER QUALITY 

Surface water and groundwater quality can be affected by point or nonpoint source pollution. Point source 

pollution originates from a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are discharged. 

It is regulated by the State under the Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System (MPDES). Common 

sources are concentrated animal feeding operations, construction, mining, and industrial activity. Nonpoint 

source pollution is Montana’s largest source of water quality impairment. Nonpoint source pollution originates 

from diffuse sources of contamination and is transported to waterbodies through precipitation, infiltration, and 

overland flow. Common sources are land use activities such as agriculture, forestry, urban development, and 

TABLE 3-10.

SIZE AND SUMMARY OF WATERBODIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

Size 

(acres)

Number of 

Waterbodies 

(BLMadministered land)

Percentage 

(%) of 

Waterbodies 

(BLMadministered 

land)

Number of 

Waterbodies

Percentage 

(%) of 

Waterbodies

Less 

than 1 1,784 54.1 26,206 65.5

1 to 1.9 629 19.1 6,292 15.7

2 to 4.9 581 17.6 4,825 12.1

5 to 9.9 175 5.3 1,626 4.1

More 

than 10 127 3.9 1,055 2.6
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-36 

mining. Common contaminants from nonpoint source pollution are sediment, nutrients, temperature, heavy 

metals, pesticides, pathogens, and salt. Wetlands and riparian areas in PFC can significantly reduce the impacts 

of nonpoint source pollution by buffering adjacent waterbodies (MDEQ 2007).

The MDEQ Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan outlines nonpoint source pollution problems and 

establishes goals, objectives, and strategies for controlling nonpoint source pollution on a statewide basis 

(MDEQ 2007). The goal of the Montana Nonpoint Source Management Program is to reduce and eliminate the 

impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution on water quality. As a component of the Montana Nonpoint Source 

Program, the BLM and MDEQ developed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) Regarding Water Quality 

Management on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Montana to cooperatively manage and control nonpoint 

source pollution from BLM-administered lands and authorizations (BLM and MDEQ 2010). Under the MOU, 

the BLM will work to reduce nonpoint source pollution and improve water quality, watershed health, and 

riparian health on BLM-administered lands. The MOU also provides the mechanism for ensuring project 

consistency with the State’s Nonpoint Source Management Program (BLM and MDEQ 2010).

As waterbodies are assessed by the MDEQ for water quality, they are classified into Water Quality Categories 

(see the Water Appendix). When water quality monitoring data reveal that a waterbody does not attain water 

quality standards, the water is considered impaired (does not meet standards), or threatened (is likely to violate 

standards in the near future). More precisely, the specific beneficial use is, or will, become impaired. Under the 

requirements of Sections 208 and 303(e) of the Clean Water Act, any water found to have one or more 

threatened or impaired use must be placed on a list (303(d)) for which water quality management plans must be 

developed to correct the cause of the identified impairments. In cases where the impairment involves the need to 

reduce the load (amount or concentration) of specific pollutants in the water, the water quality management 

planning process must include the determination of a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each pollutant 

exceeding the standard. The planning area includes all or portions of 14 TMDL planning areas in various 

TMDL development stages (see the Water Appendix). The MDEQ has determined that no TMDLs are required 

to be submitted to the USEPA for the Lower Musselshell TMDL Planning Area but has approved a Water 

Quality Restoration Plan (MDEQ 2001). The MDEQ has prepared a Draft Redwater River Nutrient and Salinity 

TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan that addresses nutrient- and salinity-listed waters but 

not sediment-listed waters (MDEQ 2010a). 

In the planning area, 62 waterbodies were listed as impaired in the MDEQ’s 2010 Water Quality Integrated 

Report (303(d)/305(b)). The 303(d) list is a subset (one or more impairments caused by a pollutant and 

requiring a TMDL to be completed and approved by the USEPA; Water Quality Category 5) of all waterbodies 

listed in the comprehensive 305(b) Water Quality Report. Within the planning area, there are 3,470 miles of 

rivers and streams on the 303(d) list (62 percent of the total miles) (see Table 3 in the Water Appendix). Of 

these, 117.4 miles occur on BLM-administered land. There are four lakes and reservoirs (totaling 135,900 

acres) on the 303(d) list (out of 5 total reservoirs; 99 percent of the total acres) (see Table 4 in the Water 

Appendix). Of these, 4.8 acres occur on BLM-administered land. 

The 2010 impaired and threatened waterbodies fail to support one or more beneficial uses under a number of 

parameters. The most common sources of water impairment are phosphorus, alteration in stream-side or littoral 

vegetative covers, iron, and total Kjehldahl nitrogen. The most common causes of impairment in the planning 

area are natural sources; unknown sources; agriculture, including irrigated crop production; grazing; and 

hydrostructure and flow alterations (see Table 2 in the Water Appendix) (MDEQ 2010). 

Out of 5,576 total miles of rivers and streams, 643 miles (12 percent) fully support all beneficial uses (Water 

Quality Category 1) and 3,935 miles are impaired or threatened (including the 303(d) list)) (72 percent). There 

are four lakes and reservoirs within the planning area on the impaired or threatened list (including the 303(d) 

list) totaling 135,900 acres (out of five total reservoirs; 99 percent of the total acres). A 2010 list of impaired 

and threatened waters within the planning area appears in the Water Appendix. 

Out of 230.8 total miles of rivers and streams occurring on BLM-administered lands in the planning area, 38.6 

miles (17 percent) fully support all beneficial uses (Water Quality Category 1) and 128.6 miles are impaired or 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-37

threatened (including the 303(d) list) (56 percent). The Tongue River Reservoir (4.8 acres) is the only impaired 

reservoir or lake occurring on BLM-administered land in the planning area. 

GROUNDWATER 

Within the planning area, useable aquifers occur at various depths. These resources are valuable for residents 

and may be the only water source available in some parts of the planning area. Although groundwater represents 

less than 3 percent of the total water use in the state (Solley, Pierce, and Perlman 1998), it is extremely 

important because it provides almost 100 percent of the domestic water used by farmsteads and constitutes the 

largest percentage of dependable stock water (Table 3-11). Irrigation is the predominate use of groundwater, 

composing 64.0 percent of the total groundwater withdrawn. Public water supply (12.5 percent), livestock use 

(9.9 percent), domestic water (7.0 percent), mining (4.4 percent), industrial (2.0 percent), thermoelectric power 

production (0.2 percent), and aquaculture (less than 0.01 percent) account for the remaining groundwater use in 

the planning area (USGS 2005). According to the Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology (MBMG) in 2009, 

there were approximately 37,000 groundwater wells across eastern Montana (Carter, Powder River, Rosebud, 

Treasure, Custer, Fallon, Wibaux, Prairie, Garfield, McCone, Dawson, Richland, Valley, Roosevelt, Daniels, 

and Sheridan counties) (MBMG 2009). See the Water Appendix for more information regarding groundwater 

well aquifer use by county. 

The planning area is within the Northern Great Plains regional aquifer system, which is one of the largest 

confined aquifer systems of the United States. This aquifer system comprises primarily Tertiary and Cretaceous 

sandstone aquifers, Paleozoic carbonate aquifers, and confining units that can be discontinuous locally, but 

which function as a single aquifer. This regional aquifer system underlies part of North Dakota, South Dakota, 

Montana, Wyoming, and Canada. Unconsolidated glacial and alluvial deposits overlie the system, and lowyield, crystalline rocks underlie, the system. The regional flow paths trend southwest to northeast. Recharge 

occurs at high altitudes and travels down the dip of the aquifers before travelling upward to discharge into 

shallower aquifers or onto the land surface. Much of the water moves into and through the Powder River and 

the Williston structural basins (Miller 1999). Within the planning area, the primary bedrock aquifers occur in 

sandstones and coal beds composing the Tertiary Fort Union formation and sandstones composing the 

Cretaceous Hell Creek and Fox Hills formations. 

Forty-four percent of the wells in eastern Montana access shallow aquifers less than 100 feet deep (Table 3-12 

and Table 5 in the Water Appendix). Surficial aquifers within the planning area generally consist of Quaternary 

alluvium and undifferentiated Quaternary and Tertiary sediments (e.g., fluvial sand and gravel deposits, terrace 

gravels, and Flaxville formation gravels) (Zelt, Boughton, Miller, Mason, and Gianakos 1999). Water moves 

along local flow paths and typically discharges to streams and springs or recharges underlying regional aquifer 

systems (Miller 1999). Alluvial aquifers are among the most productive sources of groundwater within the 

planning area and occur in floodplains, terrace deposits, and along the channels of larger streams, tributaries, 

and rivers. They are typically 0 to 40 feet thick, but can attain thicknesses up to 250 feet. Although the quality 

of groundwater from alluvial aquifers is generally good, it can be highly variable (approximately 100 to 2,800 

mg/L TDS and specific conductance of 500 to 125,000 μS/cm, with SAR of 5 to 10). Wells completed in coarse 

sand and gravel alluvial aquifers can yield as much as 100 gallons per minute (gpm), although yields of 15 gpm 

are the average. Alluvial deposits associated with abandoned river channels or detached terraces, will usually 

only yield as much as 20 gpm because they are topographically isolated and have limited saturation (Zelt et al. 

1999). 
Water 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTCHAPTER 3

3-38

TABLE 3-11. 

2005 GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWALS FOR COUNTIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

County

Millions of Gallons per Day

Public 

Supply Domestic Industrial Irrigation Livestock Aquaculture Mining Thermoelectric Total

Big Horn 0.27 0.52 0.01 4.12 1.10 0.00 1.83 0.00 7.85

Carter 0.08 0.06 0.00 1.06 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 1.28

Custer 0.01 0.18 0.04 0.80 0.25 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.29

Daniels 0.21 0.06 0.03 0.88 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43

Dawson 0.61 0.17 0.05 0.25 0.20 0.00 0.26 0.00 1.54

Fallon 0.41 0.07 0.04 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 1.27

Garfield 0.04 0.07 0.00 0.36 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73

McCone 0.09 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57

Powder 

River 0.14 0.10 0.00 0.17 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26

Prairie 0.01 0.08 0.00 1.11 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36

Richland 1.09 0.27 0.01 1.67 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.22

Roosevelt 0.44 0.42 0.04 2.20 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.00 3.21

Rosebud 0.71 0.09 0.08 1.27 0.36 0.00 0.09 0.10 2.70

Sheridan 0.31 0.09 0.06 9.28 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.00 9.95

Treasure 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.92 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96

Valley 0.34 0.09 0.11 4.14 0.45 0.00 0.01 0.00 5.14

Wibaux 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23

Total 7.36 4.11 1.19 37.63 5.81 0.01 2.59 0.1 58.8

Source: USGS 2005
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-39

The primary lower Tertiary (Cenozoic) aquifers include the 

Wasatch and Fort Union formation sandstones, clinker 

deposits, and coal beds. The Lebo member of the Fort Union 

formation functions as a confining layer and may yield water 

locally in areas in which sufficient thicknesses of channel 

deposits occur (Zelt et al. 1999). Clinker zones, which have 

a high permeability, are spring sources. These burned coal 

beds are typically unsaturated but form local aquifers where 

they occur below the water table. Overlying, fractured 

sandstones are a source of recharge (Miller 1999). The 

Wyodak and Wyodak Rider coal zone and the Anderson, 

Canyon, Big George, and Smith coals compose a regional 

aquifer with limited recharge at outcrops. The coal beds act 

as isolated aquifers and some flow occurs along faults and 

fractures (NAS 2010). Water within the lower Tertiary 

aquifers is commonly unconfined but can be confined by 

clay beds or glacial deposits. Flow trends northward and 

northeastward with discharge to the Yellowstone and 

Missouri rivers (Miller 1999). The Wasatch formation can 

be up to 1,000 feet thick (Miller 1999). Wells within the 

Fort Union formation aquifers are typically 100 to 200 feet 

deep but can be up to 1,500 feet in depth. These wells may 

produce as much as 40 gpm but yields of 15 gpm are more 

typical. In areas in which aquifers are confined and artesian conditions exist, wells in the Fort Union formation 

will generally flow less than 10 gpm. 

The primary upper Cretaceous (Mesozoic) aquifers are the Cretaceous Hell Creek formation sandstones, Lance 

formation sandstones, and Fox Hills sandstone. The Lance and the Hell Creek formations range in thickness 

from approximately 350 to 3,400 feet and consist of interbedded sandstone, siltstone, claystone, coal, and 

lignite. The underlying Fox Hills sandstone ranges from approximately 300 to 450 feet thick. Flow trends north 

to northeast. Conditions are generally unconfined and aquifers discharge to major streams (Miller 1999). Well 

depths in Hell Creek and Fox Hills formation aquifers are highly variable but typically range from 200 to 1,000 

feet in depth. Groundwater yields from these aquifers may be as much as 200 gpm but are generally less than 

100 gpm. Artesian wells within these aquifers may flow as high as 20 gpm (Zelt et al. 1999). 

The lower Cretaceous-Jurassic (Mesozoic) aquifers are separated from the upper Cretaceous aquifers by the 

confining Pierre and Lewis shales. The principal aquifers are the Muddy sandstone, Newcastle sandstone, Inyan 

Kara Group, and the Fuson and Lakota formations. The Sundance, Swift, Rierdon, and Piper formations yield 

water locally to wells. Because of the overlying confining unit, the lower Cretaceous-Jurassic (Mesozoic) 

aquifers generally do not discharge to streams (except locally). Water quality ranges from 1,000 to over 10,000 

mg/L TDS (Miller 1999). 

Water wells are rarely completed in the upper and lower Paleozoic aquifers because they are deeply buried and 

contain little freshwater. Upper Paleozoic aquifers consist primarily of the Madison Limestone or Madison 

Group. Locally, flow trends inward from all directions toward potentiometric depressions in eastern Montana. 

The depressions are possibly the result of the production of oil and gas from deeper strata. Withdrawal of oil 

and gas can allow water to leak downward from the upper Paleozoic aquifers through confining units (Miller 

1999). 

Groundwater yields from the deeper Paleozoic Madison formation aquifer can range from 1 to 100 gpm to even 

higher in karst areas (Noble, Bergantino, Patton, Sholes, Daniel, and Schofield 1982; Zelt et al. 1999). The well 

depth ranges from 500 to over 7,000 feet (BLM 2008g). Water quality of this aquifer is highly variable and 

TDS can be greater than 300,000 mg/L (Miller 1999). Lower Paleozoic aquifers consist of Ordovician to 

TABLE 3-12.

GROUNDWATER WELLS BY TOTAL 

DEPTH IN EASTERN MONTANA

Depth (feet) Number 

of Wells

Percentage 

of Total 

Wells (%)

0 to 99 16,644 44

100 to 199 9,526 25

200 to 299 4,136 11

300 to 399 1,948 5

400 to 499 953 3

500 to 599 597 2

600 to 699 380 1

700 to 799 296 <1

800 to 899 261 <1

900 to 999 210 <1

Greater than 1,000 547 2

Unknown 1,958 5

Source: MBMG 2009
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-40

Cambrian sandstone and carbonate rocks. Flow trends generally move northeastward toward the deep parts of 

the Williston Basin, but some flow leaks upward and discharges to springs, lakes, and streams in eastern North 

Dakota. Water quality of this aquifer is highly variable and TDS can be greater than 100,000 mg/L (Miller 

1999). 

WATER RIGHTS AND GROUNDWATER AQUIFER CONTROL AREAS 

Water rights in Montana are subject to Montana’s Water Use Act (85-2-101 et seq. Montana Code Annotated 

[MCA]) of 1973, which became effective July 1, 1973. Water rights existing prior to that date are finalized by 

state courts. Water rights applications submitted after that date will be evaluated through the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MDNRC) permit system. In 2005, the Montana 

Legislature passed House Bill 22 to expedite water right claims examination and issuance of water right decrees 

and requires that the adjudication be completed by 2020. 

Water rights on some BLM-administered lands are protected by the Federally Reserved Water Rights for Public 

Springs and Water Holes, Public Water Reserve 107, pursuant to the Executive Order dated April 17, 1926. 

Compacts between the State of Montana and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe have placed a moratorium on new 

water use developments on tribal lands within the Rosebud, Lower Bighorn, and Pryor watersheds. Water rights 

are adjudicated on an individual watershed basis. As of December 2010, Rosebud Creek and Yellowstone River 

(below the Powder River) were 78.43 and 41.1 percent examined, respectively (MDNRC 2010b). The Redwater 

River, Powder River (below Clear Creek), O’Fallon Creek, Little Missouri River (below Little Beaver Creek), 

Little Powder River, and Belle Fourche River (above the Cheyenne River) have been issued a final decree. A 

preliminary or temporary preliminary decree is issued for the other basins with the planning area (MDNRC 

2010b). The Tongue River, Little Bighorn River, Rosebud Creek (78 percent examined), and lower Yellowstone 

River (90 percent examined) are not yet fully adjudicated (MDNRC 2010d).

In 1967, pursuant to section 89-2914 R.C.M. (Revised Code of Montana), 1947, a petition was granted to create 

the Short Pine Controlled Groundwater Area in portions of Fallon, Prairie, and Wibaux counties (Map 52). In 

this area, no new appropriations of groundwater may be made except by permit request (regardless of size), no 

presently inactive well may be used except with the approval of MDNRC, and no presently active well may 

increase its flow rate except with the approval of MDNRC. This controlled groundwater area was created to 

protect the interests of local groundwater users in response to increased groundwater withdrawals by the Shell 

Oil Company. 

In 1999, the MDNRC established the Powder River Basin Controlled Groundwater Area in anticipation of the 

withdrawal of groundwater associated with coal bed natural gas (CBNG) development (this applies to CBNG 

wells completed above the Lebo member of the Fort Union formation). In this area, CBNG development must 

follow the standards for drilling, completing, testing, and production of CBNG wells as adopted by the Montana 

Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (MBOGC), and the MDNRC has the authority to designate a Technical 

Advisory Committee to oversee groundwater characteristics and monitoring and reporting requirements. Within 

the area, CBNG operators must offer water mitigation agreements to owners of water wells and natural springs 

located within 0.5 miles of a CBNG field or within the area that the operator reasonably believes may be 

affected by a CBNG production operation, whichever is greater, and automatically extends 0.5 miles beyond 

any well adversely affected. Any beneficial use of CBNG-produced water requires water rights issued by the 

MDNRC, as established by law. 

 

Within the planning area, two basins were closed to protect Tribal Water Rights under the Northern Cheyenne 

(MCA 85-20-301) and Fort Belknap Compact (MCA 85-20-100) closures in 1991 and 2001, respectively. In 

these areas, an approved Application for Beneficial Water Use Permit is required and the applicant is subject to 

the requirements of 85-2-360, 85-2-361, and 85-2-362 Montana Code Annotated (MCA) for any water 

appropriation. The Northern Cheyenne-Montana Compact includes all of Rosebud Creek basin from its 

headwaters to its confluence with the Yellowstone River, in Big Horn and Rosebud counties. Fort BelknapMontana Compact closure includes the Beaver Creek, Milk River, Missouri River, and Peoples Creek basins.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-41

COAL BED NATURAL GAS

The potential effects on groundwater and surface water quantity and quality are caused by groundwater 

abstraction and drawdown concurrent with CBNG production and CBNG-produced water management and 

storage (NAS 2010). In January 2003, the BLM and State of Montana, anticipating an increase in CBNG 

development, published the Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment for the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (BLM, MBOGC, and MDEQ 

2003). This environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzed various approaches for managing oil and gas 

resources statewide, with an emphasis on the Billings and Powder River RMP areas. This Final EIS and the 

BLM’s 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 Resource 

Management Plans set management goals, addressed resource issues and concerns, established monitoring 

plans, and provided detailed reports on groundwater and surface water issues related to CBNG development. 

Refer to this document for a detailed analysis of CBNG development in the Powder River RMP area. 

CBNG occurs in coal beds primarily within the Powder River Basin (PRB). Coal beds are the primary aquifers 

for agricultural communities in southeastern Montana. In many areas, the coal aquifers supply water for 

livestock, wildlife, and domestic use (BLM 2008f). When CBNG is developed, the methane must be desorbed 

from the coal so that it can flow to production wells; this is typically achieved by pumping groundwater from 

the coal bed aquifer, which promotes methane desorption by creating a pressure gradient within the aquifer that 

enables methane to flow towards the well. Because coal beds within PRB have a high porosity and 

permeability, the volume of groundwater withdrawn by the CBNG production is larger than in other basins. 

Groundwater is considered a nonrenewable resource if it would not be recharged within a human lifetime. 

Preliminary data shows that some CBNG-produced water is at least 14,000 years old even within a few miles of 

recharge areas. Water is younger near recharge sites and is older in the center of the PRB (NAS 2010). 

The connectivity of developed coal beds, surrounding aquifers, and surface water affects the ways in which 

water flows, recharges, and is affected by water withdrawal. Within the PRB, any drawdown that occurs within 

the developed coal seam would primarily affect that coal seam and would not noticeably affect overlying or 

underlying formations. The coals within the Tongue River member of the Fort Union formation are typically 

bound by clay-rich strata, and the vertical hydraulic conductivity above and below these units are very low 

(Wheaton and Donato 2004). Wheaton and Metesh (2002) have noted that “based on conditions near Decker, 

vertical leakage from units near ground surface is thought not to be a major factor. There, drawdowns in coal 

beds pass uninterrupted beneath perennial streams (Squirrel Creek and the Tongue River) and the associated 

alluvial valley floors. Water-table levels in the alluvium and a shallow sandstone unit have not responded to 

coal-mine induced drawdown"(p. 41). 

The volume of water pumped from CBNG wells generally decreases exponentially with time, with a 

corresponding increase in the rate of methane production. The amount of water produced varies from well to 

well. Annual water production is also variable (Figure 3-8). Based upon historical data from the CX field, initial 

water production rates are anticipated to be approximately 5 gpm per produced coal seam. The rate of water 

production per well decreases over time as the pressure within the aquifer is reduced over an increasing 

geographic area; a 20 percent decline rate per year is typical (BLM 2008f). As wells operate over time, 

hydrostatic pressure drawdown occurs within the coal aquifer. For example, in the Canyon coal bed, the 

hydrostatic pressure has been lowered more than 600 feet, and, in the Dietz and Canyon beds, a 20-foot 

groundwater drawdown extended about 1.0 to 1.5 miles beyond the boundary of the CX field after nearly 9 

years of CBNG production. Wheaton, Reddish-Kuzara, Meredith, and Donato (2008) found that “These values 

have not changed substantially since 2004. These distances are similar to but somewhat less than predicted in 

the Montana CBM [coal bed methane or CBNG] environmental impact statement” (p. 67). 

The quality of PRB CBNG-produced water varies, but it is generally characterized by elevated levels of salinity, 

SARs (36.8 to 66.3), and TDS (up to 2,029 mg/L) (Wheaton e al. 2008). It is characterized by sodium 

bicarbonate type water (NAS 2010). EC and SAR are primary constituents of concern with CBNG discharges. 

SAR, which is a complex ratio of sodium to calcium and magnesium, is an important parameter for determining 

the utility of water for irrigation because it has the potential to impact clay-rich soils (see the Soils Appendix). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-42

EC and SAR are the primary factors that determine the usability of water for irrigation, and irrigation is the use 

that has been determined to be most sensitive to CBNG inputs (BLM 2008f). Organic constituents such as 

phenols, biphenyls, heterocyclic compounds, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are present in some 

produced waters. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are the most common organic substance in the PRB (NAS 

2010). 

FIGURE 3-8. 

CUMULATIVE COAL BED GROUNDWATER PRODUCTION FOR 

ALL FIELDS IN MONTANA WITHIN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN 

Annual data for 2008 and 2009 reflects the water year (October 1 to September 30) 

The Montana Board of Environmental Review established surface water standards for EC and SAR in 2003. 

These numerical standards have been reviewed and approved by the USEPA, and therefore have standing under 

the Clean Water Act. In 2006, the Board modified the standards for EC and SAR. The most substantial changes 

adopted by the Board were to designate EC and SAR as “harmful” parameters, and to remove the requirement 

that permitting in relation to EC and SAR be flow based (BLM 2008f). 

The Northern Cheyenne Tribe adopted surface water quality standards for EC and SAR in 2001. Although the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe has been granted “Treatment as a State” status by the USEPA, the USEPA has not 

approved their standards. As such, the Northern Cheyenne numerical standards do not have standing under the 

Clean Water Act. These standards outline the Tribe’s considered determination of the water quality needed to 

protect irrigated agriculture on the Reservation and native plant species with cultural significance integral in 

ceremonial and traditional areas. Therefore, the Northern Cheyenne standards provide reasonable criteria 

against which to compare the resulting water quality. The Northern Cheyenne’s non-degradation criteria apply 

to all numerical standards (non-degradation criteria do not apply in-stream, but rather serve as a trigger during 

the permitting process.). The Northern Cheyenne’s non-degradation requirements allow for a 5-percent increase 

in a parameter per permit, with the cumulative change being limited to the numerical standards. Monitoring data 

indicates that EC and SAR values in the Tongue River are typically less than the numerical standards. As such, 

some new or increased discharges that would increase in-stream EC or SAR could be approved under the 

Northern Cheyenne non-degradation criteria. If the Northern Cheyenne standards are approved by the USEPA 

under the Clean Water Act, both the numerical limits and the non-degradation criteria would need to be applied 

to upstream discharges. Although the Northern Cheyenne numerical standards are more stringent in their 

current form than the MDEQ numerical standards, the non-degradation criteria would be less stringent (Table 3-

13) (BLM 2008f). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-43

In the PRB in Montana, 

CBNG-produced water is 

disposed by discharge, 

evaporation in lined or 

unlined surface 

impoundments, infiltration in 

unlined surface 

impoundments, injection, and 

beneficial use. Potential 

options for beneficial use 

include land-applied water 

spreading, managed surface 

irrigation, livestock and 

wildlife watering, subsurface 

drip irrigation, in-stream flow 

augmentation, wetlands 

augmentation, and industrial 

and municipal uses. 

Currently, 61 to 65 percent is 

directly discharged to 

streams, 4 to 5 percent is used 

for industrial dust control, 26 to 30 percent is used for irrigation (7 percent of which is underground injection 

control subsurface drip irrigation [horizontal injection]), and 5 percent is disposed of in surface impoundments 

(NAS 2010). 

Comparison of specific conductance versus flow, SAR versus flow, and SAR versus specific conductance do 

not indicate a definitive difference between pre- and post-CBNG data for the Tongue River (Bobst 2008). Most 

monitoring data using SAR and TDS of the Powder and Tongue rivers show no change in surface water quality 

resulting from CBNG-produced water discharge. There is not enough data, (e.g., background streamflow, 

climatic conditions) to determine the effects of CBNG-produced water discharge on flows in streams and rivers 

in the PRB. “Other physical effects to ephemeral or perennial streams and rivers, such as bank scouring, 

increased bottom sedimentation, or channel erosion due to regulated, controlled, and managed, or unregulated 

and/or unmanaged CBM [coal bed methane or CBNG] produced water discharges have been registered on 

private lands in the Powder River and Raton basins” (NAS 2010, p. 185). 

Initially, the majority of CBNG water was discharged untreated and unpermitted into surface waterways. Prior 

to 1998, the MDEQ authorized Fidelity Exploration to discharge CBNG water into the Tongue River without a 

permit if the ambient water quality was unaltered. However, because the USEPA notified the MDEQ that this 

was in violation of the Clean Water Act, Fidelity Exploration began discharging treated and untreated CBNG 

water authorized by two permits (MT-0030457 and MT-0030724) into the Tongue River in 2000 (BLM 2008g). 

These permits had specific water quality standards, and Fidelity is required to monitor discharged water quality 

on a daily basis, to ensure permit compliance. In May 2010, the Montana Supreme Court decision Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality (234 P.3d 51) determined that the MDEQ 

violated the Clean Water Act and the Montana Water Quality Act (75-5-301 et seq. MCA) by issuing the 

permits without imposing treatment-technology-based effluent limits and declared the permits void. Beginning 

on November 14, 2010, the permit, which was reevaluated by the MDEQ, allows discharge of treated water 

only up to 1,700 gallons per minute to the Tongue River. Although the treated discharge permit (MT-0030724) 

allows for the discharge year round, the effluent limitations vary seasonally. During the winter, the average 

monthly SAR may not be in excess of 5.0 and the average monthly EC may not be in excess of 1,500 Siemens 

per centimeter (S/cm). During the spring and summer, the average monthly SAR may not be in excess of 3.0 

and the average monthly EC may not be in excess of 1,000 S/cm. 

Anion-exchange water treatment is the process Fidelity uses to treat produced water. This process produces a 

concentrated, low-pH NaCl brine (approximately 1 percent of the feed volume). This brine is neutralized onsite 

TABLE 3-13. 

SURFACE WATER STANDARDS FOR THE TONGUE RIVER

Type of Standard

Monthly 

Mean 

SAR

Inst. 

Max 

SAR

Monthly 

Mean EC

(μS/cm)

Inst. Max 

EC(μS/c

m)

MDEQ Irrigation 

Season1Standards2 3 4.5 1,000 1,500

MDEQ Non-irrigation 

Season1Standards 5 7.5 1,500 2,500

Northern Cheyenne

Irrigation Season1

Standards, Southern 

Boundary

-- 2 1,000 2,000

Northern Cheyenne

Non-irrigation Season1

Standards, Southern 

Boundary

-- 2 -- 2,000

Source: BLM 2008g

1The irrigation season specified by the MDEQ is from March 1 to October 31 while the 

irrigation season specified by the Northern Cheyenne is from April 1 to November 15.

2The irrigation season standards apply to the portion of the Tongue River between the state 

line and Tongue River Reservoir for the entire year.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-44

with lime to maintain a pH above 6 and is currently transported by Kissack Water and Oil Services, Inc., a 

licensed waste hauler. The brine is disposed of at Kissack's Kuehne injection well (operated under underground 

injection control permit #01-109), and Kissack's Hamm #1 injection well (operated under underground injection 

control permit 01-036) (BLM 2008f). 

Summit Gas Resources, Inc. (formerly Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc.) has applied to renew permit MT-0030660 

which allowed discharge of up to 1,122 gpm (1.6 million gallons per day) of treated CBNG water to be 

discharged downstream of the Tongue River Reservoir. The treatment facility operated during March 2005 to 

April 2007 using ion exchange technology. For the renewal, in addition to previous limitations, new effluent 

limitations would be total nitrogen and phosphorous. Biological monitoring would no longer be required 

(MDEQ 2011). 

Within Wyoming, two permits were originally issued in 1999 that allowed for the direct discharge of untreated 

CBNG water to surface waters in the Tongue River watershed. Both permits were renewed in April of 2004. 

Currently, these permits authorize the discharge of 135 gpm from 11 discharge points to Goose Creek, and 40 

gpm from three discharge points to the Tongue River. More recently, the "Brinkerhoff" permits were issued in 

the Prairie Dog Creek watershed for discharge of untreated water into impoundments. A permit for the 

discharge of up to 600 gpm of treated water into Prairie Dog Creek has also been approved by the WDEQ. This 

permit establishes a dissolved sodium effluent limit of 50 mg/L and an EC effluent limit of 1,000 μS/cm. Within 

the Wyoming portion of Hanging Woman Creek, there is a Wyoming pollutant discharge elimination system 

permit for the discharge of untreated CBNG water to 13 off-channel impoundments (WY0053023), and a 

Wyoming pollutant discharge elimination system permit for the discharge of untreated CBNG water to one onchannel impoundment (WY0052407) (BLM 2008f). 

HISTORIC AND FUTURE TRENDS IN CLIMATE AND HYDROLOGY 

Climate change will continue to alter the water cycle through changes in precipitation timing, type, amount, and 

distribution; changes in drought; increases in evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapor; melting snow and 

ice; increases in water temperature; and changes in soil moisture and overland flow. Atmospheric water vapor is 

an important and abundant greenhouse gas (Karl et al. 2009). Although anthropogenic sources of water vapor 

(including irrigation, impoundments, combustion) provide a small increase in atmospheric water, climate 

warming increases the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere through warmer temperatures that increase 

relative humidity and evaporation rates (Karl et al. 2009). Increased atmospheric water further increases surface 

temperatures and can contribute to changes in seasonal precipitation (Karl et al. 2009). 

Over the 20th century, the average temperature has increased approximately 2 °F within the Missouri River 

basin; within Montana, upward trends in average annual minimum and maximum temperatures have been 

observed. Mean annual precipitation within the Missouri River basin has fluctuated over this period and there is 

no conclusive trend with respect to relative annual temperature (USBOR 2011). Over the past century, warmer 

spring temperatures have led to peak runoff dates 10 to 15 days earlier for the upper Yellowstone River at 

Corwin Springs, Montana (USGS 2012). Increasing standard deviations of mean annual streamflows over the 

20th century show increasing interannual variability and therefore increasing frequency of extreme stream flows 

and flood events (Wagner 2003). There have been increasing trends (1958 to 2007) in end-of-summer drought 

as measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Karl et al. 2009). 

The upper Missouri River basin average mean annual temperature is expected to increase approximately 5 °F 

during the 21st century (USBOR 2011). Over the 21st century, mean-annual precipitation is expected to increase 

with a change in precipitation seasonality (USBOR 2011). Prediction of future precipitation changes from the 

recent past to 2080 to 2099 indicate that precipitation in the planning area will increase 15 to 20 percent in 

winter and spring and decrease no more than 5 percent in summer. During fall, precipitation in the northern part 

of the planning area will increase by up to 5 percent while the southern portion of the planning area will 

experience a 0- to 5-percent decrease (Karl et al. 2009). A change in seasonality of streamflow with increased 

winter flows, reduced magnitude and earlier spring peak flows, and reduced summer and fall flows are 

predicted. Additionally, with increases in annual precipitation, total annual flows could increase if higher 

temperatures do not negate this change through higher evapotranspiration rates (Wagner 2003). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Water 

3-45

In addition to changes in precipitation, warming is expected to reduce snowpack and increase rainfall runoff 

during the cool season (USBOR 2011). Warmer winters would increase sublimation and reduce snowpack 

(Johnson et al. 2010). It is projected that December to March runoff will increase and April to July runoff will 

decrease. An increase in warming and reduced summer precipitation will increase evaporative losses of water 

resources to the atmosphere (USBOR 2011). An increase in extreme rainfall events and drought events is 

expected (Karl et al. 2009) however; further studies are needed to predict the magnitude of these events 

(USBOR 2011). 

Increases in air temperature will lead to increases in water temperature and changes in water quality. Dissolved 

oxygen levels will be reduced at higher water temperatures. Increased heavy precipitation events will lead to 

increased erosion and sedimentation (Karl et al. 2009). Climate change is projected to affect the capacity of 

surface water ecosystems to remove pollutants and improve water quality (USBOR 2011). The USEPA predicts 

that the number of waterbodies listed as impaired will increase (Karl et al. 2009). It is likely that a warmer 

climate (and changes in precipitation seasonality to a lesser degree) will lead to fewer, shorter duration wetlands 

in the Missouri River basin (USBOR 2011). 

Groundwater resources may be impacted by reduced snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and reduced spring and 

summer flows through reduced recharge; however, warmer, wetter winters may increase recharge rates for this 

season (Wagner 2003) as well as increased flooding events. Changes in vegetation and soils would alter 

evaporation, erosion, and infiltration rates (Karl et al. 2009). Beneficial use demands (including agriculture) on 

water resources may change as a result of changing hydrology, temperatures, atmospheric carbon dioxide 

levels, ozone levels, and increased evaporative losses (Wagner 2003). 

VEGETATION 

Classification descriptions from the Montana Natural Heritage Program (MNHP) Montana Field Guide were 

used (MFWP and MNHP 2012). 

The planning area includes six general land classes or vegetative communities: agriculture or urban areas, 

grassland, shrubland, forests (described under Forestry and Woodland Products), riparian areas (described 

under Riparian and Wetland Areas), and barren lands. Non-riparian wetlands are also present; however, these

are not defined separately because they are widespread and generally present in relatively small areal units 

compared to other land classes. All of these habitats are important to a wide variety of wildlife species. See 

Forestry and Woodland Products for more information on vegetation in the planning area. 

Plant Communities 

Grasslands 

Soil nutrient retention and fast biological recycling cause grasslands to rank among the most biologically 

productive of all vegetative communities. They are also very valuable because the vegetation is nutritious and 

used by livestock and wildlife (Williams and Diebel 1996; Estes, Tyrl, and Brunken 1982). Grassland sites are 

dominated by herbaceous canopy cover at greater than 15 percent, shrub cover at less than 15 percent, and 

forest cover at less than 10 percent (Fisher et al. 1998). 

Grasslands cover an estimated 3.6 million BLM-administered acres of the 17 counties that compose the 

planning area.

Shrublands 

Shrublands are characterized by shrub covers greater than 15 percent and forest cover less than 10 percent 

(Fisher et al. 1998). This vegetation type is dominant on approximately 830,000 BLM-administered acres of the 

planning area. Important shrubs include several species of sagebrush (Artemisia nova, A. tridentata ssp. 

tridentata, A. tridentata ssp. vaseyana, and A. cana and A. tridentata ssp. wyomingensis) and shadscale 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Vegetation 

3-46

(Atriplex confertifolia) or fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens). Other important shrub species in this category 

are bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), creeping juniper (Juniperus horizontalis), greasewood (Sarcobatus spp.), 

mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus spp.), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus spp.), and shadscale (Atriplex 

canescens). These shrublands are often associated with a complex of understory grasses such as bluebunch 

wheatgrass (Elymus spicatus), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis), needle and 

thread (Stipa comata), and western wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii).

Barren Lands 

These are sites with less than 10 percent forest cover, less than 10 percent shrub cover, and less than 10 percent 

herbaceous cover (Fisher et al. 1998). 

Plant Species of Concern 

Federally listed plant species have been designated as either threatened or endangered under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). In 2005, the MNHP did not report any federally listed plants present within the planning 

area. There are no known threatened or endangered plant species on public lands within the planning area. 

There are occurrences of BLM sensitive species, which are managed in cooperation with state and federal 

agencies.

BLM Sensitive Plant Species 

The BLM’s 6840 Manual, Special Status Species Management, gives the BLM State Director the responsibility 

of designating BLM Sensitive Species and periodically updating the list in cooperation with state government 

and natural heritage programs. The sensitive species classification recognizes that conservation actions are 

needed to preclude the species from listing and improve the status of species so special status recognition is no 

longer warranted. 

Sensitive species are those species known to occur on BLM-administered lands (or lands affected by BLMauthorized actions) whose conservation status could be significantly affected by BLM management actions. 

State Species of Concern 

In addition to species that are federally 

protected under the ESA, the State of 

Montana has designated additional 

species of concern within its 

jurisdictional boundaries (Table 3-14). 

There are five rankings for State Species 

of Special Concern but this document 

focuses only on the highest ranking 

(S1). This ranking is defined as 

critically imperiled due to extreme rarity 

(five or fewer occurrences or very few 

remaining individuals) or because some 

factor of its biology make it especially 

vulnerable to extinction. 

Blacksampson echinacea or narrowleaved purple coneflower (Echinacea 

angustifolia) near Tenmile Creek 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Vegetation 

3-47

TABLE 3-14.

PLANT SPECIES OF CONCERN IN THE PLANNING AREA

Common Name Scientific Name Counties of Known Occurrence Classification

MT BLM1

Lead plant Amorpha canescens Carter and Rosebud SH S

Ovalleaf milkweed Asclepias ovalifolia Carter S1

Narrowleaf milkweed Asclepias stenophylla Carter and Rosebud S1 S

Sweetwater milkvetch Astragulus aretioides Big Horn S2 S

Barr's milkvetch Astragulus barrii Big Horn, Carter, Powder River, and 

Rosebud S2S3 S

Geyer's milkvetch Astragulus geyeri Garfield S2 S

Raceme milkvetch Astragalus racemosus Carter and Fallon S2S3

Roundleaf water-hyssop Bacopa rotundifolia Garfield S1S3

Crawe’s Sedge Carex crawei Prairie S2 S

Pregnant sedge Carex gravida var. gravida Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud S1

New Jersey tea Ceanothus herbaceous Powder River SH

Alderleaf mountain-mahogany Cercocarpus montanus var. 

glaber Treasure S1S2

Smooth goosefoot Chenopodium subglabrum Carter, Custer, and Powder River S1

Wyoming thistle Cirsium pulcherrimum Powder River S1

Yellow bee plant Cleome lutea Big Horn S1 S

Schweinitz’ flatsedge Cyperus schweinitzii Prairie and Carter S2 S

Nine-anther prairie clover Dalea enneandra Custer S1

Silky prairie clover Dalea villosa var. villosa Carter S1

Scribner’s panic grass Dichanthelium oligosanthes 

var.

Powder River S1

Big Horn fleabane Erigeron allocotus Big Horn S3

Visher's buckwheat Eriogonum visheri Carter S1 S

Spotted joepye-weed Eupatorium maculatum Big Horn S1S2

Spiny hopsage Grayia spinosa Big Horn S2 S

Bush morning-glory Ipomoea leptophylla Big Horn, Rosebud, and Treasure S1S2

Pale-spiked lobelia Lobelia spicata Dawson and Richland S2 S

Nuttall's desert parsley Lomatium nuttallii Big Horn and Rosebud S1 S

Bractless blazingstar Mentzelia nuda Custer, Powder River, Roosevelt, and 

Rosebud S1S2 S

Blue toadflax Nuttallanthus texanus Carter, Dawson S1 S

Little indian breadroot Pediomelum hypogaeum Carter, Powder River, and Rosebud S2S3 S

Narrowleaf penstemon Penstemon angustifolius Carter S2 S

Large flowered beardtongue Penstemon grandiflorus Custer S1

Hot spring phacelia Phacelia thermalis Garfield S1 S

Plains phlox Phlox andicola Carter, Powder River, and Rosebud S2 S

Double bladderpod Physaria brassicoides Carter, Custer and Powder River S2 S

Woolly twinpod Physaria didymocarpa var. 

lanata Big Horn and Rosebud S1 S

Silver bladderpod Physaria ludoviciana Carter and Fallon S2S3

Slender-branched popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys leptocladus Custer S1

Sand cherry Prunus pumila Fallon S1 S

Dwarf woolly-heads Psilocarphus brevissimus Rosebud S2 S

Bur oak Quercus macrocarpa Carter S1 S

Persistent-sepal yellow-cress Rorippa calycina Big Horn, Custer, Rosebud, and 

Treasure S1 S

Desert groundsel Senecio gremophilus Big Horn S1S2

Prairie aster Solidago ptarmicoides Carter S1

Rock-tansy Sphaeromeria capitata Big Horn S3

Slender wedgegrass Sphenopholis intermedia Big Horn S1

Letterman's needlegrass Stipa lettermanii Big Horn S1

Poison suckleya Suckleya suckleyana Dawson and Roosevelt S1 S

Wyoming sullivantia Sullivantia hapemanii Big Horn S2

Soft aster Symphyotrichum molle Big Horn S1S3

Nannyberry Viburnum lentago Big Horn, Richland S1 S

Source: BLM 2008g. 1If blank, then it does not occur on BLM-administered lands. S: sensitive. S1: At risk because of extremely limited or rapidly 

declining numbers, range and or habitat, making it highly vulnerable to extirpation in the state. S2: At risk because of very limited or declining 

numbers, range or habitat, making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state. S3: At risk because of very limited or declining numbers, range or 

habitat, making it vulnerable to extirpation in the state. SH: Possibly extinct-species known from only historical occurrences, but may nevertheless 

still be extant, further searching is needed. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Vegetation 

3-48

Sensitive species are those species documented on BLM-administered land and determined, through review 

with the BLM and MNHP, to be rare or imperiled. 

Climate change also poses challenges for many resource uses on BLM-administered land. Drought and 

evaporation may reduce seasonal water supplies, which in turn reduces the growth and vigor of special status 

plants and species of concern. However, in non-drought years, longer growing seasons resulting from thermal 

increases may increase vegetative growth and vigor throughout the year for special status plants and species of 

concern. 

RIPARIAN AND WETLAND AREAS 

Literature defines riparian and wetland areas as those saturated or inundated at a frequency and duration 

sufficient to produce vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. These areas are also 

transitional areas between permanently saturated wetlands and upland areas often referred to as riparian areas; 

these transition areas have vegetation or physical characteristics reflective of permanent surface or subsurface 

water influence (Prichard et al. 1999). 

Riparian and wetland areas may be associated with lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, potholes, springs, bogs, and wet 

meadows as well as ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams. Within wetlands, riparian areas are those 

areas geographically delineated by distinctive resource values and characteristics composing aquatic and 

riparian ecosystems. Perennial streams flow continuously and are generally associated with a water table in the 

localities through which they flow. Intermittent streams flow only at certain times of the year when the area 

receives water from springs or some surface source (such as melting snow or rain events). Ephemeral streams 

flow only in direct response to precipitation because the associated channels are above the water table. 

Intermittent and ephemeral streams are not classified separately for riparian areas until assessments have been 

conducted for each stream reach. 

Riparian and wetland areas are assessed based on their potential and capability (Table 3-15). A potential 

riparian and wetland area is defined as the highest ecological status a riparian or wetland area can attain given 

no political, social, or economic constraints. These areas are often referred to as the potential natural community 

(Prichard et al. 1999). Capability is defined as the highest ecological status an area can attain given political, 

social, or economic constraints (often referred to as limiting factors) (Prichard et al. 1999). Within the planning 

area, there are 15,166 miles of potential riparian and wetland areas that are not currently assessed for 

functioning condition and functional rating. 

PFC is a qualitative method for assessing 

the conditions of riparian and wetland 

areas. It involves a consistent approach for 

assessing hydrology, riparian vegetation, 

soils, physical state, and processes to 

determine the overall condition or health 

of riparian and wetland areas. Changes are 

necessary to allow recovery in areas that 

do not meet PFC. Based on a tiered 

classification system, individual sites are 

assessed and placed into categorized 

functional ratings. PFC is attained when 

physical and biological attributes and processes of riparian and wetlands are in balance with the landscape. 

Functional-at risk refers to properly functioning riparian and wetland systems with attributes that increase 

susceptibility to degradation. This rating can also reflect the trend classifications downward, upward, or static. 

A nonfunctional classification refers to riparian and wetlands with key vegetation, hydrologic, soil, or other 

physical deficiencies that renders them incapable of providing adequate vegetation, landform, or woody debris 

to dissipate energies associated with flow events (and subsequently reduce erosion or improve water quality). 

Non-riparian refers to the areas lacking the key riparian vegetation, hydrological, or soil components. However, 

TABLE 3-15. 

RIPARIAN STREAM CLASSIFICATION FOR THE 

PLANNING AREA1

Stream Classification Miles Percentage of Total 

(%)

Perennial 122 15

Intermittent 232 28

Ephemeral 259 31

Unknown2220 26

1Based on the 833 total miles assessed

2Assessment of historical data with no data collected. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Vegetation, Riparian and Wetland Areas 

3-49

these areas develop woody vegetation and may be classified as hardwood draws. In the planning area, 833 miles 

of riparian areas have been assessed for functioning condition and functional rating (Table 3-16 and Maps 53 

and 54). 

Within the planning area, nonfunctional and 

functional-at risk riparian areas generally do 

not meet PFC condition because of hydrology, 

vegetation, or erosion or deposition functions. 

The most common factors contributing to the 

failure to meet PFC conditions include 

imbalanced width and depth sinuosity ratio, 

lack of diverse age-class distribution and 

composition of riparian and wetland 

vegetation, vertically unstable systems, and 

point bars that lack riparian and wetland 

vegetation. Each nonfunctional or functionalat risk reach either contains all factors or only 

a few factors that decline overall condition. 

Riparian and wetland areas combine water, 

increased vegetation, shade, and a favorable 

microclimate to create the most biologically 

diverse habitat found on BLM-administered 

lands. Riparian and wetland areas contribute factors to recreational values, fish and wildlife, water supply, and 

cultural and historic values as well as economic values related to livestock production, timber harvest, and 

mineral extraction. Climate change effects will be monitored and inspected within riparian and wetland plant 

communities during Rangeland Health Standard surveys for proper functionality. 

PROPOSED CARTER MASTER LEASING PLAN AREA 

An area in Carter County has been identified for an oil and gas 

MLP (see Oil and Gas for more information on MLPs). The 

Carter MLP area contains riparian areas overlying areas with oil 

and gas development potential (Table 3-17).

INVASIVE SPECIES 

The BLM works cooperatively with the State of Montana and the 

Custer, Prairie, Carter, Garfield, Richland, and Dawson county 

weed control districts to conserve and enhance all resources 

within the planning area. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service is currently a cooperator with the BLM for pest control. 

The MCFO is responsible for all aspects of control management, 

monitoring, and evaluation. 

Invasive, nonnative plant species are not indigenous to the 

planning area and spread readily into healthy native plant 

communities. Typically, invasive plant species are detrimental to 

native ecosystems and human welfare. Invasive species are 

undesirable native or nonnative plants that have either been 

designated by the State of Montana or declared as such by the 

county weed control districts. For the purpose of this discussion, 

nonnative invasive species are a subset of invasive plant species. 

With the exception of vascular plants classified as invasive plant 

species, a pest can be any biological life form that poses a threat 

TABLE 3-16. 

RIPARIAN STREAM FUNCTIONAL RATING FOR 

THE PLANNING AREA

Functioning Rating Miles Percentage of 

Total (%)

PFC 332 56

Functional-at risk 235 40

Functional-at risk with 

downward trend 45 8

Functional-at risk with 

upward trend 53 9

Functional-at risk with 

static trend 68 11

Functional-at risk, not 

apparent 69 12

Nonfunctional 25 4

Non-riparian 241 0

TABLE 3-17. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED RIPARIAN 

ACRES WITH OIL AND GAS 

DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL IN 

THE PROPOSED CARTER MASTER 

LEASING PLAN AREA

Type of Acres

Acres of 

Riparian 

Areas

High Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Surface Acres

200

High Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Mineral Acres

1,800

Medium Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Surface Acres

2,800

Medium Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Mineral Acres

7,300

Low Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Surface Acres

2,900

Low Oil and Gas 

Development Potential 

Mineral Acres

7,300
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Vegetation, Invasive Species 

3-50

to human or ecological health and welfare. 

There are 32 designated noxious weeds on 

the Montana Noxious Weed List (Table 3-

18). Most species on the BLM’s national 

list of invasive plant species have not 

invaded the planning area. Invasive plant 

species often outcompete native plant 

species and are considered a detriment to 

native vegetation. Invasion and spread of 

invasive plant species in the planning area 

has contributed to economic losses and the 

loss of rangeland productivity, reduced 

structural and species diversity, and 

degraded and fragmented wildlife habitat. 

Based on observations and reports by the 

county weed control districts, invasive 

plant species control measures are limiting 

population sizes in some cases. Inventory 

and monitoring for invasive plant species 

have been initiated, but currently the data 

are insufficient to project the rate or spread 

of invasive plant species in the planning 

area. 

Historical invasive plant species 

infestations in the planning area likely 

began as small patches in disturbed areas 

because of development, fire, roadway and 

utility corridors, livestock concentration 

areas, recreation, or OHV trails. Fire and 

grazing are important disturbance factors 

that promote invasive plant species 

invasions. Although data are not available, 

the spread of initial infestations in the 

planning area are thought to have occurred 

through seed or other propagate transport 

to disturbed areas by wildlife, livestock, 

vehicles, people, water, or wind. Along the 

southeastern and central portion of 

Montana, where historical land uses have 

included grazing, agriculture, and energy 

and mineral development, disturbed areas 

have become more frequent and vegetative 

communities fragmented. 

Species on the Montana Noxious Weed are 

categorized below. 

 Priority 1A invasive species are not present in Montana. Management criteria will require eradication 

if detected, including education and prevention. 

 Priority 1B invasive species have a limited presence in Montana. Management criteria will require 

eradication or containment and education. 

 Priority 2A invasive species are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will 

require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by local 

TABLE 3-18. 

MONTANA NOXIOUS WEED LIST

Category Weed

Priority 

1A Yellow starthistle

Priority 

1B

Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria)

Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus)

Japanese knotweed complex (Polygonum spp.)

Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea)

Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriphyllum spicatum)

Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius)

Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus)

Priority 

2A

Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobea L.)

Meadow hawkweed complex (Hieracium patense, 

H. floribundum, and H. piloselloides)

Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum L.)

Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris L.)

Perennial pepperweed (Centaurea repens)

Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus)

Blueweed (Echium vulgare)

Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana)

Priority 

2B

Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis)

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

Whitetop (Cardaria draba)

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens)

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa)

Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa)

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica)

St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum)

Sulfur (Erect) cinquefoil (Potentilla recta)

Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare)

Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum L.)

Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale L.)

Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris)

Salt-cedar (Tamarix spp.)

Priority 3

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)

Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)

Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia)

Source: Montana Department of Agriculture 2010; List current as of 

September 2010
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Vegetation, Invasive Species 

3-51

weed districts. 

 Priority 2B invasive species are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management 

criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized 

by local weed districts. 

 Priority 3 Regulated Plants (not listed as Montana noxious weeds) have the potential to have 

significant negative impacts. The plant may not be intentionally spread or sold, other than as a 

contaminant in agricultural products. The state recommends research, education, and prevention to 

minimize the spread of the regulated plant. 

Changes in vegetative frequency; construction of roads, utility corridors, and well pads; and the concentration 

of livestock and wildlife in some areas have exposed bare soil and provided a seedbed for the establishment of 

invasive plant species in the planning area. These, as well as other historical vegetative disturbances and 

activities (e.g., fire, fire suppression, recreation, and OHV use), have encouraged the spread of invasive grasses 

and invasive species in the planning area. The combined effects of agriculture, grazing, fire, fire suppression, 

energy and mineral development, and, in some cases, drought, have altered the structure, composition, and site 

of some vegetative types within the planning area. Climate change is likely to combine with other humaninduced stress to further increase the vulnerability of ecosystems to other pests, invasive species, and loss of 

native species. 

Cooperative Management in Invasive Plant Species and Pest Control 

The BLM controls invasive plant species on public lands through cooperative agreements with the Custer, 

Prairie, Dawson, Richland, and Carter county weed control districts. The BLM also implements contracts for 

specific areas to control invasive plant species and employs a seasonal weed crew to treat smaller infestations. 

The MCFO has, and will continue to, control and manage noxious weeds through the invasive species program. 

The BLM’s resource users prepare pesticide application records incorporating district invasive plant species 

control guidelines. The primary invasive species targeted for control in the planning area include Russian 

knapweed, spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, common hound’s-tongue, field 

bindweed, and salt-cedar. These species are typically found in sagebrush and grassland, desert shrub, and 

riparian and wetland communities. 

Methods used to reduce invasive plant species density and control population size across the planning area 

include chemical, mechanical, biological, or a combination of these treatments. Approximately 1,050 acres of 

invasive plant species are chemically treated annually within the planning area. The MCFO BLM also addresses 

weed control relating to lands and realty, wildlife, range, recreation, oil and gas, and other mineral-related 

actions. To date, the county weed control districts have been able to meet the control needs of BLMadministered lands with biological control agents and herbicides but the future rate of invasion and spread of 

invasive plant species may exceed current capabilities. Users of BLM-administered land will continue to be 

required to meet invasive plant species control needs. Management challenges for invasive plant species 

include, managing BLM-authorized activities in the planning area that disturb the soil or otherwise create an 

opportunity for the establishment of invasive plant species; educating resource users regarding the spread, early 

detection, and control of invasive plant species; and determining effectiveness of invasive plant species control 

without a completed invasive plant species inventory and a comprehensive invasive plant species management 

program. These challenges require coordination across all of the BLM’s resource programs to develop, 

integrate, and implement aggressive management techniques and strategies for controlling the impacts and 

spread of invasive plant species in the planning area. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE 

AQUATICS 

The aquatic resources in the RMP planning area include aquatic wildlife and habitat for fish, aquatic arthropods 

(insects and crustaceans), amphibians, reptiles, and bivalves. The habitat consists of rivers, streams, lakes, and 

reservoirs that provide habitat for a variety of aquatic wildlife and riparian communities (and their varying 

lifecycle stages). Nomenclature from the MNHP Montana Field Guide was used (MFWP and MNHP 2012). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics 

3-52

Based on known fish presence (MFWP 2010b; Ostovar 2007), there are approximately 293 miles of fishbearing streams on BLM-administered lands; however, the discovery of more prairie streams that support native 

fish and other aquatic wildlife continues. Prairie fish are constantly moving through a landscape that balances, 

at the local and landscape scale, between drying and flooding stages. 

Aquatic wildlife habitat is inherently connected at a landscape scale to soil, water, and riparian resources, which 

are in turn driven by short-term and long-term climate factors. In terms of climate impacts to aquatic systems, 

climate driven changes to these other resources are directly or indirectly linked with aquatic wildlife habitat. 

There is evidence that recent warming is affecting aquatic biological systems (IPCC 2007). In the Northern 

Great Plains, aquatic wildlife are adapted to warm, turbid conditions of prairie streams and rivers. At this time, 

there is less conclusive evidence for how warming would affect aquatic wildlife in this region. In cold-water 

systems, for example, increases in algal abundance in high-altitude lakes have been linked to warmer 

temperatures, while range changes and earlier fish migrations in rivers have also been observed (IPCC 2007). 

Increased temperatures would raise water temperatures in lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and streams. Fish populations 

are expected to decline because of warmer waters, which could lead to the closure of fishing waters (Karl et al. 

2009), particularly for cold-water fisheries. Presumably, if water temperatures in the Northern Great Plains 

increased significantly, changes in fish populations would also occur. 

Warming trends would also initiate drying events (Johnson et al. 2010) in aquatic wildlife habitat, which may 

be the most significant impact to prairie streams in this region, as prairie streams already balance between 

drying and flooding stages. In this region, intermittent streams are hotspots of biological diversity. Drying 

events would have dramatic deleterious effects to native biodiversity. 

Climate change is likely to combine with other human-induced stress to further increase the vulnerability of 

ecosystems to pests, invasive species, and loss of native species. Exotic species, such as American bullfrogs 

recently discovered in the region, may be able to expand their ranges and impact native biodiversity. 

Aquatic resource conditions of streams are strongly related to riparian vegetation, upland range conditions, land 

use impacts, and quality and quantity of in-stream water. Habitat conditions throughout the planning area vary 

between and within water bodies; the upper and middle reaches of smaller streams may be intermittent, while 

the lower reaches may receive perennial flows, resulting in different habitat conditions and different aquatic 

communities within the same stream. While prairie fishes are adapted to these cycles of drying and flooding and 

can thrive in these intermittent pools, provided land-use impacts are not severe (Bramblett, Johnson, Zale, and 

Heggem 2005), prairie streams are considered endangered ecosystems (Dodds et al. 2004). 

A critical component in maintaining aquatic wildlife habitat, riparian vegetation is a source of organic nutrients 

and food items for the prairie stream ecosystem, provides in-stream habitat for fish and invertebrates, adds 

structure to the banks, and reduces erosion; when riparian vegetation senesces and falls into the stream, it adds 

cover, habitat complexity, and moderates water temperatures. In some cases throughout the planning area, 

riparian habitats have been degraded and the results include increases in erosion and sedimentation, shallower 

and wider streams (which increases evaporation), increases in temperature fluctuations, and critically low 

oxygen content levels; these effects collectively reduce or degrade available aquatic wildlife habitat. 

The linear characteristics of aquatic habitat coupled with the wide dispersal and scattered parcel distribution of 

BLM-administered lands in the planning area results in difficulties describing specific habitat conditions 

relative to one owner. As a result, the current conditions of aquatic resources in the planning area are presented 

in terms of overall habitat conditions, stream types, and fish species distribution and diversity. 

Major Watersheds and Waterbodies 

The Missouri River flows with an annual average (1959 to 2009) discharge of 9,936 cubic feet per second (cfs) 

at Culbertson, Montana (USGS 2009a), and the Yellowstone River flows over a drainage area of 68,392 square 

miles and with an average annual (1911 to 2009) discharge of 12,780 cfs at Sidney, Montana (USGS 2009b). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics 

3-53

The Yellowstone is a free-flowing river system with no impoundments but the Missouri has several large 

impoundments (including the Fort Peck Reservoir) in the planning area. Most of the planning area is semi-arid, 

resulting in highly variable stream-flow, particularly in the small rivers and streams. Peak flows generally occur 

March through May as a result of melting snow and rainfall. Thunderstorms also cause short durations of 

increased flows in the summer (see the Water Resources section for more information). 

Variable streamflows affect water quality in a number of ways, including leaching of soluble minerals from 

surface soils and underlying aquifers, particularly during low flow periods. However, during high flows most of 

the water entering the streams is from recent precipitation runoff, which quickly enters the stream channels and 

is in contact with the soils for a short time, allowing little opportunity for the minerals to leach out of the soil. 

Primary reservoirs and lakes include the Fort Peck Lake, Tongue River, and Whitetail reservoirs and the 

Medicine and Box Elder lakes. The largest lakes or reservoirs in the planning area are Fort Peck Reservoir 

(249,349-acre surface area), Tongue River Reservoir (3,600 acres), and Medicine Lake (8,930 acres). Because 

they are larger in size and greater in depth, these waterbodies are able to provide habitat for a wide array of 

fishes with different niches; all three of these water bodies are managed for a combination of cold- and warmwater fish species (MFWP 2010b). Most of the remaining smaller reservoirs are habitat for warm-water species 

and some cold-water species such as rainbow trout (Onchorhyncus mykiss). The BLM categorizes 16 reservoirs 

as sport-fish reservoirs (Table 3-19 and Map 55). These are smaller reservoirs with inconsistent water volumes. 

In 2009, less than half had enough water to sustain fish populations. 

 

Fish and Aquatic Wildlife, Use 

and Relative Abundance 

There are several amphibians 

and reptiles throughout the 

planning area (Werner, 

Maxell, Hendricks, and Flath 

2004). In general, little is 

known about the ecology or 

habitat of many of these 

species; however, many are 

associated with prairie streams 

for all or part of their life 

cycle. Woodhouse’s toads 

(Bufo woodhousii) use larger 

rivers and reservoirs, 

particularly along the 

Yellowstone and Missouri 

rivers, for part of their 

lifecycle. Boreal chorus frogs 

(Pseudacris maculata) use 

shallow water areas for 

breeding and tadpole 

development, but then become 

primarily terrestrial. 

Amphibians in the planning 

area include Great Plains toads (Bufo cognatus), northern leopard frogs (Rana pipiens), plains spadefoot toads 

(Spea bombifrons), and the tiger salamander (Ambystomia tigrinum). All four of these species depend on water 

resources, including prairie streams, for various parts of their lifecycle, and all three of these species are 

considered sensitive species and species of special concern by the BLM and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(MFWP), respectively (see the Fish and Wildlife, Special Status Species, Aquatics section for more 

information). 

TABLE 3-19. 

BLM-ADMINISTERED FISHING RESERVOIRS IN THE 

PLANNING AREA

Name County Acres Habitat Improvement

Clark Prairie 45.28 Windmill, Exclosure

Beardsley, Pat Custer 18.06 Windmill

Silvertip Prairie 14.69 Windmill, Woody debris

Marshall Prairie 13.60 Windmill, Woody debris

Rattlesnake Dawson 13.44 Windmill, Woody debris

South Fork Prairie 13.41

Homestead Prairie 13.32 Windmill, Woody debris

Grants Prairie 10.69 Windmill, Woody debris

Maier Fallon 7.42 Windmill

Harms Prairie 6.61 Windmill

Oil Pump Prairie 5.21 Windmill, Exclosure

Sidney Carter 2.96 Windmill

Frigid Carter 1.41 Windmill

Boulware Custer 0.98 Windmill, Exclosure

Rest Reservoir Custer 0.88

Dean S. Custer 0.56 Windmill, Exclosure
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics 

3-54

Reptiles in the planning area include spiny softshell turtles (Apalone spinifera), snapping turtles (Chelydra 

serpentine), painted turtles (Chrysemys picta), western hog-nosed snakes (Heterdon nasicus), milksnakes 

(Lampropeltis triangulum), plains gartersnakes (Thamnophis radix), common gartersnakes (Thamnophis 

sirtalis), terrestrial gartersnakes (Thamnophis elegans), eastern racers (Coluber constrictor), gophersnakes 

(Pituophis catenifer), smooth greensnakes (Opheodrys vernalis), prairie rattlesnakes (Crotalus viridis), greater 

short-horned lizards (Phrynosoma hernandesi), and common sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus). Spiny 

softshell turtles, snapping turtles, western hog-nosed snakes, milksnakes, and greater short-horned lizards are on 

the BLM Sensitive Species List and the MFWP Species of Concern List, while common sagebrush lizards and 

smooth greensnakes are on the MFWP Species of Concern List. Spiny softshell turtles, snapping turtles, painted 

turtles, western hog-nosed snakes, milksnakes, plains gartersnakes, common gartersnakes, terrestrial 

gartersnakes, eastern racers, and smooth greensnakes depend on water resources, including prairie streams, for 

all or part of their life cycle. The planning area supports 63 species of fish, including 35 native and 28 

nonnative species (Holton and Johnson 2003). Fish use varies considerably throughout the planning area, with 

the greatest numbers of fish species found in the larger rivers and more downstream reaches of tributary streams 

and comparatively fewer species present in upstream tributary reaches. MFWP has identified chronic (most 

years) or periodic (drought years) dewatering concerns for certain reaches of the Musselshell, Powder, and 

Tongue rivers (MFWP 2010b).

The greatest fish diversity (46 species) occurs in the Missouri River, which is habitat for 33 native species 

(MFWP 2010b). Of the other large rivers in the planning area, the Yellowstone River has 28 native species (40 

total); the Tongue River, 25 (39 total); and the Musselshell River, 28 (38 total). The other major rivers and 

streams in the planning area typically support 17 to 30 total species and 12 to 25 native species. Many of the 

same fish species are abundant or common in most of these drainages, although species diversity is typically 

greater in the lower reaches of these streams. 

The most abundant game fish species in the planning area include channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), 

northern pike (Esox lucius), sauger (Sander canadensis), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), and walleye 

(Sander vitreus) (MFWP 2010b). Less abundant game species include rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 

lake trout (Salvelinus namaycush), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), shovelnose sturgeon 

(Scaphirhynchus platorynchus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), burbot (Lota 

lota), Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), cisco (Coregonus 

artedi), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and white crappie 

(Pomoxis annularis). Cold-water fisheries are maintained primarily through hatchery planting programs, 

primarily in the reservoirs, ponds, and lakes in the planning area. 

The most dominant non-game fish species are goldeye (Hiodon alosoides), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), 

sand shiner (Notropis stramineus), flathead chub (Platygobio gracilis), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), 

lake chub (Couesius plumbeus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae), 

green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), and white sucker (Catostomus commersoni). 

Of the large reservoirs in the planning area, Fort Peck Lake contains the most diverse fish species 

(approximately 50 species). Sixteen species, including two species of salmon (Chinook and kokanee), mostly 

game fish, have been introduced to develop sport-fishing opportunities, and the reservoir's walleye fishery has 

been of particular interest to resident and non-resident anglers. The Tongue River Reservoir has 19 species, and 

Medicine Lake contains three species. 

Pallid sturgeon is listed as endangered under the ESA, while blue suckers (Cycleptus elongates), northern 

redbelly x finescale dace hybrids (Phoxinus eos x phoxinus neogaeus), paddlefish, pearl dace (Margariscus 

margarita), saugers, shortnose gars (Lepisosteus platostomus), sicklefin chubs (Macrhybopsis meeki), and 

sturgeon chubs (Macrhybopsis gelida) are species of concern listed with MFWP.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics 

3-55

Limiting Factors 

Principle factors limiting or affecting aquatic resources in the planning area include the lack of a normative flow 

regime; loss or degradation of riparian habitat; habitat fragmentation; livestock grazing damage; past and 

current oil, gas, and mining practices; and excess siltation due to the various land use activities. The large 

number of ponds and reservoirs in the planning area disrupt the landscape scale linear connections that drive 

stream ecosystem processes and lead to landscape-scale water evaporation (Vannote, Minshall, Cummins, 

Sedell, and Cushing 1980; Dodds et al. 2004). 

Nonnative fish species can contribute to predation, competition, and other indirect effects. The American 

bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) has been documented on the Yellowstone River upstream of the planning area. If 

this species moves into the planning area, they have the potential to cause serious problems with native aquatic 

wildlife. Riparian invaders in the planning area, such as salt-cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) and Russian olive 

(Elaeagnus angustifolia), may degrade aquatic wildlife habitat by consuming large amounts of water. These 

species can outcompete native riparian species that are key components of the physical and chemical habitat and 

those that provide food and substrate for aquatic wildlife. Introduced fish species, particularly game fish, are 

ubiquitous in the planning area. Impacts of introduced fishes on native fish communities include predation, 

introduction of diseases and parasites, competition for food and habitat, and hybridization. However, some 

nonnative species (e.g., walleye, smallmouth bass, and rainbow trout) are the foundation of popular fisheries 

that provide recreational and economic benefit to many Montanans. 

Proposed Carter Master Leasing Plan Area 

Within the proposed MLP, the Little Missouri River, Boxelder Creek, and many smaller intermittent streams are 

fish-bearing streams. Frigid Reservoir, a BLM sport-fishing (rainbow trout) reservoir occurs in the proposed 

MLP area. 

TERRESTRIAL

The BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitat on BLM-administered lands, including approximately 2.8 

million acres within the planning area. Managing wildlife species populations is the responsibility of state and 

federal wildlife management agencies. MFWP manages resident wildlife populations and migratory game birds 

in two regions (MFWP Region 7 and portions of Region 6) that include the planning area. The USFWS 

provides regulatory oversight for all species listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA. 

The USFWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.), which protects migratory 

bird species, whether hunted (waterfowl) or not (songbirds) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 

which prohibits anyone from taking bald and golden eagles, their eggs, parts, or their nests without a permit 

issued by the USFWS. This includes protection for eagles from impacts of human-initiated activities primarily 

around active, alternate, and historical nest sites. This section describes the historic and existing conditions, 

wildlife habitat, and management of wildlife habitat in the planning area. 

Historic Habitat Reduction and Fragmentation 

Historical conditions for biological resources are a function of the interaction of physical (e.g., climate, soils, 

geology, and elevation) and disturbance factors (e.g., fire, grazing, and drought). Prior to extensive changes 

caused by Euro-American settlement, physical and natural factors combined to produce the biological diversity 

present in the planning area. Wildlife resources were noted to be exceptionally abundant by early explorers. 

Human actions during the subsequent 200 years substantially changed the pattern, composition, structure, and 

function of plant and animal communities. 

The most pervasive and extensive change to the grassland ecosystems of North America is the conversion of 

nearly 70 percent of native grasslands in the Great Plains to agriculture (Samson, Knopf, and Ostlie 2004). The 

conversion was facilitated by the Homestead Act of 1862 in the United States and the Canada Dominion Act of 

1872; under the Homestead Act, nearly 1.5 million people acquired and plowed over 309,000 square miles 

(800,000 square kilometers) of land, primarily in the Great Plains (Samson et al. 2004). The impacts of land 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-56

conversion in the late 1800s and early 1900s were greatest in the tallgrass portion of the Great Plains. The 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains ecoregion, which encompasses most of the planning area, has experienced less 

conversion than other areas of the Great Plains, with about 60 percent remaining in native vegetation (Samson 

et al. 2004). 

Currently, herbaceous vegetation covers about 59 percent of the planning area, with approximately 30 percent 

dominated by shrub species. However, the conversion of native habitats continues throughout the planning area 

and may increase as demand for bio-fuels grow and additional crops are modified to grow in arid environments. 

Converting native grasslands to agricultural lands not only resulted in a direct loss of habitats for native 

wildlife, it began a process of habitat fragmentation. Habitat loss is exacerbated when fragmentation reduces 

habitat size, isolates remaining habitat patches below the size thresholds necessary to support components of 

biological diversity, or blocks the movement of animals between habitat patches. As large contiguous blocks of 

habitat are broken into smaller blocks, they became more isolated from one another by dissimilar habitats and 

land uses. As this occurs, individual plant and animal species and communities of plant and animal species 

incur adverse impacts, including isolation. 

Effects of habitat fragmentation can occur on multiple scales and vary by species and type of fragmentation. 

Individual species have different thresholds of fragmentation tolerance. Large birds (e.g., golden eagle, Aquila 

chrysaetos) have large territorial requirements but may be able to utilize habitat fragments smaller than their 

original territory while smaller birds (e.g., Sprague’s pipit, Anthus spragueii) favor habitat areas larger than 

their defined territories (Davis 2004). 

Linear features, including roads, railroads, trails, irrigation systems, and rights-of-way (ROWs) fragment the 

planning area. Interstate 94 and a network of state highways, county roads, local roads on private and public 

lands, and the Burlington Northern Railroad dissects much of the planning area. The development of irrigation 

and flood control reservoirs, such as the Fort Peck Reservoir and its associated water-distribution system, have 

also contributed to habitat fragmentation in and along the borders of the planning area. Some fences can also 

direct and indirectly fragment habitats by blocking migration routes for wildlife species, such as pronghorn. 

Changes in vegetation can also fragment native habitats. Irrigation water has supported the conversion of native 

plant communities to hayfields, pastures, and cropland, fragmenting habitats for some native species. Roads and 

OHV use can promote the spread of invasive vegetation species through vehicular traffic, and invasive species 

infestations can further exacerbate the fragmentation effects of roadways. The conversion of large acreages of 

sagebrush to predominately grassland communities can fragment habitat for sagebrush-dependent species, such 

as the greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). Recent interest in bio-fuel production on private lands 

has resulted in an increase in the conversion of native grasslands to cropland and the conversion of lands 

formerly enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), further emphasizing the importance of BLMadministered lands for the maintenance of large blocks of native grasslands and shrublands. Although the linear 

features identified in the previous discussion are largely responsible for habitat fragmentation, fragmentation 

also occurs at population centers and other developments where humans live, recreate, and work. Development 

of private parcels, subdivisions, or ranchettes (and their associated buildings, roads, fences, and utility 

corridors) has also contributed to habitat loss and fragmentation. 

Remaining habitats have also been impacted by changes in ecologically important disturbances. Historical 

disturbances that shaped plant and animal habitats were primarily drought, grazing, and fire. Drought occurs at 

broad scales and is unpredictable. Current variability in precipitation patterns and drought cycles is presumably 

similar to past patterns, although recent global climate changes may have profound changes in drought 

occurrences. 

The loss, fragmentation, and degradation of native grasslands throughout the Great Plains have severely 

affected native wildlife associated with grassland habitats. 

 

Large numbers of bison formerly moved nomadically through the planning area in response to changes in 

vegetation associated with drought, past grazing, and fire. The number of bison estimated to inhabit the Great 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-57

Plains prior to Euro-American settlement is 30 to 60 million animals but only a few thousand animals remained 

by 1890 (Knapp et al. 1999). The last wild bison in the planning area were probably killed in 1885. Bison 

grazing occurred in large areas as huge herds moved through localities, and the impacts of these herds on the 

vegetation, soils, and riparian areas were probably extensive. The interval between grazing episodes may have 

ranged from one to eight years (Samson et al. 2004). Managed domestic livestock grazing (primarily cattle) has 

replaced these grazers, but their impact on grassland habitats is much different in scale and duration. 

Large fires often occurred, and fire regimes were probably highly variable depending on rainfall and subsequent 

grass growth (Umbanhowar 1996). These burns also removed much of the vegetation, which resulted in 

continual shifts in the abundance and distribution of species across large areas, with the direction and extent of 

vegetation response mediated by drought and bison or locust grazing (Umbanhowar 1996). 

In some areas, land use activities such as agriculture, oil and gas development, fire management, OHV use, 

recreation, and transportation have contributed to the degradation of remaining wildlife habitats. Examples of 

habitat degradation include: 

 grazing management that has changed vegetation composition and increased soil compaction or 

erosion; 

 oil and gas well and associated infrastructure development that has disturbed soil for well pad and road 

development; 

 increased human activity levels contributing to soil erosion, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife 

disturbance; 

 fire suppression that has depleted or completely removed the natural fire regime with which habitats 

evolved; 

 OHV use that has spread invasive weeds and disturbed wildlife; 

 recreation activities that have disturbed wildlife; and 

 road placements that have contributed to habitat fragmentation. 

Other sections of Chapter 3 provide additional details regarding existing conditions of the resources and 

resource uses listed above. 

Grassland birds, a suite of species adapted to differing grassland habitats resulting from the combination of 

historical disturbances noted above, have exhibited the steepest, most consistent and most widespread decline of 

any group of birds in North America (Samson and Knopf 1994). Black-tailed prairie dogs have been reduced to 

about 2 percent of their former numbers (Kotliar, Baker, Whicker, and Plumb 1999) and the black-footed ferret, 

which is associated with prairie dogs, was thought extinct until a small population was found in Wyoming in 

1981. Although grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) have been extirpated throughout the 

Great Plains, they remain in the forested western portions of the state. Swift fox were extirpated in the northern 

Great Plains but have recently been reintroduced. 

Historic impacts to wildlife habitat have occurred in varying degrees. Consequently, some areas contain wellfunctioning habitats while others contain poorly functioning habitat; some areas contain large, contiguous 

blocks of native habitat while other areas contain small, fragmented patches of native habitats. 

The changes to native habitats noted above also benefited some species of wildlife. Ring-necked pheasants 

(Phasianus colchicus), gray (or Hungarian) partridge (Perdix perdix), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

have been introduced and responded positively to these habitat changes. These species have also become 

economically important game animals in the area. Raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunks (Mephitis 

mephitis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) have also benefited from 

habitat changes and are more common now than in the past. 

Wildlife response to surface-disturbing activities, facilities, and oil and gas activities are complex but well 

documented (BLM 2008g). Habitat fragmentation, both direct and indirect, has the potential to cause the 

greatest impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-58

Research conducted in areas of energy development in Wyoming reported shifts in mule deer distribution and 

considerable declines in the Sublette mule deer population while population densities in control populations 

remained constant (Hebblewhite 2008). Additionally, although research documenting the impacts of energy 

development on pronghorn antelope is limited, a Wyoming study found that habitat fragmentation of previously 

undisturbed habitat resulted in reduced use or abandonment by pronghorn and that pronghorn consistently 

avoided (by 100 meters) producing wells located in suitable habitat (Berger et al. 2006). 

Habitat fragmentation, both direct and indirect, has the potential to cause the greatest impacts to wildlife and 

wildlife habitat (Hebblewhite and Merrill 2008). The magnitude of the impact would depend, at least in part, 

on the timing and nature of the disturbance, winter conditions, species and habitat type present, physiological 

status of the individual, hunting pressure, and other disturbance factors. Other activities, such as bentonite 

mining, uranium development, mineral material sales, and other locatable mineral activities would cause 

similar impacts. 

Habitat management challenges include: 

 maintenance of heterogeneity in habitat composition and structure for grassland and shrubland 

communities; 

 habitat fragmentation; 

 invasion and spread of exotic species and invasive species; 

 lack of a natural fire regime (although this should be tempered by potential increases in exotic grass 

species in recent burns); 

 competition for forage between native ungulates and livestock; 

 restoration of areas damaged by surface-disturbing activities; 

 integrating treatments of multiple resource programs to achieve landscape-level objectives; and 

 maintaining a distribution and diversity of these communities sufficient to support wildlife, special 

status species, livestock, and other competing multiple-use demands on BLM-administered lands. 

Big Game 

Big game species in the planning area include mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn antelope, Rocky 

Mountain elk, and bighorn sheep (Table 3-20). 

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are the most abundant big game species in the planning area and use the 

greatest variety of habitats. Areas of year-round mule deer distribution total more than 22 million acres in the 

planning area, including approximately 12 percent on BLM-administered lands. Approximately 6.89 million 

acres of mule deer winter range occur in the planning area, which includes 1.24 million acres of BLMadministered land (see Map 56 for big game crucial winter range in the planning area). 

The planning area contains numerous large areas (more than 45,000 acres) of mule deer winter range 

(documented in the BLM GIS system). In eastern Montana, most mule deer and elk winter range is located on 

relatively large areas of land with a diversity of slopes, aspects, and topographic features. Winter range is often 

part of year-round habitat. Winter ranges are typically in areas of rough topography and are often dominated by 

shrub species that provide crucial browse. Breaks, badlands, and brushy draws are preferred in open prairie 

country. MacCracken and Uresk (1984) reported that both hardwood and pine forests were important to mule 

deer in southeastern Montana, with hardwood forests preferred. Escape and thermal cover are also important for 

maintenance and survival. Doghair stands of ponderosa pine and juniper are examples of important escapes and 

thermal cover used by mule deer in the northeastern portion of the planning area. Habitat such as riparian 

bottoms, agricultural areas, and forests are used as well, either yearlong or seasonally. 
CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial

3-59

TABLE 3-20. 

BIG GAME HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION BY LAND OWNERSHIP IN THE PLANNING AREA 

Species Habitat or Distribution

Land Ownership (acres)

BLM-administered Acres (and 

Percentage of Habitat on BLMadministered Surface)

Other

Federal

Tribal or 

BIA State Local Private OwnershipUnknown Total

Mule deer

Year-round distribution 2,746,454 (12%) 822,596 7,506 1,540,949 17,140 17,466,915 87,226 22,688,787

Winter range 1,238,725 (18%) 245,122 1,149 478,669 11,322 4,894,334 21,567 6,890,887

No data 518 (less than 1%) 1,402 1,622,015 107 0 4,661 138,359 1,767,062

White-tailed 

deer

More than 30 deer per 

square mile 21,710 (4%) 2,029 200 24,096 3,883 417,303 20,031 489,252

15 to 30 deer per square 

mile 19,594 (4%) 78,342 1,113 21,613 0 408,251 5,291 534,203

5 to 15 deer per square 

mile 36,238 (3%) 111,766 155 74,791 0 887,269 17,101 1,127,321

Less than 5 deer per 

square mile or 

unoccupied habitat

2,668,713 (13%) 630,708 6,044 1,420,449 13,258 15,754,089 44,244 20,537,718

Total white-tailed deer

habitat 2,746,456 (12%) 822,846 7,512 1,540,948 17,140 17,466,912 86,667 22,668,481

No deer density or 

general habitat data 518 (<1%) 1,153 1,622,009 107 0 4,660 138,908 1,767,355

White-tailed deer winter 

range

107,561(4%) 211,814 97,888 160,926 3,816 1,996,261 64,705 2,642,970

Pronghorn 

antelope

Overall distribution 2,037,906 (11%) 251,508 1,386,215 1,248,118 13,186 13,601,449 68,504 18,606,886

Winter range 634,350 (11%) 103,537 71,494 342,180 137 4,571,215 34,454 5,557,366

Rocky 

Mountain elk

Basic distribution 441,982 (10%) 700,388 446,350 202,945 1,132 2,534,850 60,273 4,387,919

Winter range 261,199 (25%) 216,954 61,816 46,209 0 414,382 55,351 1,055,911

Crucial winter range 2,404 (5%) 32,222 0 927 0 10,410 0 45,963

Summer range 6,515 (4%) 48,179 54,504 2,408 0 46,748 18 158,371

Crucial summer range 2,498 (7%) 5,931 0 1,185 0 27,050 0 36,664

Migration habitat 247 (7%) 0 0 382 0 3,139 0 3,768

Bighorn 

sheep

Overall distribution 68,525 (18%) 0 0 27,170 0 292,436 208 388,338

Figures were rounded. Distribution and habitat data for mule deer, white-tailed deer, and bighorn sheep on tribal or BIA lands are incomplete. There is no designated bighorn 

sheep winter range in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-60

In the Powder River RMP area, mule deer use all habitat types, but generally prefer sagebrush, grassland, and 

conifer (BLM 1984). Broken terrain provides important cover in these habitats. Browse is an important 

component in the mule deer annual diet. MFWP observations (Youmans and Swenson 1982) indicate that 73 

percent of the mule deer seen in winter concentration areas in southeastern Montana were in rough topography, 

particularly in pine-dominated habitats. Along the Powder and Little Missouri rivers, however, riparian habitat 

accounted for 94 percent of the wintering mule deer concentrations, probably due to the lack of rough breaks. 

These habitats are crucial to herd survival in the Powder River area, and there appears to be little or no seasonal 

migration of mule deer in southeastern Montana (BLM 1984). 

Mule deer populations have declined and rebounded at least twice since the late 1970s. The population peaked 

in the early 1980s and then declined for approximately 5 years because of drought, poor winter survival, and 

liberal harvests (BLM 1995). Recent MFWP survey data for mule deer in the planning area indicated a 16 

percent decrease from the long-term average in 2010 (H. Burt, personal communication, February 4, 2011). The 

fawn to adult ratio also showed decreases: the 10-year average (2000 to 2009) for fawn to adult ratio was 58.5 

fawns per 100 adults and the 2010 survey showed 40 fawns per 100 adults (H. Burt, personal communication, 

February 4, 2011). 

Although less abundant than mule deer, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are common in the planning 

area. White-tailed deer prefer riparian drainage bottoms and conifer areas, but they will also use a variety of 

other habitats. Areas of highest white-tailed deer concentration (more than 30 deer per square mile) total close 

to half a million acres, including approximately 4 percent of BLM-administered lands (MFWP 2005b). BLMadministered lands provide less than 1 percent of the more than 2.64 million acres of white-tailed deer winter 

range in the planning area. 

During the winter, white-tailed deer using forested areas prefer dense canopy classes, moist habitat types, uncut 

areas, and low snow depths. Suitable winter range is a key habitat factor for white-tailed deer, and winter 

concentration areas occur almost exclusively in riparian and wetland habitats and dense pine (Youmans and 

Swenson 1982). Although white-tailed deer move on and off winter range, as dictated by seasonal habitat 

requirements, the animals do not migrate for long distances. The white-tailed deer population remains relatively 

consistent, despite periodic outbreaks of epizootic hemorrhagic disease, a non-contagious viral disease 

characterized by extensive hemorrhaging. 

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) are the second most abundant big game species in the planning 

area. Although these animals are generally associated with grasslands and shrublands, they will also use 

agricultural fields. 

Approximately 11 percent of the more than 18 million acres of pronghorn antelope habitat in the planning area 

occurs on BLM-administered lands. BLM-administered lands also provide approximately 13 percent of the 

more than 1.4 million acres of winter range for the species in the planning area. The documented winter range 

of pronghorn antelope is most abundant in the southern and western regions of the planning area, particularly in 

Garfield and Rosebud counties. 

Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis) are associated with grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and riparian 

and wetland areas. The species is also common in the Missouri Breaks and scattered throughout the Custer 

National Forest including surrounding BLM-administered lands south of Miles City to the Wyoming and South 

Dakota borders. Seasonal habitat data indicate more than 1.0 million acres of Rocky Mountain elk winter range 

and more than 2.8 million acres of summer range in the planning area. Twenty-five percent of the overall winter 

range occurs on BLM-administered lands. Summer habitat is located primarily in the southern portion of the 

planning area while winter habitat is concentrated on the western border along the Musselshell River. Elk are 

expanding throughout the planning area, especially in portions of Big Horn and Powder River counties (and 

small portions of Custer County). Overall numbers are also increasing throughout the planning area. 

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) in the planning area occur as a single herd and occupy a portion of 388,388 

acres of habitat, located primarily in the Powder River Breaks area in Custer County (Map 57). Occasionally, 

they are also observed in the Pine Hills area. Approximately 18 percent of the occupied area occurs on BLM-
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-61

administered lands. Bighorn sheep habitat includes cliffs, mountain slopes, and rolling foothills with open to 

semi-open conditions (i.e., rocks, grasses, shrubs).

Game Birds 

Upland game birds in the planning area include sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), greater sagegrouse, wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), ring-necked pheasants (Phasianus colchicus), and gray partridges 

(Perdix perdix) (Table 3-21). The greater sage-grouse is considered a special status species and addressed 

further in Special Status Species, Fish and Wildlife. As with big game, upland game birds are considered 

priority species because the public expresses interest in hunting these species. BLM-administered lands provide 

approximately 11 to 13 percent of the habitat or distribution of upland game birds in the planning area. 

However, BLM-administered lands contain only 2 percent of the ring-necked pheasant habitat in the planning 

area. 

TABLE 3-21. 

UPLAND GAME BIRD HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION BY LAND 

OWNERSHIP IN THE PLANNING AREA 

Species

Habitat or 

Distribution

Sharptailed 

grouse

Wild 

turkey Ring-necked pheasant Gray partridge

Overall 

distribution

Occupied 

habitat

Good or 

excellent 

habitat

Fair 

habitat

Total 

pheasant 

habitat

Overall 

distribution

BLMadministered 

Acres (and 

Percentage of 

Habitat on 

BLMadministered 

Surface)

2,712,102 

(12%)

1,020,103

(13%)

43,942 

(2%)

87,953 

(3%)

131,895 

(2%)

2,598,809 

(11%)

Land Ownership (Acres)

Other Federal 816,030 528,921 24,763 1,629 26,392 616,565

Tribal or BIA 1,325,320 3,386 4,788 1,454 6,243 1,629,506

State 1,505,470 481,598 203,499 258,348 461,847 1,515,216

Local 17,141 4,972 3,830 463 4,293 17,140

Private 16,921,650 5,737,471 2,184,891 2,563,853 4,748,744 17,276,982

Unknown 192,810 39,033 57,673 8,084 65,756 107,713

Total 23,490,521 7,815,483 2,523,387 2,921,784 5,445,171 23,761,931

Distribution and habitat data for wild turkey and ring-necked pheasant on tribal or BIA lands are incomplete. There are no 

areas designated as potential (unoccupied) turkey habitat in the planning area. Figures were rounded. 

The primary threats to upland game bird populations in the planning area include habitat loss and adverse 

weather. Hunting can also affect upland game bird populations. However, as with big game, MFWP, regulates 

the amount of upland game bird hunting allowed and prevents hunting from exerting an undesirable effect on 

these populations. Approximately 1,483 sharp-tailed grouse lek sites have been located and mapped in the 

planning area, with 14 percent occurring on BLM-administered lands and 74 percent on private land. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-62

Waterfowl in the planning area include 10 dabbling ducks, 13 diving ducks, and 5 species of swans and geese 

(BLM 1995). The planning area contains a portion of the Prairie Potholes region, which is the most important 

waterfowl-producing area in North America (Pashley and Warhurst 1999). The Prairie Potholes region includes 

portions of six states (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and Nebraska) and three 

Canadian provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) (Bird Studies Canada 2005) and is characterized by 

mixed-grass and tall-grass prairie with numerous wetlands. The Prairie Potholes region also provides critical 

breeding and migration habitat for more than 200 other bird species, and breeding dabbling duck density in the 

area can exceed 100 pairs per square mile. 

The presence of open water is the most important factor for waterfowl production; availability of grassland 

habitats next to open water is also important for many of the waterfowl in the planning area. Open water habitat 

in the planning area includes rivers and natural potholes as well as artificial reservoirs. The total area of open 

water, which is scattered throughout the planning area, encompasses about 241,079 acres. Natural and 

constructed islands on reservoirs and within major river corridors are important to Canada geese (Branta 

canadensis) and some duck species because they provide security from predators during nesting and brood 

rearing. In addition to use during breeding periods, waterfowl use agricultural fields and wetlands as well as the 

major rivers (including the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers), for roosting, cover, and feeding. 

Howrey Island provides brood-rearing habitat for Canada geese and other waterfowl species. Other wildlife also 

inhabit the island (including bald eagles, white-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasants, numerous furbearers, and 

various non-game species). This 321-acre area, located in Treasure County, is one of the few islands in the 

Yellowstone River managed by the BLM. 

Non-game Wildlife 

Various non-game priority species occur in the planning area. Those that are federally listed, or considered 

sensitive species by the BLM are discussed in the Special Status Species, Fish and Wildlife section. Because 

they are sensitive to environmental conditions and associated with rare habitat (wetlands and riparian areas), 

amphibians and turtles are also priority species groups; however, global population declines of some species 

and the limited knowledge regarding occurrence and distribution of these species in the planning area also 

contribute to this classification. Amphibians and turtles (other than those addressed in the Special Status Species

section) known or expected to occur in the area are discussed above in the Fish and Wildlife, Aquatics section. 

Key threats to amphibians and turtles in the project area include loss of riparian and wetland habitats, alteration 

of these habitats (through fragmentation, changes in hydrology, erosion, and changes in riparian and aquatic 

vegetation), and effects from environmental contaminants. 

Limiting Factors for Wildlife 

Although there are some limiting factors (factors that limit species distribution and abundance) specific to 

individual wildlife species, there are a variety of shared factors among most species. The principle factors that 

limit or affect wildlife in the planning area include weather (severe winter or summer drought); disturbance 

from human activities; and habitat fragmentation, degradation, and loss. 

Migratory Birds 

As identified through the Montana Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (2000), migratory birds in the 

planning area that are of greatest conservation concern and BLM Sensitive Species are the following: piping 

plover, mountain plover, interior least tern, burrowing owl, Sprague’s pipit, and Baird’s sparrow. Each of these 

species is addressed in earlier parts of this section. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-63

Proposed Carter Master Leasing Plan Area 

An area in Carter County has been identified for an oil and gas master leasing plan (MLP) (see Oil and Gas for 

more information on MLPs). The Carter MLP area contains big game crucial winter range, sage-grouse habitat, 

a great blue heron rookery, raptor nests, and reservoirs that support waterfowl (Table 3-22).

Special Status Species, Aquatics 

Great Plains toad breeding habitat includes glacial potholes, stock 

reservoirs, irrigation ditches, and small coulees (Werner et al. 2004). 

During the non-breeding season, they use adjacent prairie and other 

upland habitat. Threats to the species include contamination from 

herbicides and pesticides, habitat loss, and stream and reservoir 

management policies that negatively alter hydrology. Great Plains 

toads have been documented in most counties in the planning area. 

Northern leopard frogs occur in and around wet meadows, shallow 

ponds, and slow-moving streams with an abundance of vegetation, 

which provides cover. Populations west of the Continental Divide 

have been disappearing in recent years, but the frogs are widespread 

and remain common east of the divide (Werner et al. 2004). 

Northern leopard frogs occur in all counties in the planning area. 

The plains spadefoot uses ponds, predominantly temporary ones as 

well as surrounding areas with sandy or gravelly loam soils (Werner 

et al. 2004). The species has been documented in most counties in 

the planning area. 

Snapping turtles, which occur in large rivers, lakes, ponds, and 

marshes, have been documented in the counties in the central and 

southern portion of the planning area. 

Spiny softshell turtles occur in large rivers and reservoirs. Threats to 

the turtles include riverine sand and gravel mining, OHV use, and 

livestock grazing, which can destroy their nesting areas (Werner et 

al. 2004). In the planning area, spiny softshells occur along the 

Missouri and Yellowstone rivers and their immediate tributaries. 

Greater short-horned lizards use sagebrush and short-grass prairie, 

particularly south-facing slopes, rocky coulee rims, and shale 

outcrops (Werner et al. 2004). Conversion of sagebrush habitat is 

likely the primary threat to the species. Greater short-horned lizards 

have been documented in most counties in the planning area. 

Milksnake habitat includes grasslands and adjacent riparian areas, rocky outcrops, riparian zones, cedar-juniper 

hillsides, and margins of agricultural fields (Werner et al. 2004). The species occurs in the central and southern 

portion of the planning area. 

The western hog-nosed snake is associated with areas of well-drained and sandy soils, such as riverbanks, old 

riverbeds, and sandstone outcroppings (Werner et al. 2004). Although this species has been documented in most 

counties in the planning area, few have been observed in Montana in recent years. 

There is one federally classified fish species (pallid sturgeon) and eight special status fish species (including the 

blue sucker, shortnose gar, pearl dace, sauger, sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub, northern redbelly x finescale dace 

hybrid, and paddlefish) occurring in the planning area. 

TABLE 3-22.

BLM-ADMINISTERED BIG 

GAME CRUCIAL WINTER 

RANGE ACRES WITH OIL AND 

GAS DEVELOPMENT 

POTENTIAL IN THE PROPOSED 

CARTER MASTER LEASING 

PLAN AREA

Type of Acres

Big Game 

Crucial Winter 

Range

High Oil and Gas 

Development 

Potential Surface 

Acres

5,700

High Oil and Gas 

Development 

Potential Mineral 

Acres

18,000

Medium Oil and 

Gas Development 

Potential Surface 

Acres

40,000

Medium Oil and 

Gas Development 

Potential Mineral 

Acres

66,000

Low Oil and Gas 

Development 

Potential Surface 

Acres

39,000

Low Oil and Gas 

Development 

Potential Mineral 

Acres

64,000
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-64

USFWS listed the pallid sturgeon as an endangered species in 1990, and it is designated a species of special 

concern in Montana (USFWS 1990b). The pallid sturgeon and the limited information concerning the species 

are the primary factors for its listing. Its historic range included the Missouri River; the middle and lower 

reaches of the Mississippi River; and the lower reaches of the Yellowstone, Platte, and Kansas rivers. The 

current distribution in the planning area is the Missouri River (downstream of Fort Peck Dam) and the 

Yellowstone River (downstream of the Cartersville Diversion Dam near Forsyth). Montana populations appear 

to contain old, large fish with no recent evidence of successful reproduction. 

Although critical or essential fish habitat is not officially designated for pallid sturgeon, they prefer large, swift, 

turbid, and relatively warm free-flowing rivers. In Montana, the pallid sturgeon inhabits water with 

temperatures ranging from 32° to 86°F and, during the summer, water depths from 4 to 12 feet before moving to 

deeper water during the winter. The pallid sturgeon is most frequently captured over sand substrate in the 

Missouri River, but they have also been caught over gravel and rock substrate in the Yellowstone River. After 

spawning, free-floating larvae drift a substantial distance downstream for at least several days, leaving larvae 

subject to predation. However, basic parameters such as spawning location, substrate preference, water 

temperature, and seasonal activity have been poorly documented in the planning area. 

Preventing extinction through the establishment of three captive broodstock populations in separate hatcheries 

is an immediate MFWP goal but the long-term objective is downgrading and eventual delisting of the species. 

Protection and habitat restoration is focused in six recovery areas, two of which are in Montana: the Missouri 

River above Fort Peck Reservoir and the lower reaches of the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers below the Fort 

Peck Dam. Habitat restoration can only be achieved through restoration of specific habitats in the Yellowstone 

and Missouri rivers through restoration of river flows and proper temperature and turbidity. 

Special Status Species, Terrestrial 

Special status species include species: 

 proposed for listing, listed as threatened or endangered, or considered candidates for listing as 

threatened or endangered under the provisions of the ESA; 

 listed by a state in a category such as threatened or endangered, implying potential endangerment or 

extinction; and 

 those designated sensitive species by a BLM State Director. 

Conservation of special status species means the use of all methods and procedures necessary to improve the 

condition of special status species and their habitats to a point where special status recognition is no longer 

warranted. 

Special status species are plants and animals that require particular management attention due to population or 

habitat concerns. These species are either: 

 federally listed threatened and endangered species (or these species’ designated critical habitats); 

 federally proposed species and proposed critical habitats; 

 federal candidate species; 

 species designated as threatened or endangered species by the state; or 

 Montana BLM Sensitive Species. 

The BLM coordinates its threatened and endangered species management with the USFWS and MFWP. The 

BLM initiates Section 7 consultation with the USFWS before approving or implementing any action that may 

affect listed species or designated critical habitat. Streamlined consultation procedures detailed in the July 27, 

1999 memorandum of agreement and subsequent implementation guidance for Section 7 consultations are 

utilized to provide collaborative opportunities in the consultation process. The BLM has entered into a MOU 

with the USFWS to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of RMP-level Section 7 consultation processes 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-65

under the ESA. Through this memorandum, the BLM agrees to promote the conservation of candidate, 

proposed, and listed species and to consult informally and formally on listed and proposed species (and 

designated and proposed critical habitat) during planning to protect and improve the condition of species and 

their habitats to a point where their special status is no longer necessary. 

Federally listed species may have critical habitat considered crucial to species viability. For those listed species 

without critical habitat designation, the BLM cooperates with the USFWS to determine and manage important 

habitats. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668–668d). Other fish and wildlife resources 

are considered under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.). 

Special status wildlife species indicators reflect population levels, distribution, and quantity and quality of 

preferred and suitable habitat and the prey needed to support them. This includes a healthy genetic pool needed 

for adaptability to future circumstances and conditions as well as critical breeding habitat, wintering grounds, 

and corridors needed to support migrations. Indicators are detected through allotment evaluations, stream and 

vegetation monitoring, population surveys, the MNHP database, field observations, and USFWS data. 

Most management actions would be directed at habitat maintenance and the processes that would provide 

habitat diversity in the planning area. Actions in areas in which species-specific management could improve 

individual special status species habitats or populations would be considered as long as they were also 

compatible with long-term persistence of other habitats and species. 

If species occurring on BLM-administered lands in the planning area were added to the threatened and 

endangered list in the future, management actions would be developed to conserve, enhance, and protect the 

species in accordance with the ESA. 

 This section addresses the existing conditions of special status species wildlife habitat in the planning area by 

those special status wildlife species known to occur or considered likely to occur in the planning area (Table 3-

23). Although present historically, the ESA-listed grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) no longer occurs in the planning 

area. Numerous migratory bird species are considered BLM Sensitive Species and are a special status group. 

Included in the bird species are USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern, which have been identified as species 

that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA and are 

in greatest need of conservation action. (This list has been updated from the 2002 Birds of Conservation 

Concern List.) 

Sources of information for this section include GIS data from BLM, MFWP, the existing Big Dry and Powder 

River RMPs, MNHP, communications with regional biologists (BLM, USFWS, and MFWP), and a literature 

review. 

Mammals 

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was classified endangered under the ESA on March 11, 1967, and was delisted on 

May 4, 2009. The first fair-chase hunting season for wolves in Montana was 2009. They are now protected and 

the United States Federal District Court reinstated endangered species protections for the gray wolf. As of that 

date (August 2010), gray wolves are now legally reclassified as endangered or nonessential experimental 

(eastern Montana). Gray wolves use a variety of habitats in their range and can be found in any area that 

supports adequate populations of hoofed mammals (ungulates), its major food source, and where persecution by 

humans is limited or absent. Currently, gray wolves do not occur as resident species in the planning area but 

dispersing individuals from the Yellowstone National Park ecosystem, western Montana, and Canada may pass 

through the planning area. They are not, however, expected to establish residency or packs in the area, and the 

planning area is not considered important for the recovery of gray wolves. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-66

TABLE 3-23.

SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES KNOWN OR LIKELY 

TO OCCUR IN THE PLANNING AREA

Species USFWS 

Status

BLM 

Sensitive

Mammals

Gray wolf DM1 Yes

Black-footed ferret Endangered Yes

Black-tailed prairie dog, swift fox, and BLM-listed sensitive bats2 None Yes

Birds

Common loon, Franklin’s gull, black tern, white-faced ibis, yellow 

rail, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, golden eagle, ferruginous hawk, 

Swainson’s hawk, peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, LeConte’s 

sparrow, sedge wren, and Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow

None Yes

Interior least tern and whooping crane Endangered Yes

Piping plover Threatened Yes

Mountain plover, marbled godwit, long-billed curlew, burrowing owl, 

bald eagle, sage thrasher, loggerhead shrike, chestnut-collared 

longspur, McCown’s longspur, Baird’s sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, 

Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), 

and dickcissel (Spiza americana)

BCC3 Yes

Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus), American bittern (Botaurus 

lentiginosus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), upland sandpiper

(Bartramia longicauda), black-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

erythropthalmus), short-eared owl (Asio flammeus), red-headed 

woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), and sage sparrow

(Amphispiza belli)

BCC No

Greater sage-grouse Candidate Yes

Sprague’s pipit Candidate/BCC Yes

Amphibians

Great Plains toad, northern leopard frog, and plains spadefoot toad None Sensitive

Reptiles

Snapping turtle, spiny softshell turtle, greater short-horned lizard, 

milksnake, and western hog-nosed snake None Sensitive

Fish

Northern redbelly x finescale dace hybrid, blue sucker, paddlefish, 

pearl dace, sauger, sturgeon chub None Yes

Pallid sturgeon Endangered Yes

The table includes USFWS BCC (Bird Conservation Regions 11 and 17) and BLM Sensitive Species

1Delisted taxon, recovered, being monitored first five years

2Townsend’s big-eared bat, spotted bat, pallid bat, fringed myotis, northern myotis

3Birds of conservation concern

The black-footed ferret (Mustela frenata) was listed as an endangered species in 1967 under a precursor to the 

ESA. The main causes of the species’ decline included habitat conversion for farming, intentional efforts to 

eliminate prairie dogs (black-footed ferrets depend almost exclusively on prairie dogs for food and shelter), and 

disease (USFWS 2000). A captive breeding and reintroduction program was established for the animals, and the 

current USFWS goal is the establishment of 10 free-ranging populations of ferrets spread over the widest 

possible area within their former range, including portions of the planning area. 

Historic records documented black-footed ferret occupation of habitat within the planning area but black-footed 

ferrets are not known to occupy habitat on BLM-administered lands at this time. There is a low probability that 

a relict population may occur, although this has not been detected in area surveys to date. Black-footed ferret 

reintroductions occurred on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in 2009; however, based on geographical 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-67

constraints and limited connective habitat, the probability that black-footed ferrets from this reintroduction site 

will migrate to BLM-administered lands within the planning area is low. 

The planning area contains one of several potential black-footed ferret reintroduction sites in Montana and this 

site, which is an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC), is located in Custer and Prairie counties and 

includes 11,166 acres. Approximately 455 acres of BLM-administered lands are occupied by active prairie dog 

towns within this ACEC. Approximately 161 acres of BLM-administered lands and 2,017 acres of private lands 

with active prairie dog towns are located outside the ACEC boundary but within the general area recognized as 

the Custer Creek prairie dog complex, based on 2004 surveys (Knowles 2004). 

Birds 

Interior least terns (Sterna antillarum) migrate through the planning area, stopping at stock reservoirs during 

spring and fall; nesting habitat includes gravel islands associated with large rivers. In the planning area, interior 

least terns have been reported in the Yellowstone River below Miles City, near the eastern end of Fort Peck 

Reservoir above Fort Peck Dam, and along the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam (Atkinson and Dood 

2006a; MFWP and MNHP 2006). Of the 129,500 acres of least tern nesting habitat mapped within the planning 

area, 1,373 acres, approximately 1 percent of least tern nesting habitat (7,420 BLM-administered minerals and 

5,778 oil and gas acres [subsurface]), are located on BLM-administered lands. 

On June 28, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was removed from the federal list of threatened 

and endangered species but bald eagles are still protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act. In the western United States, bald eagle abundance has been increasing in recent 

years (USFWS 1999b). Bald eagles generally occur along rivers and lakes with abundant fish and waterfowl 

prey and adjacent large trees for nesting and roosting. 

 

In the planning area, bald eagles commonly nest along the Yellowstone River in Rosebud, Prairie, Custer, and 

Treasure counties. One active bald eagle nest site, on Howrey Island in Treasure County, is present on BLMadministered lands in the planning area. During spring and fall migration and winter, bald eagles use the 

Yellowstone, Missouri, Tongue, Musselshell, and Powder rivers and wintering bald eagle use is particularly 

high at Fort Peck Reservoir along the Missouri River (MFWP and MNHP 2006).

The whooping crane (Grus americana) was classified an endangered species in 1967 under a precursor to the 

ESA. The main cause of the species’ decline was conversion of pothole and prairie habitat for agriculture 

(USFWS 2005b). Continued threats to the birds include susceptibility to natural events (e.g., short, ice-free 

season in the northern breeding grounds, severe weather during migration and the wintering period, and 

hurricanes) due to low population size. Risk of contamination from potential oil spills along the Texas coast, the 

wintering ground for the only self-sustaining wild whooping crane population, is also a threat. The total 

whooping crane population as of March 2002 was 397 birds (114 were captive birds and 283 were wild birds) 

(USFWS 2005b). The whooping crane occurs as a transient or migrant species and does not breed in the 

planning area or any other portion of Montana (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Data on whooping cranes in the state 

are rare. Sightings of the birds have generally been in marshy areas and stubble and grain fields (MFWP and 

MNHP 2006). Whooping cranes have not been recently documented (1995 to 2006) in the planning area 

(MNHP, MFWP, and MT Audubon Society 2006). 

In Montana, piping plovers (Charadrius melodus) are known to nest in the northern and northeastern portion of 

the state, specifically in Fort Peck Reservoir, Nelson Reservoir, occasionally in the Bowdoin National Wildlife 

Refuge, Alkali Lake, the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Sheridan County, and the Missouri River 

below Fort Peck Dam (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Of the approximately 135,00 acres of piping plover habitat 

mapped within the planning area, approximately 730 acres are located on BLM-administered land. Surveys 

have documented one piping plover nesting and brood-rearing area within BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area. This area, in 16 acres in Sheridan County in the extreme northeastern portion of the planning 

area, is the Piping Plover ACEC. Trends in the abundance of piping plovers in eastern Montana are not 

available. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-68

In 2002, the USFWS officially designated critical habitat (92,532 acres in the planning area in four separate 

units) for the Northern Great Plains breeding population of piping plover (USFWS 2002a); approximately 0.5 

percent (507 acres of BLM-administered surface) and 9 percent (8,042 BLM-administered mineral acres) of the 

total acreage of designated critical habitat occurs on BLM-administered lands. Within the planning area, there 

are three units of designated critical habitat: 

 MT-1, which includes 20 alkali lakes and wetlands in Sheridan County; 

 MT-2, which includes the Missouri River from just west of Wolf Point, east to the North Dakota 

boundary; and 

 MT-3, which includes areas near Fort Peck Reservoir. 

The Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii) selects prairies with grasses of intermediate height and may require 

relatively large areas (approximately 170 acres in a study in Saskatchewan) of appropriate habitat (MFWP and 

MNHP 2006). Main threats to the species include habitat loss and alteration caused by of agriculture and 

overgrazing (MNHP et al. 2006). Sprague’s pipits were found warranted, but precluded by higher priority 

actions for listing as a threatened or endangered species (USFWS 2010b). Although Sprague’s pipits are rarely 

found in cropland or CRP land, they have been found to use nonnative planted grassland (USFWS 2010b). The 

USFWS (2010b) reports that pipit occurrence may be better predicted using vegetation structure rather than 

composition. Sprague’s pipits have been documented in Daniels, Sheridan, Roosevelt, McCone, Richland, 

Dawson, Prairie, Custer, and Fallon counties within the planning area (MNHP et al. 2006). BLM biologists 

have observed Sprague’s pipits in Carter and Prairie counties. Historical observations have also been 

documented for Wibaux and Big Horn counties (Lenard, Carlson, Ellis, Jones, and Tilly 2003). 

Other BLM Sensitive Species 

Mammals 

In the planning area, black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) occur in grassland and shrub grassland 

habitat. A model based on vegetation biomass, slope, and soils resulted in four vegetation types identified as 

preferred by prairie dogs: very low cover grasslands, salt-desert shrub, dry salt-flats, and mixed barren sites. 

Prairie dogs were found to be associated with slopes of 0 to 4 percent (Proctor, Beltz, and Haskins 1998). 

Black-tailed prairie dogs provide unique habitat for a variety of prairie wildlife species and are considered a 

“keystone species” (a species and habitat depended on by numerous other wildlife species for forage and 

reproduction). Their potential decline from control, fragmentation, and plague may cause secondary declines to 

other species including special status wildlife species such as burrowing owls, mountain plovers, and ferruginous 

hawks. The existence of the secondary species hinges on maintaining viable populations of prairie dogs throughout 

its range. Black-tailed prairie dogs were once listed as a candidate species for listing under the ESA but were found 

not warranted for listing by the USFWS. 

Black-tailed prairie dogs declined in abundance during the 1900s and the current estimated acreage of occupied 

habitat is considered much smaller than historical. Declines are attributed to intensive eradication programs, 

conversion of native rangelands, and sylvatic plague. In the planning area, black-tailed prairie dog colonies 

occupy approximately 39,800 acres, which includes Northern Cheyenne Tribal lands. Black-tailed prairie dog 

colony occupation on BLM-administered lands is estimated at approximately 10,500 acres. These estimates are 

based on a combination of the most recent surveys (Knowles 2004) available from 2003 to 2004; however, 

prairie dog colonies are subject to frequent fluctuations in size and population. 

Thought to be common on Montana’s eastern plains throughout the early 1900s, swift fox (Vulpes velox) were 

believed to be extinct by 1969, which was largely attributed to poisoning (MFWP and MNHP 2006). In recent 

years, the swift fox population has appeared to be expanding into Montana from Canada. Surveys conducted in 

recent years in Montana indicate swift foxes occur primarily in the north-central and northeastern portion of the 

state (Grenier 2003). The primary ongoing threat to swift foxes in Montana is competition with coyotes and red 

foxes (MFWP and MNHP 2006). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-69 

In the planning area, historical surveys (prior to 1999) recorded swift foxes in Carter, Powder River, Custer, 

Garfield, Richland, McCone, Dawson, Valley, and Sheridan counties. From 1999 to 2009, swift foxes have 

been recorded, including track sightings and observations in Daniels, Valley, Prairie, Roosevelt, Powder River, 

and Carter counties. In general, shortgrass and midgrass prairies, which encompass 9,369,372 acres (36 percent) 

of the planning area and 1,078,132 acres (39 percent) of BLM-administered land within the planning area, 

provide potential habitat for the species. However, because of small habitat patch size, fragmentation, or other 

factors, not all of these acres are suitable habitat for swift fox. A multi-agency group consisting of 

representatives from 10 state wildlife agencies and select federal agencies (including the BLM), the Swift Fox 

Conservation Team, is committed to ensuring the long-term conservation of swift foxes. 

The BLM considers five bat species occurring in the planning area to be sensitive species: Townsend’s bigeared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii), spotted bats (Euderma maculatum), pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus), 

fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), and northern myotis (Myotis septentrionalis). Bats are sensitive to 

disturbance at their roosting sites; the availability of suitable roosting sites (e.g., tree cavities, tree bark, caves, 

rock crevices, mines, and buildings), are key habitat components for these bats (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). 

Birds 

Common loon (Gavia immer) nesting habitat is characteristically clear, oligotrophic, fish-bearing lakes with 

rocky shorelines, bays, islands, and floating bogs surrounded by forest (McIntyre and Barr 1997). Because they 

need large expanses of water for takeoff and landing, loons generally occur only in lakes larger than 10 acres 

(Strong 1990). These birds are extremely sensitive to human disturbance. In recent years (1995 to 2006), 

sightings of common loons within the planning area include non-breeding individuals at Medicine Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge and Fort Peck (MNHP et al. 2009). There are no known nests in the planning area. 

Nesting habitat for the Franklin’s gull (Leucophaeus pipixcan) includes wetlands, particularly large and 

permanent prairie marsh complexes (MFWP and MNHP 2009). During migration, the species use dry land, 

especially cultivated fields, as migration stopover sites (MFWP and MNHP 2006). In recent years (1999 to 

2009), non-breeding Franklin’s gulls have been documented in the planning area at Pirogue Island State Park 

(Miles City), along the Missouri River, and at unlisted locations in eastern Sheridan County (MNHP et al. 

2009). Breeding and non-breeding individuals have been observed during this time at Manning Lake; Prairie 

and Richland counties; and other locations in central and eastern Roosevelt County. 

Black tern (Chlidonias niger) nesting habitat consists primarily of wetlands, marshes, prairie potholes, and 

ponds with abundant emergent vegetation (MFWP and MNHP 2009); the birds nest occasionally on humanmade islands as well. Threats to the birds include degradation and loss of wetlands, reductions in prey because 

of pesticide use, and disturbances at nesting colonies (MFWP and MNHP 2009). Non-breeding individuals have 

been observed at Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, in unlisted locations in Sheridan County, near 

Bainville in Roosevelt County, and at the Terry sewage lagoon in Prairie County. In recent years (1999 to 

2009), breeding black terns have been sighted in the planning area at Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, 

Westgard Waterfowl Production Area, and other locations in eastern Roosevelt, Richland, and Daniels counties 

(MNHP et al. 2009). 

Breeding habitat for the white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) includes wetlands, marshes, ponds, and swamps with 

pockets of emergent vegetation (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Threats to the birds are similar to those mentioned 

above for black terns (MFWP and MNHP 2006). In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding white-faced ibises 

have been observed in the planning area at Manning Lake (Fort Peck Indian Reservation), while non-breeding 

individuals have been observed at Gaffney Lake and near Homestead, Montana in Roosevelt and Sheridan 

counties (MNHP et al. 2006). 

Breeding habitat for the yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) consists of wet meadows and other wetlands 

with emergent vegetation, especially grasses, rushes, and bulrushes; the primary threat to this species is loss of 

this breeding habitat (MFWP and MNHP 2006; MNHP et al. 2006). In recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding 

yellow rails have been observed in the planning area near Homestead and Westby, Montana, while nonbreeding individuals have been observed near Westby (MNHP et al. 2006). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-70

At one time, the mountain plover (Charadius montanus) was widely distributed across short-grass prairies on 

the western Great Plains, occupying a range that extended from Montana to New Mexico and Texas. Although 

this species does not winter in Montana, it may breed within the planning area, particularly in black-tailed 

prairie dog towns. Mountain plovers are transitory in other parts of the state, including the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, and currently breed on sites in central, north-central, and southwest Montana as well as a location 

north of Ingomar, Montana. Blaine and Phillips counties currently support the bulk of nesting mountain plovers 

in Montana. No mountain plovers were detected in surveys conducted from 2002 to 2005 in proposed CBNG 

drilling and pipeline development areas in Big Horn, Powder River, and Rosebud counties. 

Conversion of native prairies to agriculture has significantly reduced suitable breeding habitats for this species; 

mountain plovers prefer relatively flat sites with very short grass and scattered cactus as well as high, arid plains 

and shortgrass prairie with blue grama-buffalo grass communities. However, intensive grazing is beneficial for 

mountain plovers, and they regularly occupy prairie dog towns. Records indicate that mountain plovers have 

declined in abundance in Montana over the past century, a possible result of increased irrigated agriculture or 

prairie dog control (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Limited mountain plover surveys have been conducted in the 

planning area and its occurrence in the area is not well known. In recent years (1999 to 2009), only two 

mountain plovers, observed north of Ingomar, Montana, have been sighted in the planning area (MNHP et al. 

2009). 

Although the mountain plover was proposed for a threatened listing under the ESA in the fall of 2002, the 

USFWS decided to reopen the comment period in 2010 on the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as a 

threatened species (USFWS 2002b) and to complete a new final determination on the proposal by May 1, 2011. 

After a thorough review of all available scientific and commercial information, the USFWS has determined that 

the mountain plover is not threatened or endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 

Currently, the mountain plover is a BLM Sensitive Species. 

Ducks at Clark Reservoir 

in Prairie County. 

Marbled godwit (Limosa haemastica) breeding habitat 

includes short, sparsely to moderately vegetated areas, 

including native grasslands and wetlands (MFWP and 

MNHP 2006), while migration stopover sites include a 

variety of wetlands. Breeding marbled godwits have been 

observed in the planning area in recent years (1999 to 

2009), and non-breeding individuals have been observed at 

and near the Fort Peck Dam (MNHP et al. 2009). 

Long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus) will use 

agricultural fields as stopover sites during migration but 

breeding habitat consists primarily of native grasslands; 

loss of breeding habitat is the primary threat to the species 

(MNHP et al. 2006). In recent years (1995 to 2006), 

breeding long-billed curlews have been sighted in the 

planning area along the breeding bird survey routes near 

Circle, Savage, and Locate, Montana (MNHP et al. 2006). 

A non-breeding individual was observed in Roosevelt 

County during this time.

Willet (Tringa semipalmata) breeding habitat includes sparsely vegetated, short-grass prairies (and similar 

grasslands) near shallow wetlands (MFWP and MNHP 2006). The species also occasionally uses croplands. In 

recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding willets have been observed in the planning area at the Fox Lake Wildlife 

Management Area; Lonetree Lake, UL Bend, and Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuges; in Fallon County; 

near Westby, Jordan, Redstone, Ingomar, Oswego, and Ekalaka, Montana; and in northeast Sheridan County 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-71

(MNHP et al. 2006). Non-breeding individuals were also observed during this time at Pirogue Island State Park, 

Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, and in the Miles City and Bainville, Montana, areas. 

Wilson’s phalaropes (Phalaropus tricolor) use lakes, ponds, and flooded fields in the spring and marshy lake 

and pond borders in the summer (MFWP and MNHP 2006); the primary threat to the birds in the planning area 

is habitat loss (MNHP et al. 2006). In recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding Wilson’s phalaropes have been 

observed in the planning area at the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge; in Sheridan, Fallon, Treasure, 

and Rosebud counties; and near Ekalaka and Webster, Montana (MNHP et al. 2006). Non-breeding individuals 

were observed during this time in the Fox Lake area near Jordan and Sumatra and in Sheridan, Richland, and 

Fallon counties. 

Golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) nest on cliffs and in large trees but forage over open areas such as grasslands 

and open woodlands (MNHP and MFWP 2006). In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding golden eagles have 

been observed in the planning area at the UL Bend and Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuges; along the 

Missouri River in Roosevelt County; and near Ingomar, Forsyth, Redstone, Fort Peck, Locate, and Decker, 

Montana (MNHP et al. 2009). In winter, golden eagles have been observed at the Medicine Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge; in Sheridan and Roosevelt counties; and near Fort Peck, Plevna, and Homestead, Montana. 

Twenty-six golden eagle nest sites are documented on BLM-administered land in the planning area, with 171 

reported across the planning area; however, the number of active nests is 

unknown. 

Great blue heron at Hay 

Draw Travel Management Area. 

Burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) are widely distributed across eastern 

Montana, where they occur in open grasslands and use abandoned mammal 

burrows (primarily prairie dog and badger) for nesting (MFWP and MNHP 2006). 

In recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding burrowing owls have been observed in 

the planning area at the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and Fort 

Peck Reservoir; near Custer, Decker, Forsyth, Ingomar, and Locate, Montana; and 

in Garfield, McCone, Sheridan, Rosebud, Treasure, Custer, Prairie, Big Horn, and 

Roosevelt counties (MNHP et al. 2006). As of 2006, 50 burrowing owl sites, 

including 9 on BLM-administered lands, were known to occur in the planning 

area. 

Ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) breed in eastern Montana but rarely occur in 

the area during winter (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Habitat for these birds includes 

grasslands, sagebrush, and other brush lands. Primary threats to ferruginous hawks 

include losses (from agriculture) of primary and prey habitat (which decreases prey species numbers) as well as 

deliberate eradication programs aimed at prey species (e.g., black-tailed prairie dog) (MNHP et al. 2006). 

In recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding ferruginous hawks have been observed in the planning area at the 

Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge; Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; near Forsyth, Ingomar, 

Alzada, Locate, Westby, and Powderville, Montana; and in east Fallon County (MNHP et al. 2006); but there 

are no records for wintering ferruginous hawks within the planning area during this period. As of 2006, 356 

ferruginous hawk nest sites were reported, including 144 on BLM-administered land. 

The Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) breeds throughout Montana, nesting in river-bottom forests, brushy 

coulees, and shelterbelts, and hunting in grasslands and agricultural areas, particularly along river bottoms 

(MFWP and MNHP 2006). Main threats to the species include loss of nesting and foraging habitat and 

disturbance at nest sites (MNHP et al. 2006). In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding Swainson’s hawks were 

observed in the planning area at Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge; in Carter County, northeast Sheridan 

County, and Fallon County as well as near Redstone, Westby, Fort Peck, Powderville, Melstone, Savage, 

Oswego, Circle, Ingomar, Jordan, and Decker, Montana (MNHP et al. 2009). Only 26 Swainson’s hawk nest 

sites have been reported in the planning area and only 2 of these occurred on BLM-administered land. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-72

Peregrine falcons (Falco peregrines) typically nest in cliff areas near water and abundant bird prey. Following 

implementation of successful management activities (restrictions of organochlorine pesticides in the United 

States and Canada), the species was removed from the federal list of threatened and endangered species in 1999 

(USFWS 1999a; Abbitt and Scott 2001). In recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding peregrine falcons have been 

observed at one location (Big Island in the Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge) in the planning area, with 

additional sightings of non-breeding peregrines in the same area and other areas in Sheridan and Roosevelt 

counties (MNHP et al. 2006). There are no known peregrine falcon nest sites in the planning area. 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) breeding habitat consists primarily of mature and old growth coniferous 

forest with high canopy closure, but their habitat requirements and winter activities in Montana are not well 

understood (MFWP and MNHP 2006). Timber harvest and nest site disturbance are primary threats to the 

species. In recent years (1995 to 2006), breeding goshawks have been documented at three locations in the 

planning area (Powder River, Garfield, and Custer counties) with one documented winter sighting between 

Savage and Sidney, Montana (MNHP et al. 2006). There are four reported northern goshawk nest sites in the 

planning area (three were documented earlier than 1984). 

Sage thrashers (Oreoscoptes montanus) prefer relatively dense stands of tall sagebrush for nesting. Primary 

threats to the species include habitat loss and degradation from livestock grazing, agriculture, mining, and other 

development. In recent years (1999 to 2009), observations of breeding sage thrashers have been documented in 

the planning area near Nelson and Ingomar, Montana, as well as in Rosebud, Garfield, Richland, Custer, 

Rosebud, Big Horn, and Powder River counties (MNHP et al. 2009). 

Preferred breeding habitat for sedge wrens (Cistothorus platensis) includes wetlands and adjacent areas highly 

susceptible to flooding and drying (MFWP and MNHP 2006). As with other wetland-associated birds, habitat 

loss and degradation are the primary threats to these birds. In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding sedge wrens 

have been documented in the planning area near Westby and Bainville, Montana, and in Sheridan County 

(MNHP et al. 2009). 

Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) use a wide variety of open habitats (e.g., sagebrush shrubland and 

shrub-steppe, grasslands, badlands, pastures, and agricultural fields with scattered trees or shrubs for nesting), 

as long as woody nesting strata (often thorny shrubs) are available (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). Primary 

threats to the species include loss of breeding habitat and health effects because of pesticide use (Montana 

Partners in Flight 2000). In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding loggerhead shrikes were documented 

throughout the planning area including areas near Forsyth, Locate, Savage, and Circle, Montana, and Charles 

M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (MNHP et al. 2009). 

Preferred breeding habitat for the chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus) is native grasslands, but the 

species also uses grazed grasslands and hayfields, usually avoiding cultivated fields (Montana Partners in Flight 

2000). Primary threats to the species include habitat conversion and overgrazing. In recent years (1995 to 2006), 

breeding chestnut-collared longspurs have been documented in the planning area at Medicine Lake National 

Wildlife Refuge; in northeast Sheridan County and Valley County; and near Dagmar, Circle, Powderville, 

Webster, Locate, Savage, Oswego, and Ingomar (MNHP et al. 2006). 

The McCown’s longspur (Calcarius mccownii) prefers grasslands with low vegetation cover, such as true native 

short-grass prairie or heavily grazed mixed-grass prairie (Montana Partners in Flight 2000); but the species may 

also use cultivated lands. Threats include habitat loss on breeding grounds and undetermined factors on 

wintering grounds. In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding McCown’s longspurs have been documented in the 

planning area near Circle and observations have been recorded in Daniels, McCone, and Garfield counties 

(MNHP et al. 2009). 

The Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) is associated with grasslands, particularly native prairie (Montana 

Partners in Flight 2000); the primary threat is the conversion of this habitat to cropland. In recent years (1999 to 

2009), breeding Baird’s sparrows have been documented in the planning area at Medicine Lake and Lamesteer 

National Wildlife Refuges as well as near Westby, Tour, Oswego, Powderville, Savage, and Webster, Montana 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-73

(MNHP et al. 2009). Observations of Baird’s sparrows have been made in McCone, Carter, Dawson, Richland, 

Roosevelt, Daniels, Sheridan, Powder River, and Rosebud counties (MNHP et al. 2009). 

Habitat for Brewer’s sparrows (Spizella breweri) is predominantly sagebrush (MNHP et al. 2006; MNHP and 

MFWP 2006), and primary threats to the species include habitat loss, including the degradation of sagebrush 

through heavy grazing and other factors (MNHP et al. 2006). In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding Brewer’s 

sparrows have been documented in the planning area in every county except Roosevelt and Daniels, including 

near Locate, Melstone, Savage, Brusett, Powderville, Brandenberg, Ingomar, and Decker, Montana (MNHP et 

al. 2009). 

LeConte’s sparrow (Ammodramus leconteii) is primarily a bird of the northern Great Plains and central 

Canadian provinces; preferred breeding habitat includes wet meadows and tall grasslands near wetlands or 

streams (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). LeConte’s sparrows breed in the extreme northeast corner (near 

Westby) of Montana, in Roosevelt and Sheridan counties, as well as a few sedge meadows in and near the 

western edge of Glacier National Park (Montana Partners in Flight 2000; MNHP et al. 2009).

Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrows (Ammodramus nelson) nest in grasslands, marsh edges, and herbaceous wetlands 

(Montana Partners in Flight 2000), and northeast Montana represents the periphery of the species’ range. 

Habitat loss and degradation due to livestock grazing are primary threats to the species (Montana Partners in 

Flight 2000; MNHP et al. 2006). In recent years (1999 to 2009), breeding Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrows have 

been documented in the planning area at Round Lake and Widgeon Slough, Big Slough, and Stateline 

Waterfowl Production Areas and near Westby, Homestead, Flaxville, Plentywood, Bainville, and Comertown, 

Montana (MNHP et al. 2009). 

Birds, Greater sage-grouse 

The greater sage-grouse occurs across 11 Western states, including portions of the planning area. Based on 

available genetic and ecological data, the USFWS determined that the western subspecies was not a valid 

subspecies; subsequently, it is considered a single species across its range (2005d). In cooperation with MFWP, 

the University of Montana, and the Adopt-A-Lek Program, the BLM is working towards gaining a better 

understanding of the genetic connectivity of groups of sage-grouse across their Montana range. Genetic testing 

from feather samples can be used to determine consanguinity of birds within and between lek complexes or 

designated core habitats (Map 2). Similar testing is underway in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 

In a 2005 status review of the greater sage-grouse, USFWS determined that the greater sage-grouse was not 

warranted for listing under the ESA given the generally improving population trends, existing habitat 

availability, and large species range (USFWS 2005d). A 2007 decision by Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn 

Winmill remanded the 2005 decision back to the USFWS for reconsideration. The USDI, in conjunction with a 

finding by USFWS, announced in March of 2010 that, based on accumulated scientific data and new, peerreviewed information and analyses, the greater sage-grouse warrants the protection of the ESA but that listing 

of the species was precluded by the need to first address higher priority species (USFWS 2010a). Subsequently, 

the greater sage-grouse will be placed on the candidate list for future action, which means that the species will 

not receive statutory protection under the ESA and states will continue to be responsible for sage-grouse 

management. The USFWS will evaluate this decision annually to consider conditions and determine whether 

the listing priority should be adjusted. 

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 proposed 

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. In addition, an identified source population area within a Sagegrouse Habitat – Restoration Area (in the Cedar Creek Anticline portion of the planning area) that contains a 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-74

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. See the Fish and Wildlife Appendix for more information. 

Specific objectives for sage-grouse that include maintaining and increasing, where possible, present distribution 

and abundance of sage-grouse are addressed in the Greater Sage-grouse Comprehensive Strategy MOU to 

which BLM was a signatory (Stiver et al. 2006). The BLM’s National Sage-grouse Conservation Strategy

(BLM 2004i) and the statewide Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana

(Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005) are the primary guides for current management of sage-grouse 

habitat on BLM-administered lands. Both plans provide broad goals for sage-grouse conservation, management, 

and specific actions to accomplish these goals. The BLM is an active participant in the Montana Sage Grouse 

Work Group, a cooperative membership of state, federal, tribal, and private entities and several individuals from 

the general public that developed the statewide plan. See the Fish and Wildlife Appendix for more information. 

As part of the BLM’s December 2011 National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy, transmitted 

via Washington IM 2012-044, the BLM is preparing amendments to formal land use plans to further govern 

management of sage-grouse on BLM-administered lands. The BLM needs to incorporate explicit objectives and 

adequate conservation measures into RMPs within the next 3 years to conserve greater sage-grouse and 

potentially reduce the need to list under the ESA. The planning strategy will evaluate the adequacy of BLM 

RMPs and address, as necessary, revisions and amendments throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse in 

North America, which has been divided into seven sage-grouse management zones based on populations within 

floristic provinces (Stiver et al. 2006) (Figure 3-9). The floristic provinces are areas within which similar 

environmental factors influence vegetation communities (Knick and Connelly 2011a). Management Zone 1, 

which is part of the Rocky Mountain Region of this planning effort, includes this RMP’s planning area. 

Sage-grouse are native to the sagebrush steppe of western North America, and their distribution closely follows 

that of sagebrush, primarily big sagebrush (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005). The importance of 

mature sagebrush with a good understory of grasses and forbs is well documented. In eastern Montana, where 

close interspersion of wintering, nesting, breeding, and brood-rearing habitat rarely require large seasonal 

movements, sage-grouse are essentially non-migratory. 

The sagebrush ecosystem is representative of the struggle to maintain biodiversity in a landscape that bears the 

debt of ever-increasing demands for natural resources. A gallinaceous species native only to western semiarid 

sagebrush habitats, sage-grouse were previously widespread before loss and degradation of sagebrush habitat 

resulted in extirpation of the species from almost half of its original range (Schroeder, Young, and Braun 1999; 

Schroeder et al. 2004). Sage-grouse populations continue to decline by 2 percent annually (Connelly, Knick, 

Schroeder, Stiver, and WAFWA 2004). In Montana, the sage-grouse population declined sharply from 1991 to 

1996 before increasing through 2000 (Montana Sage Grouse Work Group 2005). MFWP Region 7, which 

includes most of the MCFO RMP planning area, 2010 lek data shows 386 leks of unconfirmed status (single 

count with no subsequent survey or reported without survey data), 455 confirmed active leks (existence 

supported by data), 33 extirpated leks (permanently abandoned), and 19 confirmed inactive leks (data supports 

evidence of 10 or more years with no males or signs of activity) (Beyer, Foster, and Denson 2010). Four MFWP 

trend areas, which are scattered throughout the planning area, with a total of 80 sage-grouse leks are counted 

annually in MFWP’s Region 7. The total males counted in these trend areas peaked in 2006 with 988 males. 

The number of males counted on trend areas declined from 2007 to 2009 but increased in 2010. The overall 

trend for the sage-grouse trend areas is stable (Beyer et al. 2010). 

In portions of Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, sage-grouse populations have declined through wholesale loss 

of habitat and through impacts of disturbance and direct mortality to birds on the remaining habitat. The most 

pervasive and extensive change to the sagebrush ecosystems in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is the 

conversion of nearly 60 percent of native habitats to agriculture (Samson et al. 2004). The conversion was 

facilitated by the Homestead Act of 1862 in the United States and the Canada Dominion Act of 1872 (Knick 

2011). Under the Homestead Act, nearly 1.5 million people acquired and plowed over 309,000 square miles 

(800,000 square kilometers) of land, primarily in the Great Plains (Samson et al. 2004). The impacts of land 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-75

conversion in the late 1800s and early 1900s were probably greatest for sagebrush habitats nearest perennial 

water sources in Management Zone 1. 

FIGURE 3-9.

BLM SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Source: Knick and Connelly 2011a

In Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, greater sage-grouse were a historically a function of the interaction of 

physical factors (e.g., climate, soils, geology, and elevation), and natural disturbance factors (e.g., fire, grazing, 

and drought) that allowed sagebrush to persist on the landscape. These physical and natural factors combined to 

produce an interspersion and juxtaposition of different habitats that included large expanses of sagebrush 

patches favorable for greater sage-grouse occupation. The sagebrush species associated with greater sagegrouse habitat in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is primarily Wyoming big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata 

ssp. wyomingensis). Overall shrub cover is less than 10 percent in these areas, which may include basin big 

sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata ssp. tridentata), silver sagebrush (Artemisia cana), greasewood (Sarcobatus 

vermiculatus), saltbush (Atriplex species), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), green rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus), and antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) (MNHP 2012). Perennial 

herbaceous components in these habitat types, consisting mostly of rhizomatous and bunch-form grasses with a 

diversity of perennial forbs, typically contribute greater than 25 percent vegetative cover (MNHP 2012). The 

dominant grass in this system is western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii) but sites may include other species 

such as Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), Sandberg’s bluegrass

(Poa secunda), or bluebunch wheatgrass (MNHP 2012). In Montana and Wyoming, dryland sedges such as 

threadleaf sedge (Carex filifolia) and needleleaf sedge (Carex duriuscula) are very common and important in 

the eastern distribution of this system (MNHP 2012). Common forbs include Hood’s phlox (Phlox hoodii), 

sandwort (Arenaria species), prickly pear (Opuntia species), scarlet globemallow (Sphaeralcea coccinea), 

purple prairie clover (Dalea purpurea), gayfeather (Liatris punctata), and milkvetch (Astragalus species) 

(MNHP 2012). Big sagebrush is easily killed by fire at all intensities and does not resprout when exposed to fire 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-76

(MNHP 2012). In southwestern Montana, fire in big sagebrush occurs at the stand-replacing level, which kills 

or removes most of the aboveground vegetation, and recovery to pre-burn cover (of sagebrush) takes at least 20 

years (MNHP 2012). MNHP (2012) reports that Wyoming big sagebrush in Montana may require a century or 

longer to recover from fire. Big sagebrush occurs on level to gently rolling plains, plateaus, sideslopes and 

toeslopes, and as small and large patches in dissected landscapes such as breaks (MNHP 2012).

Throughout Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, land ownership is predominantly private (70 percent). 

Ownership of the remaining range of the greater sage-grouse in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is 68 percent 

private and 13 percent state or other federal ownership (not including the Fort Peck and Fort Belknap Indian 

Reservations), with 83 percent of the federal lands in the range of greater sage-grouse in Management Zone 1 

managed by the BLM. 

Primary ongoing threats to sage-grouse include habitat loss, fragmentation, and deterioration as a result of 

factors including the spread of invasive species, infrastructure development, rapidly expanding energy 

development, wildfire, conversion of sagebrush habitats to nonnative species or agriculture, and conifer 

invasion (USFWS 2005d), which occurs throughout the planning area. (See the Minerals section for current 

numbers of oil and gas wells.) There are approximately 16.9 million acres of sage-grouse habitat in the planning 

area, including approximately 2.5 million acres (15 percent) on BLM-administered lands (MFWP 2010a). The 

distribution and influence of multiple land uses such as energy development, ROWs, and livestock grazing 

varies across sage-grouse distribution (Knick et al. 2003) throughout the planning area. Conversion to cropland 

has eliminated or fragmented sagebrush on private lands in areas with deep fertile soils or irrigation potential, 

and sagebrush remaining in these areas has been limited to agricultural edge or relatively unproductive 

environments. Oil and gas resources are being developed primarily in the eastern portion of the sage-grouse 

range in the planning area. Wind exploration and development is occurring in the planning area (wind turbines 

were recently constructed in the Cedar Creek Anticline).

In Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, native vegetation currently covers about 59 percent of the management 

zone, with approximately 25 percent of the remaining native vegetation managed by the BLM. Much of the 

direct habitat loss from conversion to agriculture has occurred primarily in the far northwestern and 

northeastern portions of the management zone (Knick et al. 2011). Cropland currently covers nearly 19 percent 

of Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 and 91 percent of Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is within 6.9 

kilometers of cropland (Knick et al. 2011) (Figure 3-10). Recent interest in bio-fuel production and high prices 

for small grains has resulted in an increase in the conversion of native grasslands or lands formerly enrolled in 

the CRP to cropland, further emphasizing the importance of BLM-administered lands and associated private 

lands managed for grazing in maintaining large blocks of native grassland and shrubland habitats. 

Converting native grasslands to agricultural lands not only resulted in a direct loss of habitats for native 

wildlife, it began a process of habitat fragmentation. Habitat loss is exacerbated when fragmentation reduces the 

size or isolates remaining habitat patches below the size thresholds necessary to support components of 

biological diversity or when it blocks the movement of animals between habitat patches. As large contiguous 

blocks of habitat are dissected into smaller blocks, they became more isolated from one another by dissimilar 

habitats and land uses. Adverse impacts from fragmentation can occur to individual plant and animal species 

and communities. The impacts of habitat fragmentation to biological resources can occur on multiple scales and 

can vary by species and the type of fragmentation. Individual species have different thresholds of fragmentation 

tolerance; greater sage-grouse have large spatial requirements and eventually disappear from landscapes that no 

longer contain large enough patches of habitat while smaller birds like the Sprague’s pipit can persist in 

landscapes with smaller patches of habitat because their spatial requirements are smaller. 

Changes in vegetation can also result in the loss and fragmentation of native habitats. The conversion of large 

acreages of sagebrush to predominately grassland communities results in the direct loss of sagebrush habitat and 

can fragment remaining habitat for sagebrush-dependent species, such as the greater sage-grouse. Roads and 

OHV use can promote the spread of invasive species (weeds) through vehicular traffic, and weed infestations 

can further exacerbate the fragmentation effects of roadways. Irrigation water has also supported the conversion 

of native plant communities to hayfields, pasture, and cropland, thus fragmenting sagebrush habitats. Excessive 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-77

grazing in these habitats can lead to the demise of the most common perennial grasses in this system and an 

abundance of cheatgrass or Japanese brome (MNHP 2012).

FIGURE 3-10.

AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN BLM SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Knick et al. 2011

Mapped land cover depicts primarily croplands although pasture was included in the agriculture category

In Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, the remaining sagebrush habitats are mostly managed as grazing lands for 

domestic livestock. Domestic livestock function as a keystone species in the management zone through grazing 

and management actions related to grazing. Although these actions do not preclude wildlife and vegetation, they 

do influence ecological pathways and species persistence (Bock, Bock, and Smith 1993). 

The effects of grazing on sagebrush habitats in this management zone are much different from effects noted in 

the Great Basin since the landscape throughout Management Zone 1 is adapted to withstand grazing disturbance 

(Knick et al. 2011). Historically, large numbers of bison moved nomadically through the management zone in 

response to changes in vegetation associated with drought, past grazing, and fire. Grazing by bison occurred in 

large areas as huge herds moved through and the impacts of these herds on the vegetation, soils, and riparian 

areas were probably extensive. The interval between grazing episodes may have ranged from 1 to 8 years 

(Malainey and Sherriff 1996). Bison were replaced with domestic livestock in the late 1800s. The intensity and 

duration of grazing in the management zone increased as domestic livestock numbers and annual grazing 

pressure increased. The high-intensity grazing probably increased the density and perhaps the distribution of 

sagebrush in the management zone, particularly when combined with a concurrent reduction in fire on the 

landscape. 

Grazing on public lands was unregulated until the passage of the Taylor Grazing Act in 1934. Since the passage 

of the Taylor Grazing Act, range conditions have improved through improved grazing management practices 

and livestock operations related to decreased livestock numbers and the annual duration of grazing. In addition, 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-78

the BLM has applied Standards for Rangeland Health since 1997 to enhance sustainable livestock grazing and 

wildlife habitat while protecting watersheds and riparian ecosystems. However, developments to facilitate 

grazing management often include elements detrimental to sage-grouse. Perhaps the most pervasive change 

associated with grazing management in sage-grouse habitats throughout the management zone is the 

construction of fencing and water developments (Knick et al. 2011) (Figure 3-11). Barbed wire fences 

contribute to direct mortality of sage-grouse through fence collisions (Stevens 2011) and water developments 

may contribute to increased occurrence of West Nile virus in greater sage-grouse (Walker and Naugle 2011). 

Water developments are particularly prevalent in the north-central portion of Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 

(Figure 3-12). Additional habitat modifications associated with grazing management include mechanical and 

chemical treatments to increase grass production, often by removing sagebrush (Knick et al. 2011). 

FIGURE 3-11.

LINEAR FENCE DENSITY ON PUBLIC LANDS IN BLM SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Knick et al. 2011

Linear density (kilometers per kilometers2) of fences (estimated from allotment and pasture boundaries) on public lands in the 

Sage-grouse Conservation Area

In Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, other major land uses include energy development (primarily oil and gas 

development), urbanization, and infrastructure. Oil and gas development in the management zone has occurred 

throughout Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 but is concentrated in the southern portions (PRB) the north 

(Bowdoin Field) and the south and east (Williston Basin) (Figure 3-13). Oil and gas development includes 

direct loss of habitat from well pad and road construction as well as indirect disturbance impacts from increased 

noise and vehicle traffic. Oil and gas developments directly impact greater sage-grouse through avoidance of 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-79

infrastructure or impacts to survival or reproductive success. Indirect effects include changes to habitat quality, 

predator communities, or disease dynamics (Naugle, Doherty, Walker, Holloran, and Copeland 2011). 

FIGURE 3-12.

WATER DEVELOPMENTS ON BLM-ADMINISTERED LANDS IN BLM SAGE-GROUSE 

MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Knick et al. 2011

Locations of water development are recorded to the nearest 2.59 kilometers2

Expanding energy development in western North America poses a major new challenge for sage-grouse 

conservation. Greater sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate species are experiencing a “death by a 

thousand cuts” scenario. Past major reviews argued (Schroeder et al. 1999; Knick, Dobkin, Rotenberry, 

Schroeder, Vander Hagen, and van Riper III 2003; Crawford et al. 2004) and recent studies confirm 

(Holloran and Anderson 2005b; Walker, Naugle, and Doherty 2007; Doherty 2008) that sage-grouse are 

landscape specialists requiring large and intact sagebrush habitats to maintain populations. Several studies 

have shown that breeding sage-grouse populations are severely affected at oil and gas well densities 

commonly permitted in Montana and Wyoming (Naugle, Doherty, Walker, Copeland, Holloran, and Tack 

2011). 

Doherty, Naugle, and Evans (2010) found that, although impacts were indiscernible at densities of less than 1 

well per square mile, lek losses were 2 to 5 times greater in areas with development above this threshold than 

those occurring outside of these areas, and abundance (males per lek) at the remaining leks declined by 

approximately 30 to 80 percent (Doherty et al. 2010). These and other studies demonstrate that both direct 

and indirect impacts result from the impacts of energy development and geophysical exploration. 

Several studies have quantified the distance from leks at which impacts of development become negligible 

and assessed the efficacy of BLM NSO stipulations for leasing and development within 0.25 miles of a lek 

(Holloran 2005; Walker et al. 2007). Walker et al. (2007) found that buffer sizes of 0.25, 0.5, 0.6, and 1.0 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-80

miles resulted in an estimated lek persistence (the ability of leks to remain on the landscape) of approximately 

5, 10, 15, and 30 percent while lek persistence in areas without oil and gas development averaged 

approximately 85 percent. 

FIGURE 3-13.

LOCATIONS OF PRODUCING WELLS AND LEASES, SAGE-GROUSE RANGE, AND MINERAL 

ESTATE IN BLM SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Knick et al. 2011

a) Locations of producing oil and gas wells within Sage-grouse Management Zones I and II (Connelly et al. 2004); range of greater 

sage-grouse (Schroeder et al. 2004) within management zones is shown in gray.

b) Federal mineral estate is shown in gray and authorized leases on the federal mineral estate in the United States and Canada are 

shaded black.

Leases were authorized for exploration and development on or before 1 June 2007 for each state except Utah (1 May 2007). Leases 

in Canada were authorized for development on or before 29 January 2008 in Saskatchewan and 4 April 2008 in Alberta. A swath of 

authorized leases across southern Wyoming appears lighter in color because mineral ownership is mixed.

Naugle et al. (2011) reported that impacts of energy development had been documented to distances greater 

than 3.5 miles from the lek, and Holloran (2005) found impacts to abundance at a distance between 3 and 4 

miles. However, Naugle et al. (2011) also stated that impacts to leks caused by energy development were 

found to be the most severe near the lek. 

Nearly 16 percent of Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is within 3 kilometers of oil and gas wells, a distance in 

which ecological impacts are likely to occur (Knick et al 2011). Much of the current oil and gas development is 

occurring on private lands with little or no mitigation efforts, which elevates the ecological and conservation 

importance of sage-grouse habitat on public lands. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-81

Naugle et al. (2011) found that impacts from energy development often result in the extirpation of leks within 

gas fields. Holloran (2005) demonstrated that lek counts (a reasonable index to population abundance and 

trends [Reese and Bowyer 2007]) decreased as the distance to the nearest active drilling rig, producing well, 

or main haul road decreased. Doherty (2008) documented that lek losses increased and male abundance 

decreased as well density increased. Lek extirpation in areas with 8 wells per section (40 to 100 wells) within 

2 miles of the lek was 5 times more likely to occur than in areas with no wells within 2 miles, and male 

attendance at the remaining leks in these areas declined approximately 20 to 60 percent (Doherty 2008). 

Walker et al. (2007) demonstrated that 0.25-mile NSO lease stipulations are insufficient to conserve breeding 

sage-grouse populations in a typical landscape in the PRB (a portion of which is located in the planning area) 

because nearly 100 percent of the area within approximately 2 miles of leks remains open to full-scale 

development. 

Noise associated with disruptive activities impact numerous wildlife species, including sage-grouse and 

associated sagebrush obligates. Sage-grouse are known to select highly visible leks with good acoustic 

properties. Sage-grouse numbers on leks within approximately 1 mile of CBNG compressor stations in 

Campbell County, Wyoming, were consistently lower than numbers on leks unaffected by this disturbance 

(Braun, Oedekoven, and Aldridge 2002). Holloran and Anderson (2005b) reported that lek activity by sagegrouse decreased downwind of drilling activities, suggesting that noise caused measurable impacts on sagegrouse. 

In addition to activities directly associated with oil and gas development, traffic associated with roads also 

generates noise. Knick et al. (2003) indicated that there were no active sage-grouse leks within approximately 

1 mile of Interstate 80 across southern Wyoming and only 9 leks known to occur between approximately 1 

and 2.5 miles of Interstate 80. Lyon and Anderson (2003) reported that oil and gas development influenced 

the rate of nest initiation of sage-grouse in excess of approximately 2 miles of construction activities. As 

these studies show, the level and frequency of noise associated with development causes major impacts to 

greater sage-grouse. Consequently, all drilling activities for gas and oil development should be prohibited 

within approximately 3.5 miles of active leks and their associated nesting areas (Holloran 2005). Further, all 

existing and new compressor stations should add noise abatement devices (mufflers) to reduce audible noise 

within approximately 3.5 miles of active leks. Noise thresholds on or near greater sage-grouse breeding and 

nesting activities is unknown. 

It should be noted that median noise levels for rural areas would likely range from 20 to 40 dBA in the 

morning and evening and from 50 to 60 dBA in the afternoon (when wind speeds typically would be the 

greatest) (TRC Mariah Assoc. 2005). Additional information from a noise study near Pinedale, Wyoming, 

indicated that mean noise levels near sage-grouse leks were between 24 and 32 dBA (KC Harvey Consult. 

2009). Other BLM record of decision (ROD) documents define baseline noise levels of 39 dBA based on 

settings similar to those of the USEPA’s category of “Farm in Valley” (BLM 2008g). 

In Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, urbanization and infrastructure development has also affected greater 

sage-grouse habitat. Development at population centers and subdivisions or smaller ranchettes and associated 

buildings, roads, fences, and utility corridors has also contributed to habitat loss and fragmentation in portions 

of the Sage-grouse Management Zone 1. Current estimates suggest about 16 percent of the management zone is 

within 6.9 kilometers of urban development, although Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 generally has lower 

population densities and lower rates of population increases compared to the other management zones (Knick 

et al 2011). Impacts of infrastructure development to greater sage-grouse habitats in Sage-grouse Management 

Zone 1 are primarily related to highways, roads, power lines and communication towers, with nearly 92 percent 

of Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 within 6.9 kilometers of a road, 32 percent within 6.9 kilometers of a 

power line, and 4 percent within 6.9 kilometers of a communication tower (Knick et al. 2011) (Figure 3-14). 

Increased recreation and OHV use on lands in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 are also thought to impact 

greater sage-grouse habitats but have not been studied (Knick et al. 2011). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial 

3-82

Greater sage-grouse strutting at lek in the

planning area 

In Sage-grouse Management Zone 1, the 

cumulative and interactive impact of multiple 

disturbances and habitat loss has influenced the 

current distribution of greater sage-grouse. The 

cumulative extent of human-caused changes 

(the human footprint) on sage-grouse habitat in 

Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is highest at 

the northern edge of Sage-grouse Management 

Zone 1 but occurs throughout Sage-grouse 

Management Zone 1 (Leu and Hanser 2011) 

(Figure 3-15). Population centers for greater sage-grouse in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 (Doherty, Naugle, 

Copeland, Pocewicz, and Kiesecker 2011) generally correspond to areas lacking a high human footprint, and 

some of these areas have been designated as core areas by MFWP (MFWP 2012). The greater sage-grouse 

range in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 is very similar overall to portions of the range in which sage-grouse 

have been extirpated already (i.e., areas with high human footprints), mostly because of the abundance and 

distribution of sagebrush occurring in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 (Wisdom, Meinke, Knick, and 

Schroeder 2011), which suggests that sage-grouse in Sage-grouse Management Zone 1 are more vulnerable to 

declines than those in other portions of the sage-grouse range. 

FIGURE 3-14.

CONTOURED SECONDARY ROADS IN BLM SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Knick et al. 2011

Density (kilometers per kilometers2) within an 18-kilometer radius
3-83

CHAPTER 3

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Fish and Wildlife, Terrestrial

FIGURE 3-15.

SPATIAL EXTENT OF THREE HUMAN-FOOTPRINT-INTENSITY CLASSES FOR THE CONTERMINOUS UNITED STATES IN 

BLM SAGE-GROUSE MANAGEMENT ZONES

Source: Leu and Hanser 2011

Human-footprint-intensity classes are low (Class 1 to 3), intermediate (Class 4 to 6), and high (Class 7 to 10).
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

 

3-84

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGY 

Fire occurrence in the planning area is presented in several subsections detailing fire history, current fire policy, 

wildland fire suppression, fire regimes, and current fire management. 

FIRE HISTORY 

Between 1991 and 2011, the BLM responded to 2,012 fires that burned 

908,053 acres across the planning area. The BLM responds to wildfires 

on USFS-, USFWS-, and BLM-administered lands and assists on Tribal, 

state, and local agency wildfire suppression actions within the Eastern 

Montana Fire Zone. The Eastern Montana Fire Zone exhibits a very 

active fire season, with an average annual fire occurrence of 96 fires. 

Wildfire size and duration are affected by terrain, weather conditions, and 

fuel type. Although similar fuel type and terrain occur throughout the 

planning area, higher frequencies of fires occur in areas with timber and 

higher elevation. The major cause of fires is lightning and multiple fire 

start days are common during the months of July through September. 

Generally, the season starts in June and continues through September 

with the majority of the fires occurring during July and August (Table 3-

24 and Map 58). 

Miller Creek prescribed fire 

in southeastern Montana 

CURRENT FIRE POLICY 

Until the 1960s, federal fire policy emphasized control of all wildfires by 

10:00 a.m. the following day. Prompted by passage of the Wilderness Act 

of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), fire managers began to consider the natural role of fire in the environment. 

This changed the strategy from fire control to one of fire management. Options available under this new fire 

management strategy allowed for fire by prescription and a range of suppression alternatives to achieve fire 

management objectives. The 2009 Guidance for the Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management 

Policy (USFS, BLM, BIA, USFWS, and NPS 2009) provides revised direction for consistent implementation of 

the Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDI et al. 2001). The current 

guidance allows fire managers to use various wildland fire management responses for all wildland fires. These 

responses vary from aggressive initial attack with the intent of minimizing the number of acres burned to 

monitoring fires in an effort to reduce suppression costs, provide resource benefits, and reduce firefighter 

exposure to the hazards of fire suppression. 

The Big Dry and Powder River RMPs, the Montana State Office Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental 

Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the Dakotas, and the MCFO Fire Management Plan currently 

guide wildland fire management in the planning area (BLM 1985c, 1996, 2003k, and 2004f). 

The Montana State Office Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for 

Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2003k) amended the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs to update direction for 

fire and fuels management. These amendments provided: 

 consistent fire management direction by assigning fire management categories and broad levels of 

treatment; 

 general guidance for fire management needed to protect other resource values; and 

 revisions to RMP decisions that limited the BLM’s ability to conduct safe and efficient mechanical 

hazardous fuels treatments. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

3-85

WILDLAND FIRE SUPPRESSION 

Previous land use planning handbook guidance required RMPs to categorize lands in fire management zones 

into fire management categories (A through D). Under current management, the MCFO lists seven fire 

management zones, categorized as B or C. Current fire management planning and land use planning guidance 

does not require fire management categories and recommends the use of fire management units definable by 

similar vegetation type and condition, predominant historical fire regime groups, and management constraints, 

objectives, and strategies. Fire management units are a dynamic boundary designed to be redrawn as resource 

uses within those areas change and resource management considerations change. For each fire management 

unit, management recommendations are developed for the following fire management activities: wildland fire 

suppression, management of wildland fire to meet multiple objectives, prescribed fire and non-fire fuel 

treatment, emergency stabilization, rehabilitation, and community assistance or protection. 

General management considerations are: 

 to use sound scientific resource management principles to restore or sustain ecosystem health 

(balanced with other socioeconomic goals including public health and safety) and air quality; 

 to identify and provide wildland fire response on all wildland fires consistent with resource objectives, 

standards, and guidelines; 

 to use prescribed fire, mechanical, chemical, and biological treatments to meet management goals and 

objectives; 

 to work collaboratively with communities at risk to develop plans for risk reduction; and 

 to work collaboratively with federal, state, and local partners to develop cross-boundary management 

strategies and prioritize cross-agency fire management actions. 

Following direction from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.), the MCFO is 

partners in community wildfire protection plans developed pursuant to enactment of this law. This legislation 

includes statutory incentives for BLM to consider the priorities of local communities as they develop and 

implement forest management and hazardous fuel reduction projects. These plans are dynamic and regularly 

updated by each county. The BLM works with counties to identify high-risk areas and work cooperatively to 

mitigate fire risk to identified communities. All but three counties in the planning area have completed 

community wildlife protection plans. Currently, all communities within the planning area are rated moderate to 

high for risk of property loss from wildland fire. 

TABLE 3-24.

FIRE HISTORY BY FIRE SIZE CLASS IN THE EASTERN MONTANA 

ZONE (1991 TO 2011)

Fire Management Unit

Fire Class Total 

Number 

of Fires

Total 

A B C D E F G Acres

Cedar Breaks 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 6 141

Mixed Grass Prairie Sagebrush 32 197 165 47 57 27 11 536 359,017

Rural Interface 16 25 5 1 3 1 0 51 2,858

Vicinity of Custer National 

Forest 72 216 54 11 8 12 6 379 179,543

Knowlton-Locate 1 5 1 2 0 0 0 9 1,291

Missouri-Musselshell River

Breaks 16 57 35 10 5 4 2 129 148,398

Ashland Ranger District 191 466 64 8 10 5 8 752 215,873

Sioux Ranger District 45 90 13 2 0 0 0 150 933

Total 374 1,059 339 81 83 49 27 2,012 908,054

Fire Class Sizes: A (less than 0.2 acres), B (0.3 to 9 acres), C (10 to 99 acres), D (100 to 299 acres), E (300 to 999 

acres), F (1,000 to 4,999 acres), and G (more than 5,000 acres). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

3-86

Fire management includes management responses that range from a full suppression response to minimal 

impact tactics and utilization of wildfire to achieve ecological benefits. The type of management response or the 

combination of various methods is dependent on the goals and objectives within the fire management 

unit. Advancement in suppression equipment technology has improved the effectiveness and efficiency of many 

types of fire suppression apparatus and associated suppression products available to fire managers. In addition 

to use of water, foams, gels and retardants are currently available to fire managers within the federal 

agencies. Method of application of these products also varies from standard engine apparatus to use of Large 

Air tanker aircraft. Aerial delivery of fire retardant has been in use for over 60 years in the federal fire 

suppression agencies on public lands. More recently, aerial delivery of foam and gel has been utilized in areas 

of the county. Aerial delivery of suppression chemicals has proven to be a safe efficient and effective in 

controlling wildfires that otherwise would be uncontrollable by ground methods. Through research and 

development, changes in chemical components of fire retardant have resulted in products available to the 

federal fire agencies that are safer to the environment and more effective in wildfire suppression. In 2011, the 

federal fire agencies aerially delivered 23,495,040 gallons of fire retardant on wildfires throughout the United 

States. Over the past 12 years of data collected, there was a total of 1,421,405 gallons of retardant delivered on 

wildfires throughout the planning area. In a recent (the ROD was signed in 2011) EIS completed by the USFS, 

in which the BLM was a cooperating agency, the analysis recognized four main issues related to fire retardant 

use on USFS lands and its effects. Health and human safety, water quality, impacts on threatened and 

endangered species, and Impacts on cultural resources were the four main issues for which the EIS analysis 

focused. Within the planning area, effects from suppression foams, gels, and retardant to these same four issues 

are analyzed. 

FIRE REGIMES 

According to coarse-scale estimates, fire regimes have been altered on BLM-administered lands; the result is 

evident in the increasing changes of fire size, intensity, and landscape pattern. Fire regimes on BLMadministered lands are characterized by three potential natural vegetation groups (PNVGs) described by the 

Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools Project (LANDFIRE) (Map 59), a joint USFS and 

USDI program, as vegetation communities existing under the natural range of variability in biophysical 

environments and ecological processes (2007): 

 Plains Grassland, 1,630,784 acres; 

 Shrubland, 837,855 acres; and 

 Tree, 559,400 acres. 

This biophysical classification was based originally on A.W. Kuchler’s 1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of 

the Conterminous United States (American Geographic Society Special Publication No. 36) and modified 

during the Coarse-Scale Fire Regime Condition Class Assessment (Schmidt, Menakis, Hardy, Hann, and 

Bunnell 2002). PNVGs are broad vegetation classes useful for planning purposes. Fire regime and condition 

classes (FR/CC) (Hann et al. 2008) reflect the degree of departure from modeled reference conditions. FR/CC 

assessments measure departure in two main components of ecosystems: fire regime (fire frequency and 

severity) and associated vegetation. Implementation of all fire management activities are based on projectspecific surveys. 

The Plains Grassland PNVG is found scattered throughout the decision planning area, occurring on rolling 

uplands and flats where naturally frequent fires excluded shrubs and maintained grass dominance. The historical 

fire return interval in this PNVG was about 8 to 12 years. Fires are more frequent in productive closed grass 

types, and flashy light fuel types cause moderate to high rates of spread in these areas. However, development, 

grazing, and elimination of fire as an ecological process have resulted in a moderate departure from this fire 

regime (USFS and USDI 2007). Several communities in the planning area within or near this PNVG are at 

moderate risk from wildfire. 

The Shrubland PNVG is found throughout the planning area. The historical fire return interval in this PNVG 

has a mixed fire regime with a 15- to 20-year frequency. Removal of fire as an ecological process, conifer 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Wildland Fire Management and Ecology 

3-87

encroachment, development, and grazing have resulted in a moderate departure from this fire regime. Flashy 

light fuel types in cause moderate to high rates of spread in these areas. Fires starting during times of critical or 

high fire danger continue when frequent high winds rapidly change small fires into large fires (USFS and USDI 

2007). Most communities located within or near this PNVG are at moderate risk from wildfire. 

The Ponderosa Pine PNVG is found scattered throughout the planning area, occurring mostly within the 

Missouri Breaks in Garfield County, areas south of the Yellowstone River, Ekalaka Hills-Chalk Buttes in Carter 

County, Cedar Creek Anticline, and Terry Badlands. The historical fire return interval in this PNVG is 

approximately 25 years, but uncharacteristic succession and numerous missed fire-return intervals have caused 

a high departure from this fire regime (USFS and USDI 2007). In the Missouri Breaks, large fires exceeding 

1,000 acres have occurred every 3 years on an average. Wind, low fuel moistures, and ladder fuels increase the 

likelihood of extreme fire behavior. Forest stand densities are high, and these areas are at risk for large standreplacing fires. There are several communities at high risk from wildfire within or near this PNVG. 

Climatic Change and Fire Regime and Wildfire 

Evidence of wildfire can be traced through the review of fire scars across all landscapes in the Northern 

Rockies. Research conducted in forested sub-regions in the Northern Rockies suggests climatic change has had 

an effect on fire regimes. Historical wildfire observations exhibit an abrupt transition in the mid-1980s from a 

regime of infrequent large wildfires of short (average of 1 week) duration to one with much more frequent and 

longer-burning (5 weeks) fires. This transition was marked by a shift toward unusually warm springs, longer 

summer dry seasons, drier vegetation (which provoked more and longer-burning large wildfires), and longer fire 

seasons (Westerling et al. 2006b).

The Cost of Wildfire Management 

The MCFO planning area is an intermix of BLM-administered lands among private, state, and other federal 

agency jurisdictions. Wildfire occurs on all lands and all jurisdictions and wildfire suppression efforts often 

involve all jurisdictional agencies. The cost of wildfire goes beyond suppression activities. Suppression costs 

are dependent on many factors; including, but not limited to, location of the fire, fuel type, weather conditions, 

duration of the event, the quantity and type of suppression resources used, actions to rehabilitate suppression 

activity damage to lands and infrastructure, and subsequent emergency stabilization and rehabilitation actions. 

Other costs or “losses” include timber and forage values, wildlife habitat and populations (including endangered 

species and their critically protected habitat), air and water quality, recreational opportunities, local economies, 

and other resources and amenities important to all citizens. These costs are difficult to calculate and are often 

shared among many protecting agencies, therefore not definitive to any given protecting agency. 

Nationally, the cost of wildfire management, specifically suppression has dramatically increased. “Suppression 

costs only represent a small portion of over-all wildfire costs and losses, however, and other direct costs, 

indirect losses, and postfire costs and losses can total 10 to 50 times (or more) the suppression costs.” (Zybach, 

Dubrasich, Brenner, and Marker 2009, p. 14). Longer periods of dryness and drought caused by global climate 

change provides more fuel to burn and results in longer wildfire seasons, which (along with population growth 

and urban sprawl into the wildland-urban interface) contribute to increased wildfire suppression costs. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The BLM is responsible for identifying, protecting, managing, and enhancing cultural resources located on 

public lands or nonfederal lands that may be affected by BLM management actions. Cultural resources include 

archeological, historic, architectural properties, and traditional lifeway values important to American Indian 

groups. Sites can vary with regard to their intrinsic value and their significance to scientific study; therefore, 

management practices employed are commensurate with their designation. 

Cultural resources are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object considered important 

to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other purposes. Cultural resources 

include archeological resources, historic architectural and engineering resources, and traditional resources. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-88

Archeological resources are areas in which prehistoric or historic activity measurably altered the earth or in 

which deposits of physical remains (e.g., projectile points, pottery, or bottles) are discovered. Architectural and 

engineering resources include standing buildings, districts, bridges, dams, and other structures of historic or 

aesthetic value. Traditional resources can include archeological resources, structures, topographic features, 

habitats, plants, wildlife, and minerals that American Indians or other groups consider essential for the 

preservation of traditional culture. 

Prehistoric and historic cultural resources are a nonrenewable resource. Significant cultural resources have 

many values, including use in gathering scientific information on human culture and history, interpretive and 

educational values, values associated with important people and events of significance in history, and aesthetic 

value (such as a prehistoric rock art panel or an historic landscape). Cultural resource sites may also have 

traditional cultural values that are important to American Indian Tribes for maintaining their culture and cultural 

identity. 

According to BLM Manual 8110, the primary objectives of the cultural resources program are to manage BLMadministered cultural resources through a system of identification, evaluation, interpretation, utilization, and 

reduction of conflict between cultural resources and other resources and resource uses. Cultural resource 

management objectives would include developing site or area-specific activity plans to identify cultural 

resource use and protection objectives and outline procedures for evaluating accomplishments. 

To focus management on the variety of identified cultural resources, sites would be assigned to cultural 

resource use categories as defined in the BLM Manual 8110 and the Cultural Resources Appendix. 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. Classes 

of cultural resources can be allocated to the various recognized use categories even before they are individually 

identified. The 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 2012 national 

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 BLM will meet its Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act, categorizing resources 

to uses provides a mechanism for the field office manager and the state historic preservation officer to confer 

and concur on how to handle most routine cases of conflict in advance, which enables the field office manager 

to put decisions into effect in the most appropriate and most timely manner. 

The BLM would comply with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for all 

federal undertakings, which include avoiding impacts to significant cultural resources through project redesign, 

mitigation of adverse impacts, and investigation and prosecution of unauthorized use or destruction of 

significant cultural properties. In emergency situations, such as a disaster or emergency declared by the 

President, a tribal government, or the Governor or in response to other immediate threats to life or property 

(such as a wildfire or flood), Section 106 would be waived, in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.12, and the 

BLM would notify the state historic preservation office within 7 days of emergency procedures. Impacts to 

cultural sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) resulting from federal undertakings 

would be avoided by project abandonment, project redesign, or, as a last resort, mitigation of adverse impacts 

through data recovery or other alternative means. 

HISTORY OF CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PLANNING AREA 

Site identification and recording in the planning area dates to the mid-20th century, when the Montana 

Archeological Survey and the Works Project Administration conducted excavations on several sites in 

southeastern Montana in the 1930s (including the Hagen National Historic Landmark [NHL] [24DW0002]).

Since the early 1970s, there have been extensive modern cultural resources investigations in the planning area. 

Most investigations have been accomplished in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and provisions of 

NEPA, both of which require federal agencies to consider the potential effects of federally assisted or permitted 

projects on important cultural resources. The BLM has performed cultural resources investigations in the 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-89

planning area pursuant to the BLM stewardship responsibilities under NHPA Section 110, which requires 

federal land management agencies to identify and preserve important cultural resources on lands administered 

by those agencies. 

The BLM is responsible for ensuring that lands leased for development (such as oil, gas, or coal development) 

are examined prior to allowing any development actions to occur to determine the presence of cultural resources 

and to specify mitigation measures. For oil and gas development, the BLM employs a phased approach to site 

identification and completes site identification surveys at the application for permit to drill (APD) stage. 

Guidance for application of this requirement for oil and gas development can be found in the notice to lease, 

MSO-1-85, Washington Office (WO) IM 2005-03, and Montana IMs 2003-035 and 2006-040 (BLM 1985b). 

Cultural resource awareness programs, including educational programs, presentations, and interpretive displays, 

would be designed to enhance the public appreciation of cultural resource values, and the BLM would make 

significant cultural sites available for scientific study. The agency would conduct Class I, II, or III cultural 

inventories for lands that included surface disturbances as part of the action. Class III inventories are usually 

required before surface-disturbing actions are authorized by BLM (and before land disposal actions). 

The BLM would accommodate access to public lands by American Indians to enable tribes to maintain 

traditional values intrinsic to their cultural identities in accordance with Executive Order 13007 (May 29, 1996). 

The BLM would also conduct consultations with American Indian Tribes as sovereign nations in a governmentto-government relationship. Prior to site-specific project approval, BLM would consult with affected tribes to 

identify cultural values or religious beliefs that might be affected by BLM proposed actions. 

RESOURCES IN THE PLANNING AREA 

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 BLMadministered 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 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 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-90

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. 

Number of Cultural Resource Sites Recorded in the Planning Area 

Cultural resource investigations in the planning area have recorded approximately 9,934 prehistoric and historic 

cultural resources. A recent Class I overview of cultural resources was prepared for the planning area; as of 

May 1, 2005, the planning area contained 7,065 prehistoric sites and 2,869 historic sites (Aaberg, Hanna, 

Crofutt, Green, and Vischer 2006). Historic and prehistoric sites occur in all counties within the planning area 

and represent a wide variety of site types and chronological periods; together, these resources document an 

almost continuous record of human occupation for the past 14,000 years. 

Based on studies conducted in the planning area (Aaberg et al. 2006), there is an estimated average density 

estimate of one cultural site for every 100 acres of land (BLM-administered and private surface) .Of these, 

approximately 10 to 15 percent of cultural resources are found eligible for the NRHP. Furthermore, there is an 

average of one research excavation every 5 years, which disturbs 1 to 5 acres. About 3.6 percent of the surface 

area in the planning area has undergone surface surveys of varying intensity. Of the 2,135 prehistoric and 

historic sites located on BLM-administered surface within the planning area, distribution and site density 

estimates are approximately 1 site per 195 acres (5.1 sites per 1,000 acres). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-91

Of the total cultural properties in the project area, 2,135 (28.5 percent) occur either entirely or partially on 

BLM-administered land (Aaberg et al. 2006). The BLM site total includes 1,839 (86.1 percent) prehistoric sites 

and 296 (13.9 percent) historic sites; subsequently, 26 percent of all project area prehistoric sites and 10.3 

percent of all project area historic sites in the planning area are either entirely or partially administered by the 

BLM. 

Distribution of the 4,835 prehistoric and historic sites fully or partially located on lands of mixed ownership and 

administration is 1 site per 45.5 acres (22 sites per 1,000 acres) or 14.1 sites per square mile for the 220,187 

acres of surveys conducted in this category. These sites include 2,756 prehistoric sites at 1 site per 79.9 acres 

(12.5 sites per 1,000 acres) or 8 sites per square mile. Also included are 2,079 historic properties at 1 site per 

105.9 acres (9.4 sites per 1,000 acres) or 6 sites per square mile. 

Within the planning area, of the 11,863 cultural and paleontological sites, only 66 have been formally 

nominated to the NRHP. Those sites listed are almost exclusively historic, with only two prehistoric sites 

nominated. 

Although state database and agency records are sometimes conflicting, it appears that about 5 percent of historic 

sites have been recommended (consensus varies) as eligible for listing in the NRHP and about 12 percent have 

been recommended and accepted as ineligible by the state historic preservation office. Significance or NRHP 

status for about 81 percent of historic sites is either unresolved or not presented on the state database. About 4 

percent of prehistoric sites have been recommended as eligible (consensus varies) for listing in the NRHP while 

6 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. 

The area of cultural resource surveying that occurred in the planning area over the past 35 years totals about 

923,849 acres (Aaberg et al. 2006). Of that total, about 45 percent occurred on BLM-administered surfaces, 13 

percent on USFS estate, 10 percent on American Indian reservations, 4 percent on Montana Department of 

Transportation land, and 4 percent on MDNRC land. Private lands and a combination of other federal, state, and 

agency lands account for the remaining 24 percent of the total area surveyed. 

PREHISTORIC AND PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD 

A generalized prehistory of eastern Montana can be categorized in a chronological framework in which periods 

are distinguished based on differences in material culture traits or artifacts and subsistence patterns. For 

information on the Paleo-Indian (ca. 12,500 before present [BP] to 7800 BP), Archaic (ca. 7800 BP to 1500 

BP), Prehistoric (ca. 1500 BP to 200 BP), Protohistoric (ca. 250 BP to 100 BP), and Historic Periods, refer to 

the Class I Overview discussion and a more in-depth discussion of the planning area’s cultural chronology refer 

to the Class I Overview discussion (see Number of Cultural Resource Sites Recorded in the Planning Area). 

Types of Cultural Resources Recorded in the Planning Area 

Prehistoric cultural resources are materials deposited or left behind prior to the entry of non-American Indian 

(European) explorers and settlers. Protohistoric refers to the variable transition period from prehistoric to 

historic, and historic is the period after Europeans established a presence. The Prehistoric Period, subdivided 

into a number of subperiods (e.g., Paleoindian Period, Archaic Period, Late Prehistoric Period), began with the 

entry of human beings into North America approximately 12,000 to 15,000 years ago, or perhaps much earlier, 

as posited in recent data (Aaberg et al. 2006). The Protohistoric Period in southeastern Montana is generally 

defined as the period in which the horse and European trade goods reached native cultures. Introduction of the 

horse in the Northern Plains area probably occurred sometime between A.D. 1700 and A.D. 1750 but appears to 

have occurred earlier in localities just south of Montana and later in more northern localities. The earliest 

European to venture into the planning area was likely that of the Frenchman Sieur de la Verendrye in 1742, 

followed by Francois Larocque of the Canadian-owned North West Company, passing through the area in 1805. 

However, substantial contact and white settlement of the area did not occur until after Lewis and Clark visited 

the area in 1805 and 1806 (Aaberg et al. 2006), which ushered in the Historic Period, and not until fur-trading 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-92

posts were established on the Yellowstone and upper Missouri rivers in the early 1800s, which were the first 

permanent European settlements in the region. 

Most recorded prehistoric sites in the planning area consist of lithic scatters, campsites or habitations of various 

kinds, stone circles, and stone cairns. Other prehistoric site types include burials, ceremonial stone circles and 

rock alignments, rock art, rock shelters, ceramic sites, quarries and secondary lithic procurement sites, 

structures, and bison kill and butchering sites. Recorded historic cultural resources in the planning area include 

trails; freight wagon, stagecoach, and military trails; Indian-War-period battle sites; early ranches and farms; 

stockherding camps; irrigation systems; mines; early oil fields and associated camps; railroads, bridges; and 

urban buildings. 

American Indian Site Types in the Planning Area 

American Indian prehistoric sites listed in the planning area include a number of sites or characteristics. 

Generalized or composite site types that are the most commonly occurring types in the planning area include 

those described below. 

 Lithic scatters: assemblages of flakes, tested or worked stone cores, roughly shaped pre-forms for 

tools, and sometimes finished tools that are the products of the reduction of stone material into useable 

tools. 

 Cairns: piles of stones deposited by prehistoric people for a variety of purposes (including stockpiling 

of lithic source materials, marking burials, or during other ceremonial events) as hide preparation 

platforms, locational markers for trails, or other resources. 

 Stone circles: rings of rocks that might represent former locations of tipis or other structures, 

prehistoric ceremonial activities, or habitation sites consisting of lodge sites for prehistoric structures 

(could include features such as stone rings and cairns). 

 Campsites: locations that contain evidence of at least short-term occupation by prehistoric people and 

which may include lithics, evidence of habitation structures (stone rings), evidence of food preparation 

(fire-cracked rocks), and ceramics. 

 Burials: physical human remains, deliberately interred or not. 

 Kill sites or butchering or processing sites: locations that contain extensive bone or other evidence of 

the killing and processing of big game by prehistoric, protohistoric, or early historic aboriginal people. 

 Quarries: primary procurement sources for lithic materials used by prehistoric people. 

 Rock art: includes pictographs or petroglyphs on rock faces or individual rocks. 

 Rock shelters or caves: naturally occurring recesses or overhangs that afforded prehistoric people 

protection from the elements. 

 Ceremonial: sites that include large stone circle presumed to be used for ceremonial purposes. 

 Stone alignments and effigies: usually considered to be associated with ceremonial or spiritual 

activities, but some alignments could have been associated with big game hunting or functioned as 

locational landmarks. 

Historic-era Resources in the Planning Area 

Historic period resource types are also categorized according to descriptive types. Certain broad categories are 

commonly used, particularly for emigrant trails and expansion-era roads. Most of the 123 site-type or 

characteristic categories can be grouped into 11 thematic or site-type groups, as described below. 

 Burials and cemeteries: in the historic context, deliberately established burials, interments, and 

burial groupings such as cemeteries. 

 Historic debris: refuse scatters that cannot be directly associated with another category. 

 Homesteads or ranches: residences and outbuildings or fields and facilities associated with operation of 

a farm or ranch or, occasionally, recreation or the tourism industry. 

 Irrigation-related sites: ditches, canals, pumps, or other debris or features directly related to irrigation 

projects. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-93

 Military sites: forts, camps, battlefields, and transportation or communications features that can be 

related directly to military activities. 

 Mineral exploration and extraction: oil, gas, coal, or other mining locations and associated features. 

 Stockherding: typically camps that are not principal ranches or farm headquarters and cairns that 

cannot be attributed to some prehistoric or aboriginal activity. 

 Transportation or communications sites: trails, expansion-era stagecoach and freight-wagon roads, 

military roads, railroads, bridges, telephone and telegraph lines, and, in some cases, power lines. 

 Urban buildings: historic buildings in cities, towns, or villages not directly associated with other 

categories. 

National Historic Landmarks, Landscapes, and Archeological Districts in the Planning Area 

There are a number of areas designated NHLs, archeological landscape districts, or archeological districts of 

particular interest to this RMP, including the: 

 Spring Creek Archeological District (24BH3584) (Big Horn County), 

 Battle of the Rosebud NHL (24BH2461) (Big Horn County), 

 Wolf Mountains Battlefield NHL (24RB0787) (Rosebud County), 

 Lee Community Historic District (24RB2053) (Rosebud County), 

 Castle Rock Community Historic District (24RB2090 and 24TE0119) (Rosebud County), 

 Deer Medicine Rocks NHL (24RB0401) (Rosebud County, and 

 Fort Union Trading Post NHL (24RV0050) (Roosevelt County). 

Sites of Specific Concern to American Indians 

To date, the planning area does not contain any known TCPs, as defined by the 1998 National Park Service 

Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, on BLMadministered surface, nor does it contain any identified specific traditional gathering areas. However, the lack of 

these defined features does not mean that American Indian Tribes do not have resources of concern or TCPs in 

the planning area that have not been formally recognized. Certain site types are likely to be of interest to tribal 

groups, whether or not they are designated as TCPs or receive other recognition. 

Individual Burials and Battle Sites 

Most American Indian Tribes believe that burials and burial sites are sacred and should not be disturbed, and 

there are many battle sites in the planning area considered important to tribes in the region. 

Ceremonial Sites and Petroglyphs 

The medicine wheel site type, which is considered sacred, potentially represent ceremonial events (such as sun 

dances) or calendars associated with seasonal variation in the region. They are also considered sacred because 

they may relate to vision quests and other religious activities. These site types are significant and need 

preservation because they may be important to tribes in the region. 

Petroglyphs and pictographs, stone alignments, and effigies also have sacred and special meaning to the tribes 

in the region. Although not entirely understood by archeologists, the symbolism represented is to be protected 

and preserved whenever possible. 

Sites of Specific Concern within the Planning Area 

Some sites and site types of special concern and that need special management have been designated ACECs in 

past planning efforts. Other sites and site types are sensitive to their setting and require special consideration 

and management to protect their setting and surrounding landscapes, such as sites of interest to American 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-94

Indians. Other sites or site types do not need any special setting protections, such as the Lewis and Clark Bridge 

over the Missouri River south of Wolf Point, Montana, on State Highway 13. 

A number of other sites have moderately sensitive settings and require some management protections from 

changes to their immediate surroundings. Most of these sites are bison kill or processing sites and include the 

Seline (24DW0250), Jordan Bison Kill (24GF0271), Yonkee (24PR0005), and Mill Iron (24CT0030) sites. 

Each of these sites have either been designated ACECs or are proposed ACECs in this RMP. Also included in 

this category is the Hoe ACEC (24PE0263) site, a site containing evidence of past horticultural practices and 

the Big Sheep Mountain (24PE0210) ACEC, which is a Late Middle Period-Pelican Lake phase habitation site 

with buried hearths. 

The planning area also contains many sites with very sensitive settings that require a greater degree of 

protection from management actions with the potential to alter the surrounding setting. Included in this category 

are the site types and sites described below. 

 Indian-War-era sites and battle sites, which include the areas described below. 

o Ash Creek Battlefield (24PE0629): this area was the site of an 1876 Sioux War battle between 

Sitting Bull and the United States Army (Lieutenant Baldwin under Colonel Miles) along Ash 

Creek, a tributary of the Redwater River south of Brockway, Montana. 

o Rosebud Battlefield NHL (24BH2461): this site, which is designated an NHL, represents one 

of the major engagements of the Sioux War of 1876. The battle, between the Sioux and 

Cheyenne and the United States Army (General Crook), occurred along Rosebud Creek north 

of Decker, Montana. 

o Mouth of Redwater fight site (no site number): this was the site of a brief battle along the 

Missouri River at the mouth of Redwater River between the United States Army (Lieutenant 

Baldwin under Colonel Miles) and Sitting Bull and his followers. 

o Spring Creek fight site (no site number): this area was the site of a series of skirmishes in 

which bands of Sioux warriors attacked a supply wagon train bound for the Tongue River 

Cantonment between Glendive and Fallon, Montana, during the 1876 Sioux War. 

o O'Fallon Creek Battle (24PE0734): site of an 1872 Indian War battle between Sitting Bull and 

the Lakota Sioux and the United States Army (under Colonel Stanley) while the latter 

members were guarding railroad surveyors near the mouth of O’Fallon Creek. 

o Reynolds Battlefield ACEC (24PR0089): portions of this battlefield are already designated an 

ACEC and the remaining area is proposed for ACEC designation. This is the site of the 

opening battle of the Sioux War of 1876 between the United States Army (Colonel Reynolds 

under General Crook’s command) and the Cheyenne occurred along the Powder River. 

o Battle Butte ACEC (24RB0787): portions of this battlefield, which includes the Wolf 

Mountain NHL, are already designated an ACEC and the remaining area is proposed for 

ACEC designation. This site of an 1877 Sioux War battle between Colonel Miles and Crazy 

Horse and the Oglala Lakota is situated along the Tongue River. 

o Powder River Depot ACEC (24PE0231): this area has been designated an ACEC. This site, 

which is located on the Yellowstone River near the mouth of the Powder River, was a major 

campsite and supply depot for the United States Army under General Terry and Colonel 

Custer during the Sioux War of 1876. 

o Cedar Creek Battlefield (24PE0261): this site, which is proposed for ACEC designation, was

the site of a battle between Sitting Bull and the Lakota Sioux and the United States Army 

(under Colonel Miles) in the hills along the upper reaches of Cedar Creek north of Terry, 

Montana. 

 Historic trails and Fur-Trade-era sites, which include the Lewis and Clark Trail and Fort Union NHL. 

o Lewis and Clark Trail: this area is a corridor that encompasses portions of the Missouri and 

Yellowstone Rivers and commemorates the Lewis and Clark expedition from 1805 to 1806. 

o Fort Union NHL (24RV0050): this site represents one of the major Fur Trade era trading 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-95

posts on the upper Missouri River. Established in 1828 by John Jacob Astor’s American Fur 

Company, it became the headquarters for trading beaver pelts and buffalo hides with tribes of 

the upper Missouri and Yellowstone River regions. 

 Prehistoric village sites, which include the Hagen site NHL (24DW0002), which is a village 

occupation site on the banks of the Yellowstone River once occupied by Middle Missouri 

horticulturists, such as the Mandan. 

 Sites and landscapes of American Indian interest include the areas described below. 

o Long Medicine Wheel (24MC0148): this site, which includes a large stone ceremonial circle, 

is proposed for ACEC designation and is a very rare site type of religious significance to 

American Indian Tribes. 

o Deer Medicine Rocks (24RB0401): a petroglyph site of great religious significance to 

American Indian Tribes, particularly the Sioux, in which Sitting Bull’s vision of soldiers 

falling into camp is depicted. This site is used for traditional cultural purposes. 

o Belle Creek Medicine Wheel (24PR0881): this site, which consists of a large stone circle with 

spokes, is another example of a very rare site type (like Long Medicine Wheel) of religious 

significance to American Indian Tribes. 

o Chalk Buttes Medicine Wheel (24CT0309): this site, which is a large stone circle with interior 

divisions, is within the USFS-administered unit of the Chalk Buttes and yet another example 

of a very rare site type of religious significance to American Indian Tribes. This site is used 

for traditional cultural purposes. 

o Chalk Buttes: is a site that includes an upland mountainous chain of buttes with religious 

significance to American Indian Tribes. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse wintered in this area 

prior to the Sioux War of 1876, and the area is still in use for traditional cultural purposes by 

American Indian Tribes. This area has been determined a TCP and is recommended for 

eligibility to the NRHP, and the entire area is used for traditional cultural purposes. 

o Medicine Rocks State Park: this area has also been determined a TCP and is recommended for 

eligibility to the NRHP. In addition, the entire area is used for traditional cultural purposes. 

o Tongue River Valley Cultural Landscape: this area extends from the Tongue River Dam in 

the south to Ashland, Montana, in the north and is both a Cultural Rural Historic Landscape 

and an Ethnographic Landscape for the Cheyenne. 

Current Resource Management and the BLM’s Responsibilities, Policies, Acts, and Protocols Related to the 

Management of Cultural Resources 

The BLM is legally mandated to identify, evaluate, and manage cultural resources under at least 10 federal laws 

and four presidential executive orders, most prominently the Antiquities Act of 1906, NHPA of 1966, NEPA of 

1969, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, as amended, and Executive Order 

11593 (May 13, 1971). BLM manuals 8100, 8110, 8120, and 8130 outline BLM policy and cultural resource 

program guidance. 

In 1997, the BLM developed an agreement addressing means of complying with NHPA, expressed in the 

updated 2012 national 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 BLM will meet its Responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. Pursuant to 

this agreement, the BLM Montana State Office developed a specific process by which NHPA compliance is 

accomplished, which is detailed in the 1998 State Protocol Agreement between the Montana State Director, 

Bureau of Land Management and the Montana State Historic Preservation Office regarding the manner in

which the BLM will meet its responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act as provided for in the 

National Programmatic Agreement. Apart from certain considerations derived from specific cultural resource 

statutes, management of cultural resources on public lands is primarily based on FLPMA and fully subject to 

the same multiple use principles and planning and decision-making processes followed in managing other 

public land resources.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-96

BLM Manual 8130, Planning for Uses of Cultural Resources (incorporating Information Bulletin No. 2002-

101, Cultural Resource Considerations in Resource Management Plans), expresses specific objectives for 

cultural resource management and provides minimum goals for cultural resource management in all RMPs. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES, CONDITION AND TREND 

The diversity of terrain, geomorphology, access and visibility, and past and current land use patterns cause 

considerable variation in the condition and trend of cultural resources in the planning area. Recorded sites are 

manifest by exposed artifacts, features, or structures; therefore, they are easily disturbed by elements such as 

wind and water erosion, animal and human intrusion, natural deterioration and decay, and development and 

maintenance activities. 

Based on limited site monitoring, site-form documentation, and other information, site conditions in the 

planning area are trending downward. Active vandalism or collecting (unauthorized digging and pothunting) 

has been observed in limited instances, but is not currently endemic. Consequences of development and 

maintenance activities (e.g., erosion, grazing, mining, and recreation) are affecting a limited number of site 

locations, but the most pressing concern is the natural deterioration and decay of standing structures at historic 

mining and homesteading sites and prehistoric wickiups. Collectively, these agents adversely affected many 

known cultural resources and continue to do so today. 

Within the planning area, the demand for cultural resources is considered moderate; this determination is based 

on known research interests of area scholars and other professionals, interest expressed by members of the 

American Indian and local communities, documented site conditions, and site visitation. Many interpretive 

opportunities are also present to provide educational and recreational benefits. 

Use Categories 

BLM planning and manual guidance stresses the importance of meeting specified goals through the allocation 

of all cultural properties in the planning area (whether properties are already recorded or projected to occur) into 

defined use categories, based on their nature and relative preservation value. The identified use categories 

include: 

 Scientific use sites, which are preserved until research potential is realized; 

 Conservation for future use sites, which are preserved until conditions for use are met; 

 Traditional use sites, which encompass long-term preservation of sites for American Indian use; 

 Public use sites, which encompass long-term preservation of sites and on-site interpretation; 

 Experimental use sites, which are protected until used; and 

 Discharged from management sites, which are removed from protective measures. 

BLM Manual 8130 provides a detailed description of individual use categories. The majority of sites will fall in 

the scientific use and discharged from management categories, while the other categories are likely to be 

associated with particular settings that can be geographically delineated. The conservation for future use, 

traditional use, public use, and experimental use categories will require the most attention in order to balance 

their proactive uses with other land and resource uses. A detailed description of individual use categories is 

presented in the Cultural Resources Appendix. 

In order to allocate the numerous known sites and those sites projected to occur (sites yet to be found or 

recorded) into the identified use categories, criteria must be established that employ a combination of easily 

recognizable site-type and site-attribute information that can, for example, differentiate between small, short 

duration, limited-activity sites and large, complex, multiple-activity sites. For prehistoric resources, the criteria 

are weighted to emphasize the information potential since the determination of significance for such sites are 

generally related to their scientific value. For historic resources, the criteria are more reflective of site condition 

and integrity characteristics, which play a greater role in the evaluation of historic properties. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-97

It is also important to recognize that it is possible for sites to be placed into more than one use category; a 

prehistoric site with little or no scientific value could be placed in a discharged from management category, but 

could also be appropriate in the experimental use category. Similarly, an historic site could be placed in the 

public use category, but require stabilization and preservation efforts and therefore warrant placement into the 

conserve for future use category as well. 

The term designated area or site used in the Chapter 2 table, 2-1 Comparison of Alternatives, refers to sites or 

areas that are currently designated or that meet the criteria for allocation for designation for one of the use 

categories; scientific use, conservation use, traditional use (socio-cultural use), public use, and experimental 

use. It also includes the boundaries of sites or districts eligible for, or included on, the NRHP as well as 

boundaries of TCPs or designated sites or areas, or sites or areas that meet the criteria for allocation for 

designation for traditional use (for cultural properties determined to be of particular importance to American 

Indian groups). 

TCPs include cultural properties determined to be of particular importance to American Indian groups (in 

accordance with National Register Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional 

Cultural Properties; Parker and King 1998), or designated for traditional use. Such properties include, (but are 

not limited to) burial location, pictograph or petroglyph sites, vision quest locations, plant-gathering locations, 

and areas used for religious purposes or considered sacred. 

BLM Manual 8110, Identifying and Evaluating Cultural Resources, defines six use categories: 

 scientific use, 

 conservation for future use, 

 traditional use, 

 public use, 

 experimental use, and 

 discharged from management. 

As noted in the manual, “A cultural property may be allocated to more than one use category ... Allocations 

shall be reevaluated and revised, as needed, when circumstances change or new data become available” 

(8110.41A–B). 

The planning area contains outstanding prehistoric and historic cultural resources. Within the planning area, of 

the 9,934 cultural sites, only 66 have been formally nominated to the NRHP. Of those sites listed, almost all are 

exclusively historic with only two prehistoric sites listed (the Hagen Site [24DW0002] in Dawson County and 

the Tipi Hills Site [24SH1008] in Sheridan County). Notable among these, the Hagen site, has been designated 

an NHL. Other notable prehistoric sites that have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP that require 

additional or special management attention include the Long Medicine Wheel (a proposed ACEC 

[24MC0148]), Belle Creek (24PR0881), and Chalk Buttes (24CT0309) medicine wheels; the Big Sheep 

Mountain (24PE0210), Hoe (24PE0263), Jordan Bison Kill (24GF0271), and Seline site (24DW0250) ACECs; 

and the Yonkee (24PR0005) and Mill Iron (24 CT0030) sites and proposed ACECs. 

Most of the remaining 64 historic-era resources that have been formally nominated to the NRHP are within 

town limits and are of limited interest because none of these are located on BLM-administered surface or 

include BLM-administered federal minerals. However, other notable historic-era resources designated NHLs 

include the Sioux-War-era Rosebud (24BH2461) and Wolf Mountain (24RB0787) (Battle Butte ACEC) 

Battlefields NHLs and the Fur-Trade-era Fort Union NHL (24RV0050). Other historic sites that have been 

determined eligible for listing in the NRHP that require additional or special management attention include the 

Sioux-War-era Reynolds (24PR0089) and Cedar Creek Battlefields (24PE0261) (proposed ACECs), Ash Creek 

Battlefield (24PE0629), Powder River Depot (24PE0231), Deer Medicine Rocks (24RB0401), Mouth of the 

Redwater (no site number) and Spring Creek (no site number) fight sites, and O’Fallon Creek Battle site 

(24PE0734) of 1872. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-98

In addition to the cultural resources listed on the NRHP, 421 historic properties have been formally determined 

to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Of the 7,065 prehistoric sites in the planning area, about 4 percent of 

prehistoric sites have been recommended as eligible (consensus varies) for listing in the NRHP and about 283 

prehistoric sites have been formally determined to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP. Of the 2,869 historic 

sites recorded within the planning area, about 4.8 percent of historic sites have been recommended as eligible 

for listing in the NRHP and about 138 historic sites have been formally determined to be eligible for nomination 

to the NRHP. 

Of the approximately 9,934 recorded cultural resources in the planning area, only about 707 recorded 

prehistoric properties (or about 10 percent) and about 534 historic properties (or about 18.6 percent) have been 

evaluated for eligibility for nomination to the NRHP. These evaluations include sites that have been listed on 

the NRHP and sites for which the Montana State Historic Preservation Office has concurred with the 

evaluation. Concurrence by the state historic preservation office on NRHP evaluations is desirable, and while 

concurrence is not a foregone conclusion, in most cases the state historic preservation office will usually concur 

with agency determinations of eligibility. Eligibility for nomination to the NRHP is a major threshold for 

management consideration of sites. Cultural resource properties that have been formally evaluated can be 

assigned to one or more of the BLM resource use classifications, but of the approximately 8,693 cultural 

resources that have not been formally evaluated for NRHP, eligibility can only be assigned to use classifications 

in a general or categorical sense. 

Scientific Use 

Scientific use implies that the value (or a value) of the property lies in information that can be extracted from 

the property. This use category usually corresponds to NRHP Criterion D, which recognizes the value to society 

of properties that can yield or have yielded information important in expanding understanding of history or 

prehistory. Archeological sites are generally evaluated under this criterion, although other kinds of cultural 

resources might rarely also be evaluated under this criterion. The regulatory threshold for management of a 

cultural resource for its scientific values is eligibility for the NRHP under Criterion D. Management 

opportunities include in-place preservation and protection, or extraction of the scientific information by means 

of excavation and analysis. In the latter case, the physical cultural resource is at least partially destroyed, and 

the management requirement shifts to analysis and preservation of the information extracted from the site. 

This use category applies to archeological resources that have been determined to be eligible for the NRHP 

under Criterion D, but it also applies to all archeological resources that have not yet been evaluated for NRHP 

eligibility. This use category would not apply to trails, railroads or historic roads, most buildings and other 

structures, historic graves, or sites of primarily commemorative value, including rock art sites, medicine wheels, 

possibly other stone alignments, and TCPs. This use category could also apply to historic archeological sites or 

the archeological components of building complexes or examples of extractive industry. The most significant 

sites with extractive scientific value might include bison kill sites, sites with buried components, habitation, or 

earth lodge village sites. Sites in the planning area are already allocated to scientific use (Table 3-25).

Conservation for Future Use 

Manual 8110 defines this category as: 

“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” (8110.42B). 

This use category pertains to all cultural resources regardless of age or thematic associations, unless the 

resources have been formally determined to be ineligible for the NRHP under all of the NRHP Criteria for 

Evaluation. Sites that could be of scientific value but are not immediate candidates for study under the scientific 

use category will be managed under the conservation for future use category. Because it is not feasible for the 

MCFO to test all archeological sites and otherwise evaluate the NRHP eligibility of all of the recorded cultural 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-99

resources in the planning area, conservation for future use effectively resolves into monitoring of other public 

land uses, evaluating specific proposed activities that might disturb specific cultural resources, controlling 

erosion of the resources, and actively stabilizing the resources as appropriate. 

Rock art sites fit this category, particularly in 

terms of research potential and singular cultural 

importance. With few exceptions, rock art sites 

should be managed for conservation. Similarly, 

rock shelter sites also should be managed for 

conservation because of their potential to 

preserve exceptional chronological data in 

cultural deposits and include unique artifact 

types, as should ceremonial sites (such as the 

Long Medicine Wheel site) (24MC0148) and 

battlefield sites (such as the Reynolds 

(24PR0089), Wolf Mountain and Battle Butte 

(24RB0787), and Cedar Creek (24PE0261) 

Battlefields, Powder River Depot (24PE0231), 

and Mouth of the Redwater fight site) (no site 

number). Other sites that would also qualify for 

allocation to conservation for future use include 

the Yonkee site (24PR0005), Mill Iron site 

(24CT0030), Taylor-Siegal Site (24DW0011), 

Soaring Owl Site (24DW0087), Mini Moon Site 

(24DW0085), Deadman Site (24CR0297), Big Sheep Mountain site (24PE0210) and ACEC, Hoe site 

(24PE0263) and ACEC, Jordan Bison Kill site (24GF0271) and ACEC, Seline site (24DW250) and ACEC, and 

the Yonkee site (24PR0005) and proposed ACEC and Mill Iron site (24CT0030) and proposed ACEC. 

Traditional Use 

Traditional use of cultural resources is interpreted as the use of the cultural resource by a specific social or 

cultural group that perceives the resource as important to its heritage. Cultural resources can include TCPs, 

which are properties critical to a living community’s beliefs, customs, and practices. TCPs can be topographical 

features; stone alignments, rock art, or other physical artifacts; sources of plants or other materials; or areas 

without obvious physical manifestation of the site’s cultural significance. The regulatory threshold for 

management of a property as a TCP is eligibility for listing on the NRHP under any of the Criteria for 

Evaluation, although Criterion A is most commonly appropriate for representation of an event or broad pattern 

in history. No resource has been specifically identified in the planning area as a TCP as defined in the National 

Register Bulletin 38 (Parker and King 1998). 

TCPs in Montana are most commonly associated with American Indians. Because the tribes of the area were 

removed to reservations both inside and outside the planning area in the 1870s and 1880s, the ensuing 

discontinuity of occupation and use of the planning area since then is likely to have resulted in loss of areas of 

critical importance to some living American Indian communities. Rock art localities and ceremonial sites 

throughout the planning area are likely candidates for the traditional use category. Protection and access 

limitations are recommended for most of these. Sites that would be considered to be eligible for consideration 

for allocation to traditional use and which are also sensitive with regard to their setting include rock art sites, 

ceremonial sites (such as the Long Medicine Wheel site [24MC0148] and proposed ACEC), battlefields (such 

as the Reynolds Battlefield site [24PR0089] and ACEC and proposed ACEC, Wolf Mountain and Battle Butte 

Battlefield site [24RB0787] and ACEC and proposed ACEC, and Cedar Creek Battlefield site [24PE0261] and 

proposed ACEC), Mouth of the Redwater and Spring Creek fight sites, and the Tongue River Valley Cultural 

Landscape. 

TABLE 3-25. 

CULTURAL SITES CURRENTLY 

ALLOCATED TO USE

Cultural Resource 

Use Category Site

Scientific Use

Yonkee 24PR0005

Mill Iron 24CT0030

Taylor-Siegal Site 24DW0011

Soaring Owl Site 24DW0087

Mini Moon Site 24DW0085

Deadman Site 24CR0297

Jordan Bison Kill 24GF0271

Rosebud Battlefield124BH2461

Battle Butte and Wolf Mountain 

Site124RB0787

Reynolds Battlefield1 24PR0089

1Record of Decision, Oil and Gas Amendment, Billings-Powder RiverSouth Dakota Resource Management Plans/Environmental Impact 

Statements
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-100

Public Use 

Long-term preservation and on-site interpretation are most appropriate for cultural resources with visually 

obvious manifestations of the site’s historical or archeological importance. Although the type of on-site 

interpretation that invites public access to the site is usually not appropriate for cultural resources that can be 

easily vandalized or degraded, including most archeological sites that might be important for their scientific 

values, some sites are already well known and thus vulnerable to damage. The intent of interpretive efforts is 

the use of education to help preserve the site and similar examples. 

All BLM-administered lands are managed for public uses and there is no distinct regulatory threshold for 

managing cultural resources through long-term preservation and on-site interpretation. Considerations for 

management in this manner are: 

 

 the relative significance of the resource within historical, archeological, or other cultural context or 

contexts; 

 the sensitivity of the cultural resource to loss or degradation as a result of increased public access; and 

 the ability of the BLM to install and maintain interpretive features and support facilities while 

protecting the cultural values of the site. 

Management under this use category is therefore likely to be driven more by practical considerations than by 

regulatory requirements. On-site interpretation also is not appropriate for most American Indian TCPs, because 

of the possible degrading effects of public presence on the setting and feeling of these locations. 

Sites that have been considered for allocation to public use include the Lewis and Clark Trail, the Powder River 

Depot site (24PE0231) and ACEC, Reynolds Battlefield site (24PR0089) and ACEC and proposed ACEC, Wolf 

Mountain and Battle Butte Battlefield site (24RB0787) and ACEC and proposed ACEC, Cedar Creek 

Battlefield site (24PE0231) and proposed ACEC, Mouth of the Redwater fight site (no site number). 

Experimental Use 

Experimental use is rarely appropriate for cultural resources because of the singular, nonrenewable, and 

typically fragile nature of the resource. However, certain archeological sites (particularly rockshelters) that 

contain well-defined stratified deposits might be appropriate for management under this use category. In 

addition, an archeological site in which there has been past excavation or in which looting has already adversely 

affected the integrity of part of the site could be a candidate for experimental use. Certain lithic sources, 

particularly a primary source, could provide samples useful in identifying sources and possibly ages of lithic 

materials found in archeological sites over a wide region. The regulatory threshold for managing cultural 

resources for experimental use is likely to be eligibility under NRHP Criterion D, which involves the likelihood 

of yielding information important to expanding knowledge of history or prehistory. Archeological sites that 

could be adversely affected by development or other factors could also be candidates for experimental use as 

mitigation for the adverse effect. The BLM remains responsible for analyzing and protecting information 

obtained during mitigation of potential adverse effects to cultural resources. No sites, to date, have been 

proposed or have been considered for allocation to experimental use in the planning area. 

Discharged from Management 

This use category would apply to any cultural resource the BLM and the Montana State Historic Preservation 

Office have determined to be ineligible for nomination to the NRHP or sites that have been removed from BLM 

administration and management (and federal ownership) through land exchange or have been destroyed from 

some form of management action, such as coal mining. The BLM has a responsibility to continue to manage 

cultural resources even if they have been found to be ineligible for the NRHP. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-101 

The planning area contains approximately 9,934 recorded cultural resources. Of these, some 768 cultural 

resource sites have been destroyed, determined to be ineligible for nomination to the NRHP, or determined to 

be non-contributing elements of eligible properties. According to Manual 8110, sites placed in this use category 

“remain in the inventory, but they are removed from further management attention and do not constrain other 

land uses” (8110.42F). Of the 7,065 prehistoric sites in the planning area, about 6.2 percent (438 sites) of the 

prehistoric sites have been recommended and formally determined to be ineligible for nomination to the NRHP, 

and approximately 11.5 percent (330 sites) of the 2,869 historic sites recorded in the planning area have been 

recommended and formally determined to be ineligible for nomination to the NRHP. 

Management Challenges 

The BLM’s primary challenge is to achieve a balance between protecting valuable cultural resources and 

simultaneously making other resources available within the context of multiple use. Pressures on cultural 

resources will likely increase from continued mineral resource development, and direct and cumulative impacts 

will continue to degrade a percentage of the cultural landscape. Case-by-case inventory will prevent harm to 

individual sites, but the lack of comprehensive inventory coverage will continue to hamper broad-scale 

interpretation and assessment of cumulative effects. Inventories would probably continue at over 100 or more 

projects per year, with inventories covering approximately 15,000 acres per year. Impacts to resources for 

which mitigation measures could not be developed through consultation could be expected to occur once every 

5 to 10 years. However, as oil and gas exploration and development increase, the potential conflicts related to 

cultural resources also will increase. 

The demand for consumptive use of cultural resources through tourism and archeological research projects is 

low but anticipated to increase through time. This reflects an increasing interest in history and recognition of the 

fragile nature of the resource. Historic trails, particularly those in the national historic trails system, and the 

Custer Trail, Bismarck to Fort Keogh Trail, and Miles City to Deadwood Stage Trail (no site numbers) all could 

see increased visitation. Maintaining the historic setting is critical to providing a quality experience for visitors. 

The setting is an essential component in determining whether a particular trail segment contributes to the trail’s 

overall significance, and preservation of the viewshed through a buffer zone is a management goal. Setting is 

also an essential aspect of NRHP eligibility for other cultural resource types such as rock art and American 

Indian sensitive sites and potential TCPs. However, it is not as important for some types of linear sites, such as 

canals and some roads. 

American Indian concerns are becoming increasingly important as development pressures and awareness of 

four main issues increase. First, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 

et seq.) charges the BLM with establishing the cultural identity of human remains and returning them to the 

appropriate tribal group or reburying them according to their wishes; implementation of the Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires the BLM to consult with a broad spectrum of tribal authorities 

to determine the tribe to which the remains and materials should be repatriated. Second, American Indian 

religious concerns must be addressed through consultation with various tribes who have or historically had a 

presence in the area. While certain types of these cultural resources are recognizable by their physical 

characteristics, others can only be identified by the practitioners of the culture to which they are relevant 

through the consultation process and on-the-ground site visits. Third is the identification of areas in which 

Indian traditional practitioners collect plants or minerals. Finally, the issue of ensuring access to areas of 

traditional importance, as provided for by American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996). In some 

cases, these resource areas might also be eligible TCPs, requiring full compliance with NHPA, Section 106.

Prehistoric Sites 

Since the majority of prehistoric sites in the planning area are defined as cultural material scatters, it is 

important to be able to identify potential discriminating elements that can be used to segregate such a large 

category of prehistoric resources into different use categories. A qualitative assessment of certain aspects of 

material culture (relative diversity and quantity of artifact materials) and complexity (spatial patterning of 

artifacts, presence or absence of features, presence or absence of buried deposits), coupled with a quantitative 

measure of site size (in acres) can be used to meet the purposes identified. These values will serve as indirect 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-102

indicators of relative site function, relative duration of occupation, and research value and importance. 

Important aspects of material culture include those described below. 

 Artifact diversity, which is ethnobotanically, qualitatively measured from low to high and refers to the 

variety of cultural materials present (such as raw material types) and the variety of materials present 

(such as bone or stone).

 Artifact quantity, which is a qualitative measure intended to capture magnitudes of difference and 

refers to the relative quantity of material culture present (less than 50 items, hundreds, thousands).

 Site complexity, which is qualitatively measured from low to high and indicated by any spatial 

patterning in distribution of cultural material, the presence or absence of associated features, and the 

presence of buried deposits and stratigraphy. 

 Site size, which is a quantitative measure that refers to the search for model patterns in overall site size 

that may reflect information such as site function and duration of occupation (these variables serve to 

distinguish between the smaller, more redundant and transient, limited-use cultural material scatters 

and the larger, longer-occupied camps, habitation sites, or extractive use locations). 

Based on the model presented above, it is expected that the use categories would be reflected as outlined below. 

 Scientific use refers to prehistoric sites that exhibit high diversity and large quantity (greater than 50 

artifacts) of material culture, high complexity (spatial patterning of artifacts or activities, presence of 

features, stratified or buried deposits), and relatively larger size properties. 

 Conservation use refers to rare sites or sites representative of functionally or temporally exceptional 

examples (in the planning area, these would include large quarry sites or sites with complex 

stratigraphic sequences).

 Traditional use designation follows consultation with American Indian groups and sites may reveal the 

significance of prehistoric site types that may include, but are not limited to, burial locations, rock art, 

effigies, other rock features, and vision quest locations. 

 Public use sites are prehistoric sites that could be considered for public use (interpretation) in those few 

instances where interpretive potential is high and site integrity could be insured through protective 

measures (such uses should not be attempted without full consultation with interested American Indian 

groups, consequently, such prehistoric sites still require evaluation on a case-by-case basis).

 Experimental use or discharge from use refers to sites, which are individually evaluated prior to 

placement into these categories, with low diversity and limited quantity (less than 50) of artifacts, low 

or limited complexity, and small size (redundant small surface cultural material scatter and the 

information potential is exhausted with initial documentation). 

Historic Sites 

Unlike prehistoric resources, historic properties are more commonly determined to be significant for reasons 

other than their scientific value. Similarly, condition and integrity also tends to play a more obvious role in the 

evaluation of historic properties that contain architectural or structural remains. Historic resources in the 

planning area also vary greatly in size, function, and complexity, ranging from small homesteads to coal mines. 

Classifications are reflected as described below (it should be noted that the defined use categories are not 

necessarily mutually exclusive, and many sites can be placed in the conservation use category, public use 

category, and possibly the scientific use category). 

 The scientific use category includes historic sites with archeological and historical values but generally 

poor structural integrity (collapsed or deteriorated).

 The conservation use category includes historical sites that are rare or exceptional examples retaining 

integrity (these include well-preserved remnants of fur trading structures, military installations, or

homesteads). 

 The traditional use category includes historic sites that might encompass any sacred areas, TCPs, or 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-103

plant-gathering areas that were used historically by American Indian groups occupying the area (these 

sites would be determined in consultation with tribal representatives). 

 The public use category includes historic sites where the interpretive potential is high and site integrity 

could be insured through protective measures (consideration is given those standing structures that 

could be preserved and maintained for adaptive reuse for administrative or recreational uses). 

 Experimental use or discharge from use sites are evaluated on a case-by-case basis before assignment 

to either category. Only sites that have been formally determined not to be eligible for the NRHP are 

placed into either of these categories. In general, properties assigned to these categories are determined 

to contain little or no scientific or historical value (sites in these categories generally include isolated 

dumps and artifact scatters or isolated features such as collapsed structural remains that no longer 

retain integrity of design or workmanship). 

Historical themes that lend themselves to interpretation for public use classification include those described 

below. 

 Early exploration and Fur-Trade-era themes, including trading posts or forts, outposts, customs houses, 

trading grounds, trapping grounds, salt-extraction sites, portage or portage routes, river crossings or 

fords, and trails or trail campsites. 

 Early exploration and Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery themes, including post-contact earthlodge 

villages, portage or portage routes, forts, trading posts, campsites, and trading grounds. 

 Mining and coal mining themes, including mining camps, dwellings, barracks, company towns, office 

buildings or storage buildings or yards, processing buildings, and loading or transportation facilities. 

 Mining and uranium industry themes, including company offices. 

 Military themes, including military reservations, forts, semi-permanent or trail camps, battlefields, 

military roads or trails, river crossings, and mail stations. 

 Historic homesteading themes, including dwellings, barns, granaries, smokehouses, and stone or wood 

outbuildings. 

 Historic ranching themes, including ranches, dwellings, outbuildings, stock-holding or stock-handling 

facilities, railroad yards, meat-processing facilities, and railroad spurs or haul roads. 

Cultural properties are evaluated with reference to the NRHP criteria for the purposes of assessing their 

historical values and public significance; such evaluations are carefully considered when cultural properties are 

allocated to use categories. Although preservation and nomination properties must be weighted on a case-bycase basis, Table 3-26 serves as a general guide illustrating the relationship between NRHP evaluation and 

allocation to use categories. 

PROPOSED CARTER MASTER LEASING PLAN AREA 

The Carter MLP Area contains a low site density for the area. A total of 58 cultural sites have been recorded in 

the MLP area. No cultural sites have been recorded in four of the townships, although inventory has occurred. 

Cultural sites are about evenly divided between historic (31) and prehistoric (27). Approximately 40 percent of 

the cultural sites (24) are listed as not eligible for listing on the NRHP in the state historic preservation office 

CRIS (Cultural Resource Information System) database. No sites in the MLP area have been determined 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Previous Inventory 

Most of the inventories for cultural resources have been for small range improvements, a few energy-related 

developments (well pads, flowlines), land exchanges, and a Class II coal planning inventory. There have been 

three large pipeline inventories crossing the MLP area: these are the Exxon Bairoil Carbon Dioxide Pipeline, 

the Grasslands Pipeline, and the Bison Pipeline. These three projects account for the discovery of 22 of the 60 

cultural sites and the bulk of the formally evaluated sites for NRHP listing. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-104

Overall, less than 5 percent of the MLP area has been systematically inventoried for cultural resources. Site 

density is low and is estimated to be one site per 6,600 acres, based on a figure of 396,650 acres for the MLP 

area. Density is lower than the 5 to 6 sites per section on BLM-administered lands for the overall planning area. 

TABLE 3-26.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CULTURAL RESOURCE

USE CATEGORIES IN RELATION TO EVALUATION FOR INCLUSION ON THE 

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

Relationship Among Cultural Resource Use Categories, National Register Eligibility, and Preservation

or National Register Nomination

Cultural 

Resource Use 

Category

National Register 

Eligibility

Preservation or National 

Register Nomination Site Types Generally Included

Scientific Use Usually eligible 

(under Criterion d)

Long-term preservation not 

critical; medium National 

Register nomination 

priority.

Prehistoric: sites with high 

artifact count and diversity, high 

complexity, and larger size;

Historic: sites with archeological 

and historical values, and 

generally poor structural integrity.

Conservation 

for Future Use

Always eligible 

(generally under 

Criteria a, c, or d and 

possibly Criterion b 

for historic sites)

Long-term preservation is 

required, highest 

nomination priority.

Prehistoric: sites inherently 

complex, rare, or fragile, and 

which exhibit exceptional 

scientific values (e.g. deeply 

stratified deposits, large quarries);

Historic: sites inherently 

complex, rare, or fragile, generally 

significant standing structures 

(stabilization and preservation 

required).

Traditional Use

May be eligible 

(generally under 

Criteria a and d, 

possibly Criteria b 

and c)

Long-term preservation is 

desirable, nomination 

priority is determined in 

consultation with the 

appropriate cultural 

group(s).

Sites and locations determined in 

consultation with Tribal groups.

Prehistoric may include: burial 

locations, rock art, effigies, other 

rock features, and vision quest 

locations;

Historic or Modern: plant 

gathering locations, areas 

considered sacred for religious 

purposes, etc.

Public Use

Usually eligible 

(generally under 

Criteria a, b, and c, 

possibly Criterion d)

Long-term preservation is 

desirable, high nomination 

priority.

Prehistoric: high interpretive 

potential and can insure 

protection;

Historic: high interpretive 

potential and stabilization, 

protection, or adaptive re-use can 

be ensured.

Experimental 

Use

May be eligible 

(generally under 

Criterion d, if at all)

Long-term preservation is 

not anticipated, low 

nomination priority.

Prehistoric: lithic scatters of 

limited artifact density and 

complexity;

Historic: dumps, collapsed 

structures with no integrity or 

context.

Discharged from 

Management Not eligible

Long-term preservation and 

management are not 

considerations, nomination 

is inappropriate.

Prehistoric: isolated finds, 

surface lithic scatters less than 50 

items;

Historic: isolated finds, dumps of 

less than 50 items, sites less than 

50 years old.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Cultural Resources 

3-105

Prehistoric Sites 

The bulk of the 27 prehistoric sites are lithic scatters (17) or lithic scatters with fire-cracked rock (8). One site is 

described as a cairn site and one site is described as a lithic scatter and bison processing site. Two of the sites 

are attributed to the Middle Period, based on projectile points found on the surface. Both are listed as Pelican 

Lake Sites. The prehistoric period of the other sites is not known. 

Historic Sites 

The historic sites consist of 7 homesteads, 10 road segments or bridges, 2 sheep camps, 5 dumps, 1 historic well 

pad from the 1950s, and 1 site described as “other”. Most of the homesteads, dumps, and sheep camps are 

evaluated as not eligible for NRHP listing. 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

According to Section 6301 of the Paleontological Resources Protection Act (PRPA) of 2009 Omnibus Lands 

Bill, Subtitle D, paleontological resources are defined as “any fossilized remains, traces, or imprints of 

organisms, preserved in or on the earth’s crust, that are of paleontological interest and that provide information 

about the history of life on earth...” (16 U.S.C. 470aa). Paleontological resources as defined under the PRPA do 

not include any paleontological resources found in context with archeological and cultural resources. 

In the planning area, paleontological resources are strongly associated with the upper Cretaceous Hell Creek 

formation (where 80 percent of known locations in the state occur). The Tertiary Fort Union formation contains 

14 percent of known paleontological localities. All other strata in eastern Montana contain less than 2 percent 

each of documented fossil localities. Of the 1,929 paleontological localities recorded in the planning area, 1,440 

(75 percent) occur on BLM-administered land, 278 (14 percent) on private land, 153 (8 percent) on state land, 7 

(less than 1 percent) on USFS land, 1 (less than 1 percent) on United States Army Corps of Engineers land, 1 

(less than 1 percent) on other federal land, and 1 (less than 1 percent) on lands administered by the state and 

BLM. Landowner information for 48 of the paleontological localities (3 percent) is unknown because of 

ambiguous legal descriptions. No paleontological sites from the planning area have yet been listed on the 

NRHP. In the planning area, approximately 95 percent of the paleontological localities occur in counties where 

most of the Hell Creek and Fort Union formations outcrop; this includes Garfield, Carter, Dawson, McCone, 

Powder River, and Treasure counties. There are 1,805 vertebrate fossil localities (all ownerships) and 124 nonvertebrate localities in the planning area; non-vertebrate localities include 68 plant, 51 invertebrate, 1 plant and 

invertebrate, and 4 trace fossils (Aaberg et al. 2006). 

Teeth are the hardest parts of a skeleton and the most commonly fossilized element of an animal; most localities 

produce only small fossils consisting of teeth and jaws, fragments of limb bones, and other small parts. Other 

dense bone portions, such as ends of limb bones and wrist and anklebones are also commonly preserved, while 

entire fossilized skeletons are extremely rare. Teeth and skulls are the most diagnostic and the most useful in 

species identification and research. 

Fossil-bearing rocks occur throughout the planning area (Table 3-27 and Map 60). Although fossils are rare in 

most strata, three stratigraphic units that commonly occur in the planning area are known to contain significant 

fossil material. These units are the Upper Cretaceous Period Judith River formation, the Hell Creek and Lance 

formations (synonymous with and similar in time to the Hell Creek formation), and the Tertiary Period Tullock 

member (and its equivalent in the Ludlow member) of the Fort Union and Arikaree formations. 

In Montana, the Judith River formation represents deposition in a shallow sea and on a coastal plain that 

contained river channels, freshwater swamps, and lakes. In addition to plant remains, many animal species are 

found in this formation, including mollusks, fish, amphibians, lizards, dinosaurs, other reptiles, and small 

mammals. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Paleontological Resources 

3-106

Meandering river channels and freshwater swamps that developed on broad delta plains were prevalent during 

the deposition of the Hell Creek and Lance formations (Flores 1992). The fossil record indicates a tropical to 

subtropical climate that supported a wide diversity of plant species. Mollusks, fish, amphibians, reptiles, 

dinosaurs (Triceratops, Anatosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus), other reptiles, birds, and small mammals are all 

abundant in the Hell Creek fossil record. 

An important chronological event, the 

worldwide extinction of many life forms 

(including dinosaurs), and the beginning of rapid 

mammal evolution, is represented at the contact 

of the Hell Creek and Fort Union formations. 

The Fort Union formation is divided into three 

members in ascending order: the Tullock, Lebo, 

and Tongue River members. 

A wide variety of plant fossils are found 

throughout the Fort Union formation and 

indicate an environment characterized by an 

alluvial plain that contained river channels, 

expansive flood-basin swamps, and lakes (Belt, 

Sakimoto, and Rockwell 1992). Channel fill 

deposits contain an abundance of freshwater clams and snails, while the most significant fossils (turtle, fish, 

reptile, and mammal) are found primarily in the Tullock member of the Fort Union formation. The Tullock 

member contains fish, amphibian, turtle, champsosaur, lizard, crocodilian, mammal, bird, and plant remains. 

Fossils from the Hell Creek formation and Tullock member, particularly in Garfield and McCone counties, are 

instrumental in studies examining the mass extinction event represented at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary 

(Clemens 2002). 

The Miocene Arikaree formation has produced fish, bird, and mammal fossils. This formation has a low fossil 

potential, but there is a high probability that its fossils would be considered significant (Aaberg et al. 2006). 

There are no paleontological localities within the planning area formally listed on the NRHP. Paleontological 

localities are not usually considered eligible as individual fossil localities but they may be eligible under NRHP 

criteria A, B, and D for other reasons (e.g., the development of paleontology in Montana, association with 

important events such as exploration surveys, and association with significant paleontologists, or their 

contribution to understanding the prehistory of an area). In the planning area, there are several National Natural 

Landmarks (NNLs) and ACECs that recognize significant paleontological areas (see Special Designation 

Areas). NNLs include Hell Creek, Bug Creek, and Capitol Rock and ACECs include Hell Creek, Bug Creek, 

Sand Arroyo, and Ash Creek Divide. 

The planning area contains some of the richest paleontological resources in the world; nearly every major 

museum in the United States has at least one dinosaur exhibit from this area. The Hell Creek formation contains 

the best examples of the last period of the age of dinosaurs in the United States, and, together with the Tullock 

member, exhibits an uninterrupted sequence encompassing the last era of the dinosaurs, their extinction, and the 

subsequent beginning of the age of mammals. Beginning in 1903, these formations have been the subject and 

source of much research. There are other areas containing high concentrations of significant paleontological 

values; many of these individual localities will also continue to produce significant amounts of paleontological 

data. 

The source of paleontological value in the planning area is attributed to a combination of factors and most 

important is surface exposure of fossil-bearing strata. Because most fossils are recovered as scattered surface 

finds, visibility of the outcrop is an important factor in fossil recovery. The climate in eastern Montana often 

exposes, instead of covering, these units. Lack of vegetative cover also enhances the visibility. Exposures that 

produce significant fossils, particularly vertebrate fossils, are rare, and therefore, are of considerable scientific 

TABLE 3-27. 

FOSSIL-BEARING ROCKS AND THEIR ACREAGE 

ON PUBLIC LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Geologic Rock 

Unit

Percentage of 

Formation on 

Public Lands

Acres of Public 

Lands

Judith River 

formation 15.06 462,877

Hell Creek 

formation 2.5 4,723

Fort Union 

formation (Tullock 

member)

12.44 236,038

Total 702,638
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Paleontological Resources 

3-107

value and interest. Several sites in the planning area have yielded the only known fossil record for various 

extinct animals. 

On average, MCFO issues approximately 10 to 15 resource use permits and excavation permits to qualified 

researchers on an annual basis. Typical excavations cover approximately 0.5 acres and combined, they 

contribute to between 5 to 7.5 acres being disturbed annually. Approximately 95 percent of the 1,929 

paleontological sites or localities in the MCFO unit occur in Garfield, Carter, Dawson, McCone, Powder River, 

and Treasure counties. The Hell Creek formation is the most fossiliferous unit in the planning area, and it 

accounts for approximately 80 percent (1,543) of the documented sites or localities. The Fort Union formation 

contains 14 percent (271) of the documented sites or localities, with at least 74 percent of these occurring in the 

Tullock member. Of the 1,929 documented sites or localities, 1,805 are vertebrate fossil localities. 

SPECIMEN COLLECTION 

Existing regulations and policies address the fossil collection on public lands (see Paleontological Resources 

Appendix). Some areas may be closed for hobby collecting to protect scientifically significant invertebrate or 

plant fossils or to prevent other potential resource damage. Although qualified paleontologists may obtain 

permits for collecting vertebrate fossils and other scientifically significant specimens, specimens collected 

under the backing of a permit remain the property of the federal government and must be kept properly in a 

qualified museum or university collection. 

Paleontological Resources, Condition and Trend 

Paleontological localities are subject to damage, destruction, or loss from surface disturbance associated with 

commercial construction or development projects but also from amateur collectors and rock hounds. Although 

some of these enthusiasts are aware of the scientific value of their finds, many are not. Although interest in 

vertebrate fossils draws many people into the field of fossil collection, demand fueled by high prices obtained 

for some fossil specimens also generates interest. Specimens collected for sale to the public often lose their 

scientific value because important, associated data regarding the location and context are not recorded or 

preserved and the specimens are often not made available to the scientific community. 

The scientific value of a fossil specimen can be diminished by improper recovery, improper reconstruction and 

storage, or by failure of the collector to record precise location and stratigraphic data in the field. Damage or 

destruction of paleontological resources, an inherently nonrenewable asset, results in the permanent loss of 

these resources for future scientific research or public enjoyment. Because dirt bikes and all-terrain vehicles 

(ATV) have damaged some fossil localities, inadvertent damage is a concern. OHV use continues to provide 

access to remote outcrops and collecting localities. These sites are vulnerable to destruction by off-road travel. 

Motorized wheeled travel allows vandalism of fossils that might otherwise be too heavy or awkward to pack out 

on foot (BLM 2003m).Compounding the factors described above, a significant amount of land administered by 

BLM represent badlands topography, resulting in large exposures of strata and contributing to a higher 

probability for the discovery of fossil localities. 

The condition and trend of paleontological resources in the planning area varies considerably because of past 

and present land use patterns and diversity of terrain, geomorphology, access, and visibility. Exposed fossil 

elements can be easily damaged by numerous factors, including wind and water erosion, animal and human 

intrusion, natural deterioration, and commercial development and maintenance activities. Evidence of 

vandalism or illegal collecting has been observed on limited occasions in the planning area. Commercial 

development and maintenance activities (e.g., accelerated erosion attributable to some grazing, mining, and 

recreation activities) are known to affect certain fossil localities. 

Based on known research interests of professional paleontologists and the increase in private-prospecting 

arrangements throughout the planning area, the demand for paleontological resources is considered high to very 

high in the planning area. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Paleontological Resources 

3-108

PROPOSED CARTER MASTER LEASING PLAN AREA 

The area contains 19 paleontological localities. Most of the paleontological localities are invertebrate localities 

(9) and most of the vertebrate localities consist of small vertebrate localities (fish). Almost all of the localities 

are reported from the Pierre shale formation. Two localities are reported in the Oligocene Brule member of the 

Arikaree formation. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

The objective of VRM is to manage public lands in a manner that will protect the quality of the scenic (visual) 

values of these lands, manage the quality of the visual environment, and reduce the visual impact of 

development activities while maintaining the viability of all resource programs. By law, BLM is responsible for 

managing public lands for multiple uses and ensuring that the scenic values of these public lands are considered 

before allowing uses that may have negative visual impacts. Public lands have a variety of visual values and 

warrant different levels of management. VRM is used to systematically identify and evaluate these values to 

determine the appropriate management objectives and design activities to meet those objectives. The VRM 

process involves inventorying scenic values, establishing management objectives for those values through the 

resource management planning process, and evaluating proposed activities to analyze effects and develop 

mitigations to meet established VRM objectives. 

VRI CLASSES 

Visual resource inventory (VRI) is an inventory of all public lands and is prepared and maintained on a 

continual basis. The inventory stage serves to identify the visual resources of an area and assign these resources 

to an inventory class using the VRI process. The process consists of a scenic quality evaluation to rate the 

visual appeal of an area, a sensitivity level analysis to assess public concern of an area’s scenic quality and their 

sensitivity to potential changes in the visual setting, and a delineation of distance zones to indicate the relative 

visibility of the landscape from primary travel routes or observation points. 

Based on these three factors, BLM-administered lands are placed into one of three VRI classes: Class II, Class 

III, and Class IV. These three classes represent the relative value of the visual resource and provide the basis 

for considering visual values in the resource management planning process. VRI classes II, III, and IV are 

determined based on a combination of the scenic quality, sensitivity level, and distance zone overlays. In the 

relative scale of visual values, Class II has a higher value than Class III, which is moderately valued. Class IV 

is the least valued. Class I is assigned to special management areas in which a management decision has 

previously been made to maintain a natural landscape; these areas are the most valued landscapes. VRI classes 

are informational in nature and do not establish management direction. 

The scenic quality rating is the result of summing the scores of the seven analysis factors on the scenic quality 

form and assigning the rating based on points according to the following schedule: 

 Class A: a score of 19 points or more, 

 Class B: a score of 12 to 18 points, and 

 Class C: a score of 11 points or less. 

The MCFO had a total of 63 scenic quality rating units (Map 61). Of the 63, two received a Class A rating: the 

Seven Blackfoot Area and the Musselshell River Area, which composes 1.6 percent of the planning area. The 

scenic quality in these areas scored high because of the variety of color and vegetation present, which is 

enhanced by adjacent scenery. 

The majority of units were in the range of 11.5 to 18, which placed them in Class B for scenic quality. Many of 

the units encompass river valleys and areas with variable topographic relief. Thirty-three units (29.4 percent) of 

the analysis area fell within a Class B. The remaining scenic quality rating unit received a Class C scenic quality 

rating, with scores in the range of 11 or less. These units generally included flat to rolling landforms and 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Visual Resources 

3-109

covered large areas throughout the analysis area. In total, 28 units (70 percent of the analysis area) were rated 

Class C. 

The evaluation of the sensitivity levels in the VRM process provides a measure and an indication of the public’s 

concern for scenic quality (Map 62). In this part of the process, public lands are assigned high, moderate, or 

low sensitivity levels by analyzing certain factors that contribute to the public’s overall concern of an area’s 

scenic quality. These factors include types of users, amount of use, public interest, adjacent land use, special 

areas, and other factors such as research or studies. BLM staff with detailed knowledge of the use of public 

lands in their field office carefully and subjectively consider all of the above factors to determine the overall 

sensitivity level of an area. Both the rating of individual factors and the relationship between factors are 

analyzed in determining the overall rating of an area. Multidisciplinary teams of BLM staff and management 

completed sensitivity level ratings. The teams discussed the general use patterns and activities on public lands 

and then used this information to delineate the boundaries of the rating units on a map of the affected area. Once 

the preliminary boundaries were identified, the teams evaluated each unit based on the sensitivity rating factors 

and assigned an overall rating to the units. Unit boundaries were modified as needed based on the discussions, 

and ratings were recorded and entered into a geodatabase. Sensitivity levels in the MCFO analysis area were 

higher in the southern and northern portions because they contain higher recreational value (including hunting) 

because of the variable topography and vegetation. 

Although the analysis of distance zones considers the distance from which the area is generally viewed, it does 

not take into account every possible viewing location. Landscape areas are generally divided into three distance 

zones based on their relative visibility from travel routes or other observation points: foreground-middleground 

zone, background zone, and seldom seen zone (Map 63). Areas that are more visible to the public are more 

noticeable and may precipitate the public’s concern for visual quality. Boundaries of the distance zones may 

also assist in defining the boundaries of an area’s sensitivity level rating unit. This process was completed using 

GIS, primary travel routes, and other potentially sensitive viewpoints such as recreation areas and scenic roads. 

The majority of the lands within the MCFO are in the foreground-middleground or background zones. 

The VRI classes are then mapped by overlaying the scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones in GIS. 

The majority of the MCFO analysis area, approximately 65 percent, was designated as VRI Class IV. VRI Class 

II accounts for approximately 11 percent, and VRI Class III accounts for 24 percent. The remaining 0.4 percent 

of the MCFO is designated as VRI Class I. 

VRM CLASSES 

A VRM system identifies and evaluates an area’s scenic values to determine the appropriate management 

objectives for those values. Visual management objectives are developed through the RMP planning process 

and reflect the resource allocation decisions made in the RMP. Although VRM classes might reflect VRI 

classes, they might not because management objectives for other resources as determined in the planning 

process might require different visual management needs. A VRM Class I is an area that receives the most 

protection for visual values, while a VRM Class IV receives the most limited protection from visual intrusions. 

The VRM system is a two-part process that includes an inventory phase and an analysis phase. The inventory 

phase (updated in 2011) identifies the visual resources of an area and assigns them to inventory classes. The 

visual values identified through the inventory process are considered throughout the planning process, and the 

area’s visual resources are then assigned to VRM management classes with established objectives (Table 3-28). 

The analysis phase is project specific, and determines whether the potential visual impacts from proposed 

surface-disturbing activities or developments will meet the management objectives established for the area or 

whether design adjustments or mitigation stipulations will be required. All actions proposed during the 

management planning process that would result in surface disturbance must consider the importance of the 

visual values and the impacts the project may have on those values. A visual contrast rating system is used for 

this analysis, which involves comparing the project features with the major features in the existing landscape to 

determine if the scenic values of the area have been maintained. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Visual Resources 

3-110

The planning area being managed under the current RMPs contains 97,000 acres of VRM Class I; 400,000 acres 

of VRM Class II; 380,000 acres of VRM Class III; and 1.9 million acres of VRM Class IV. 

CONDITION 

With the exception of a few large parcels, public lands in the planning area are scattered among private, local, 

state, and federally owned lands. Rolling hillsides are the dominant landscape but there are also isolated rock 

outcrops, woody draws, forested coulees, ponderosa pine, and juniper stands, riparian and wetlands, hardwood 

river bottoms, badlands, and river breaks and all possess unique visual qualities, character, and natural beauty. 

VRM Class I areas within the MCFO includes the seven wilderness study areas (WSAs). Notable VRM Class II 

areas in the planning area are river corridors of the Yellowstone, Missouri, and Powder rivers, large areas 

abutting the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and the Finger Buttes ACEC in Carter County. 

Finger Buttes has been designated an ACEC for unique scenic values that do not exist elsewhere in the region 

(BLM 1999a), although there is no legal access into the area. Interstate 94 and State Road 12, both VRM Class 

II landscapes, are the major east-west transportation routes for tourists and residents, providing access to 

recreation opportunities and views along the rivers. The Lewis and Clark Special Recreation Management Area 

(SRMA), which includes lands next to the Yellowstone River and portions of the Missouri River, are also 

within a VRM Class II area. 

TRENDS 

The planning area still 

maintains much of the scenic 

quality and pristine viewsheds 

encountered over the past 25 

years. The prevalence of 

grazing in the planning area and 

the open spaces afforded by an 

agriculture economy have 

prevented major change to date 

but the trend in rural 

development and subdivision, 

especially in areas in close 

proximity to public lands, may 

forecast more rapid change in 

the future. 

There have been visual 

intrusions involving 

concentrated development such 

as buildings, infrastructures 

associated with oil and gas 

fields and CBNG development, 

and ROWs involving surface 

disturbance (e.g., utilities). 

Surface-disturbing activities 

associated with these areas are 

readily noticeable because of 

the contrast with the 

representative landscape. Visual mitigation of these activities has prevented development activities from 

exceeding the established VRM objectives within these areas. However, the trend toward continued expansion 

of natural resource development is creating areas of potential conflict between the surface-disturbing activities 

and established VRM class objectives. Other visual intrusions, which include range improvements, fences, twotrack roads, and areas receiving concentrated recreational use, are located throughout the planning area. An 

TABLE 3-28. 

VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CLASS OBJECTIVES

Class Management Objectives

I

The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of 

the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape 

should be very low and must not attract attention. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes, but this does not preclude 

very limited management activity. 

II

The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape 

should be low. Activities or modifications of the environment 

should not be evident or attract the attention of the casual observer. 

Any changes should repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, 

and texture found in the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape.

III

The objective of this class is to retain partially the existing 

character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract 

attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 

Changes caused by management activities may be evident, but 

should not detract from the existing landscape.

IV

The objective of this class is to provide for management activities 

that require major modification of the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can 

be high. These management activities may dominate the view and 

be a major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt 

should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through 

careful location, minimal disturbance, and repetition of basic 

elements. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Visual Resources 

3-111

increasing number of recreationists seeking various types of recreational opportunities are becoming more 

aware of scenic values. 

LANDS WITH WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS 

WILDERNESS CHARACTERISTICS

The BLM maintains an inventory of all lands under its jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 201 of FLPMA. As 

required by law, the BLM will continue to maintain inventories of lands under its jurisdiction, including lands 

with wilderness characteristics. In addition, consistent with FLPMA and other applicable authorities, the BLM 

will consider the wilderness characteristics of BLM-administered land when undertaking its multiple-use land 

use planning. 

The original inventory was completed in the 1980s, and is known as the Montana Wilderness Inventory. The 

existing inventory of BLM-administered land in the planning area was updated and evaluated to determine if 

lands other than the existing WSAs have wilderness characteristics (BLM 2011b). Areas of public land over 

5,000 acres were mapped (Map 64). Using GIS data and the original 1980s inventory, the interdisciplinary team 

compared polygons to areas including those previously inventoried. A review of all of the polygons occurred 

using updated guidance and criteria (BLM 2011b and BLM Manual 6302, Consideration of Lands with 

Wilderness Characteristics in the Land Use Planning Process) (Map 65). Additional data and local specialist 

knowledge were obtained for 26 new polygons. The interdisciplinary team reviewed each polygon for physical 

intrusions such as roads, two-tracks, reservoirs, cattleguards, pipelines, fences, oil and gas wells, buildings, or 

any other project that has occurred on BLM-administered land using GIS and collaborated with other specialists 

as needed. Updated forms were completed for each of the polygons and previously reviewed areas. During this 

process, the ID team determined that two areas, one within the Terry Badlands WSA and another in the Devil’s 

Creek Common area along the Missouri River contain wilderness characteristics (Maps 66 and 67). 

The Terry Badlands lands with wilderness characteristics area (MT-024-684) consists of three sections of 

acquired lands, which were private inholdings at the time the Terry Badlands WSA was studied for wilderness 

potential. They consist of 1,960 acres of public land located 3 miles northwest of Terry, Montana, in Prairie 

County. The three sections are all within the northern portion of the Terry Badlands WSA. 

The three sections consist of banded, colorful cliffs overlooking rolling prairie vegetated with prairie grasses, 

native legumes, and scattered juniper. One of the nation’s most easterly stands of limber pine is located in the 

northwestern portion of the WSA. Steep, eroded slopes, divided by deep gullies, are also present within the 

sections along with rough hillsides, buttes, tabletops, spires, and scoria escarpments, which rise to meet rolling 

benches north of the Yellowstone River. All three sections contain spectacular badlands and have the 

characteristics for naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation. The lands 

demonstrate lands with wilderness characteristics. 

The Devils Creek Common area (MT-020-039) is in northern Garfield County and consists of approximately 

5,236 acres. The area is 32 miles northwest of Jordan, Montana. Private land borders BLM-administered public 

land on the south, west, and east sides and the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge borders the 

northern edge. There is one state section bordering the southeast portion of the unit. Devil’s Creek drainage runs 

through the middle of the unit. Other, unnamed tributaries are within the unit, which create heavily dissected 

terrain. 

Although the unit contains only BLM-administered public lands, there is no vehicular public access because 

private lands need to be crossed to gain entry to the unit; however, walk-in public access is available through 

the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge land to the north. The topography is heavily dissected and 

rough with steep buttes and mesas. Ponderosa pine and juniper are evident in dense stands throughout the unit, 

as well as range grasses, native legumes, and sage. With the exception of two reservoirs, there are very few 

human-made developments in the unit; however, these developments are not easily noticed. Off-site impacts 

occurring in the unit include ranch-related developments and activity on the periphery of the unit. The entire 

unit has the characteristics of size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

3-112

recreation. The northern portion of the unit is contiguous with Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

lands, which has similar characteristics and management. 

The MCFO will continually update the inventory based on more accurate GIS information and field visits. 

Areas with wilderness characteristics must possess sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for 

either solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation. In addition, it may also possess supplemental values. 

RESOURCE USES 

This section contains a description of the existing human uses of resources in the planning area and follows the 

order of topics addressed in Chapter 2. These topics are as follows: 

 Facilities, 

 Forestry and Woodland Products, 

 Livestock Grazing, 

 Minerals, 

o Geology, 

o Coal, 

o Oil and Gas, 

o Geothermal, 

o Locatable Minerals, 

o Mineral Materials, 

 Recreation, 

o Recreation Management Areas, 

 Renewable Energy, 

 Transportation, 

 Travel Management and OHV Use, and 

 Lands and Realty.

FACILITIES 

This section describes facilities (administrative, recreation and communication facilities, and hazard class 

dams), maintenance, and construction. Five administrative sites are within the planning area: the main 

administrative compound in Miles City; the Miles City Airbase at Frank Wiley Field in Miles City; the Jordan 

Fire Station in Jordan; the Camp Crook Fire Station in Camp Crook, South Dakota; and the Ekalaka Field 

Station in Ekalaka. The administrative sites are extensive and include a multitude of assets such as office space, 

warehouses, wareyards, parking, and storage facilities. 

There are 13 recreation sites across the planning area. The recreation sites vary in nature and complexity from 

sites with kiosks to sites that contain multiple assets such as site roads, vault toilets, campsites, or picnic areas. 

The planning area contains nine communication sites. 

The USDI requires all sites in facilities asset management have a comprehensive condition assessment of each 

locational asset and asset feature performed every 5 years and a periodic review performed at least once in the 

interim. These reviews or assessments identify both annual and deferred maintenance needs. All sites are 

maintained annually on an as needed basis. 

The BLM also has a 5-year plan, which provides funding on deferred maintenance and capital improvement 

assets. This Bureau-wide funding addresses high priority backlog maintenance needs and new construction 

projects. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Facilities 

3-113

HAZARD CLASS DAMS 

All BLM-administered hazard classified dams are maintained to standards that promote safe performance and 

reduce hazards resulting from the dam’s possible failure to an acceptable level. Dams are classified for hazard 

potential (low, significant, or high) based on probable loss of downstream life and property. The hazard 

potential classification is based on the degree of adverse incremental consequences from failure or operational 

problems of the dam as well as the size of the structure. The planning area has 51 low hazard dams and no high 

or significant hazard class dams. 

 

Low hazard class dams have Comprehensive Condition Assessments performed every 5 years. The dams are 

managed and maintained in accordance with current regulatory requirements. 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS 

Coniferous forest habitat types occurring in the planning area include ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Rocky 

Mountain juniper (Juniperous scopulorum), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and limber pine (Pinus 

flexilis). Deciduous forest habitat types include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), quaking aspen (Populus 

tremuloides), boxelder (Acer negundo), and bur oak (Quercus macrocarpa) (Hansen, Thompson, Massey, and 

Thompson 2008). Ponderosa pine forest types occur on the majority of the planning area forestlands. 

Moisture (along with soil type, nutrient availability, plant density, topography, and climate) is one of the most 

important factors affecting plant growth. Lack of moisture can have a pronounced influence on overall 

productivity. This is particularly true in the dry expanses of the northern Great Plains. In the planning area, the 

habitat types of the ponderosa pine series occur along a moisture gradient (where the graminoid-dominated 

habitat types are drier than the shrub-dominated habitat types). Within the graminoid-dominated habitat types, 

the following moisture gradient is present (from dry to wet) (Hansen et al. 2008): 

 ponderosa pine/bluebunch wheatgrass habitat type, 

 ponderosa pine/sun sedge (Carex heliophila) habitat type, and 

 ponderosa pine/Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) habitat type. 

Within the shrub-dominated habitat types, the following moisture gradient is present (from dry to wet) (Hansen 

et al. 2008): 

 ponderosa pine/white coralberry (Symphoricarpos albus) habitat type, 

 ponderosa pine/common juniper (Juniperus communis) habitat type, 

 ponderosa pine/chokecherry (Prunus virginiana), and 

 ponderosa pine/red-osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) habitat type. 

There are six distinct geographic or geologic areas where most of the forestlands occur in the planning area 

(geological characteristics generally define the location of forestlands) (Table 3-29). These six distinct areas are 

described below. 

(1) The Missouri Breaks in Garfield County 

This area is characterized by two distinct conditions: areas with exposed shale dominated by Rocky 

Mountain juniper with scattered ponderosa pine and knobs of deeper soils dominated by ponderosa 

pine and scattered Douglas-fir trees. 

(2) Areas south of the Yellowstone River 

This area has forestlands on knobs where soils are loamy with a high percentage of coarse fragments. 

Soils are shallow to deep, and elevations vary from 2,300 feet in the areas southwest of Miles City to 

4,200 feet near the Wyoming border. Areas east of Miles City (Knowlton and Pine Hills) along the 

Powder River have slightly higher elevations and higher precipitation than the Rosebud County area. 

Areas in western Custer County and eastern Rosebud County have the lowest elevations and 

precipitation. This area includes the Moon Creek and Rosebud Creek drainages. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

3-114

(3) Ekalaka Hills-Chalk Buttes in Carter County 

These areas have generally sandy soils developed from sandstones and siltstones and a medium 

percentage of coarse fragments. Precipitation averages 16 to 18 inches per year and elevations range 

from 3,500 to 4,100 feet. 

(4) Cedar Creek Anticline 

This area of exposed shale is located between Baker and Glendive. Juniper habitat types are present, 

and juniper is the dominant cover type. 

(5) Terry Badlands 

This area is located north of the Yellowstone River near Terry and contains a unique cover type of 

limber pine that also contains ponderosa pine and Rocky Mountain juniper. 

(6) Areas north of the Yellowstone River 

This area is located north of the Yellowstone River with scattered ponderosa pine and juniper trees 

occurring on sandy loam soils. 

FR/CC is an interagency, 

standardized tool for 

determining the degree of 

departure from reference 

condition vegetation, fuels, 

and disturbance regimes 

(Hann et al. 2008). The 

FR/CC describes the 

differences between 

current vegetation 

composition and structure 

and pre-European 

settlement reference 

conditions. Assessing 

FR/CC helps guide 

management objectives 

and set priorities for 

treatments. Based on 

percentage departure from 

average pre-settlement 

reference conditions, the 

FR/CC is divided into 

three categories: 

 FR/CC 1: 0 to 33 percent departure; 

 FR/CC 2: 34 to 66 percent departure, and 

 FR/CC 3: 67 to 100 percent departure. 

Forests and woodlands in FR/CC 1 have frequent fire return intervals and stand structures characteristic of presettlement conditions. Both forest and fire management activities designed to reduce ladder fuels and understory 

vegetation buildup lower the FR/CC of a treatment area. Forests and woodlands in FR/CC 1 are productive, 

diverse, vigorous, and resilient to disturbances (e.g., wildfire, insects, and disease). These areas typically 

experience insect and disease activity at endemic, not epidemic levels. In contrast, forests and woodlands in 

FR/CC 2 and FR/CC 3 are overstocked and experience infrequent fire return intervals. Species compositions 

and dense stand structures are uncharacteristic of pre-settlement conditions and trees experience increased 

competition for growing space (e.g., sunlight, water, nutrients); therefore, these forests and woodlands are less 

resilient to disturbances and are at risk of stand-replacing wildfires, epidemic level insect and disease outbreaks, 

or both. 

Fire was a key element in shaping ponderosa pine forests in the planning area prior to European settlement. 

Historically, forested areas of southeastern Montana experienced fire return intervals of 35 to 40 years (Arno 

TABLE 3-29.

FORESTLANDS BY GEOLOGIC OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA

Area Name

BLM-administered Acres of 

Forestlands Within Areas

BLM-administered Acres of 

Forestlands Available for 

Treatment (outside of WSAs)

Conifer Hardwood Total Conifer Hardwood Total

Ekalaka 

Hills/Chalk 

Buttes

2,607 2,233 4,840 2,607 2,233 4,840

South of 

Yellowstone 56,383 35,180 91,562 52,257 34,749 87,006

Cedar Creek 

Anticline 9,228 3,168 12,395 9,228 3,168 12,395

Missouri 

Breaks 35,677 8,293 43,970 26,981 7,091 34,072

North of 

Yellowstone 3,372 10,655 14,027 3,372 10,655 14,027

Terry 

Badlands 212 308 520 15 82 98

Total 107,478 59,836 167,315 94,460 57,978 152,438

USFS and USDI (LANDFIRE) data
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

3-115

and Gruell 1983). High-frequency, low-intensity fires kept forests open and park-like and removed competing 

understory vegetation and down material, which resulted in irregularly shaped patches and groups of trees that 

varied in age, size, and density across the landscape. However, fire suppression practices since the early 1900s 

have resulted in most forest types and woodlands being classified in FR/CC 2 and FR/CC 3 (Map 67) 

categories, which deviate from the pre-European settlement Historic Range of Variability (Clark and Sampson 

1995) for species composition, stand structure, fire frequency and intensity, and fire size. Fire suppression 

practices have caused changes that include: 

 reduced tree growth, 

 stagnated nutrient cycles, 

 increased risk of insect and disease activity, 

 increased hazardous fuel loadings, 

 increased vertical fuel continuity, 

 changes in canopy cover and increased stand density, 

 increased risk and severity of wildfires, 

 fewer and smaller canopy openings, 

 shifts in habitat diversity, and 

 changes in visual appearance and aesthetics. 

Climate strongly affects forest productivity and species composition. In addition to the direct effects of climate 

on tree growth, climate also affects the frequency and intensity of natural disturbances such as fire, insect 

outbreaks, ice storms, and windstorms. Because different species may respond somewhat differently to 

warming, the competitive balance of species in forests may change. Trees will probably become established in 

formerly colder habitats (more northerly, higher altitude) than at present (Backlund et al. 2008).

Higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier snowmelt are extending the wildfire season and increasing 

the intensity of wildfires in the western United States (Running 2006). “In our part of the world, we can say 

conclusively that climate change is accelerating wildfire trends. We have to be ready for more active fire 

seasons more often,” said Steven Running, a University of Montana forestry professor and Nobel laureate for 

his work as a member of the IPCC (Blue 2008, n.p.). The overall importance of climate in wildfire activity 

underscores the urgency of ecological restoration and fuels management to reduce wildfire hazards to human 

communities and to mitigate ecological impacts of climate change in forests that have undergone substantial 

alterations due to past land uses (Westerling, Hidalgo, Cayan, and Swetnam 2006a).

Climate change also affects insect populations that damage and kill trees. When climatic conditions cycle into 

warmer and drier trends, beetle populations are favored with less winter mortality and faster and better 

reproductive cycles (Kolb 2009). According to Diana Six, an entomologist at the University of Montana, “A 

couple of degrees warmer could create multiple generations a year...If that happens, I expect it would be a 

disaster for all of our pine populations” (Robbins 2010, n.p.). Jesse Logan, a research entomologist for the 

USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, built on the work of other beetle researchers and created a complex 

computer model of bark beetle behavior. The model showed that cold temperatures at higher elevations made it 

impossible for mountain pine beetles to complete their life cycle in 1 year, forcing them to confront a second 

winter at a vulnerable point in their development, thereby keeping beetle populations at relatively low levels. 

However, when Logan increased the global mean temperature by 2 degrees in the model, beetles raced through 

a 1-year life cycle at higher elevations. According to Logan, “they also synchronized their emergence, allowing 

them to join forces and overwhelm tree defenses. High-mountain mass attack – and mass tree death – suddenly 

became possible” (Nijhuis 2004, n.p.).

Plains island forests (refugia of trees and tree-dependent species isolated in a grassland matrix) are at significant 

risk from climate changes because they are ecotone systems (borderline between grassland and forest 

ecosystems) and therefore sensitive to relatively small changes in environmental conditions. In addition, 

because island forests are relatively small ecosystems, they may exhibit reduced genetic diversity and greater 

vulnerability to catastrophic disturbance such as wildfire, pathogen attacks, or severe drought (Henderson, 

Hogg, Barrow, and Dolter 2002). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Forestry and Woodland Products 

3-116

The issue of climate change exacerbates the current forest health problem in southeast Montana. Forest and 

woodland health within the planning area will continue to deteriorate without implementation of silvicultural 

treatments to reduce fuel accumulations and restore existing stands to desired conditions by improving the 

overall vigor, productivity, and resiliency of forested vegetation. Low-intensity prescribed burns and thinning of 

small diameter trees would be an important management tool for ponderosa pine stands. Such activities reduce 

fuel loads and ladder fuels, decreasing the likelihood and intensity of crown fires, aiding nutrient cycling, and 

improving seedbeds and productivity of understory species (Howard 2003). 

FOREST PRODUCTS 

Most forested lands in the planning area occur in small isolated parcels with poor access, low volumes per acre, 

and limited values. Consequently, the sale and harvest of wood products has primarily occurred through small, 

negotiated sales. 

Salvage logging near Swain 

Creek in the planning area 

Forest products harvested within the planning area have 

historically accounted for less than 5 percent of total harvest 

volume in Montana (Keegan et al. 2001). Most harvesting 

has occurred on private ownerships and been supplemented 

by harvests from federal, state, and tribal lands. Since 1999, 

annual harvest levels from private lands within planning 

area counties have averaged 22 million board feet, 

representing approximately 73 percent of total harvest 

volume (S. Hayes, personal communication, May 17, 2010). 

The predominant product harvested has been sawlogs and 

other commercial products reported include house logs, 

pulpwood, residue (biomass), veneer logs, and post and 

poles. Most forest products are exported out of the planning 

area for processing in western Montana, Wyoming, and 

South Dakota because southeast Montana lacks a wood 

product manufacturing infrastructure. However, 

transportation costs to deliver products to these long 

distance markets are generally prohibitive. 

Forest product usage has been incidental on BLMadministered lands. Since 2000, only one commercial 

timber sale (a fire salvage totaling 621,000 board feet) was harvested. Green and mostly fire-killed sawlogs 

from this sale were delivered to a mill in northern Wyoming. About 60 permits per year have been issued for 

other forest products; including Christmas trees, fuel wood, and post and rail material. Non-sawlog products are 

typically used by the permittee for personal or ranch use. Sales of house logs, residue (biomass), and veneer 

logs have not occurred on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. 

Biomass 

Long distances to pulpwood processing facilities and low-return pulp markets have contributed to sporadic to 

non-existent use of small diameter forest material. Some of this material has been removed through personal use 

firewood permits and is directly related to the distance from larger population centers. Use of this material for 

biomass-related energy production has not been a factor and no such facility currently exists in the region. 

However, the Eastern Montana Biomass Task Force is currently studying the potential for such material from 

the existing forested land base (on all ownerships). Use of small diameter wood products or residue is 

encouraged by the BLM. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Livestock Grazing 

3-117

LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

GRAZING ALLOTMENTS 

The MCFO is responsible for administering livestock grazing on BLM-administered surface across the planning 

area. These BLM-administered lands are usually intermingled with private and state lands, which are grazed as 

one unit. The MCFO administers 1,776 grazing allotments comprising approximately 2,736,673 public acres 

and 546,570 public animal unit months (AUMs) (BLM 2007f; Map 16 on Map CD). Cattle are the predominant 

class of livestock authorized, which are generally cow-calf pairs (calves are sold at weaning). Most yearlings 

are replacement heifers. According to the Rangeland Administration System, permitted allocations include 

cattle on 1,728 allotments, sheep on 132 allotments, horses on 101 allotments, yearling cattle on 33 allotments, 

bison on 3 allotments, and burros on 1 allotment (BLM 2007f). There are 34 allotments (2 percent) with more 

than 10,000 acres, and 1,110 allotments (63 percent) with less than 1,000 acres, while the remaining 632 

allotments (35 percent) are between 1,000 and 10,000 acres in size. 

GRAZING HISTORY 

The history of the BLM began in 1934 prior to its formation; prior to establishment of the BLM, the General 

Land Office managed grazing on public lands outside forest perimeters (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). The 

passage of the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act initiated broad management of these lands with the establishment of the 

Grazing Service, and directed establishment of a permit system, organization of grazing districts, fee 

assessment, and consultation with local advisory boards. The melding of the Grazing Service and the General 

Land Office in 1946 created the BLM. 

Shifts in public attitudes about the use of public land in the late 1960s and early 1970s occurred concurrently 

with the passage of NEPA in 1969, which directed land managers to consider the environmental consequences 

of activities on federal lands (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). Subsequent to the NEPA and the 1973 Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. BLM decision, EISs, which were developed in part to address grazing and to 

develop an approach to meet long-term goals of public lands grazing, were prepared for every BLMadministered resource area. 

The passage of FLPMA in 1976, which requires multiple-use management of lands in the public domain, also 

reconfirmed the BLM’s ability to reduce livestock numbers if necessary (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). 

Incorporating the development of allotment management plans (AMPs) into the permit process, cooperation and 

coordination with grazing permittees during the preparation of these plans was included in FLPMA. The 1978 

Public Rangeland Improvement Act established a grazing fee formula to set annual fees for grazing on public 

lands. 

In 1986, a management approach was initiated with the goal of monitoring the long-term and short-term effects 

of grazing (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). The objective of monitoring was to provide a long-term database 

that would allow for the identification of specific problem areas and management actions necessary to correct 

those problems. The method implemented was an allotment evaluation process with a 3- to 5-year data 

compilation interval. 

In August 1995, Rangeland Reform ’94, which required the establishment of standards and guidelines to 

achieve properly functioning ecosystems in upland and riparian areas, changed the BLM’s methods and 

administrative procedures used to manage public lands (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). However, litigation has 

prevented substantial changes to these regulations although some has been proposed. The Secretary of the 

Interior approved grazing Standards and Guidelines for Montana/Dakotas on August 12, 1997 (BLM 1997c). 

Management Era (Mid-1960s to 1980) 

BLM grazing permits were adjudicated, which reviewed the limiting factors described below and established 

the extent of historical grazing, occurred from the mid-1950s to the late 1960s (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001).
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Livestock Grazing 

3-118

 Priority use: priority grazing use prior to the Taylor Grazing Act was established. All priority use 

claims were subject to a process of validation and constituted a primary permit preference limitation. 

 Base property production: a minimum base property requirement, which was based on either land or 

water, was imposed in all BLM-administered districts. In this process, assets such as private base 

property, hay fields, haystacks, pastures, and water rights were inventoried; private water flows were 

measured; and the production calculated. To meet this factor and avoid reductions in the grazing 

permit, the existing grazing allocation must not have exceeded the maximum allowable base property 

production ratio. 

 Public land carrying capacity: the adjudication period included a one-point-in-time carrying capacity 

survey of all grazing allotments. The permit was subject to reduction if, after meeting the above 

factors, the allocations exceeded the surveyed carrying capacity. However, no there were no AUM 

reductions if the carrying capacity met the permitted numbers. 

Together, these three factors determine the total of adjudicated grazing privileges (Resource Concepts, Inc. 

2001). Adjudicated grazing permits, which were referred to as base property qualifications subject to change 

with further information, included the number of AUMs suspended historically (those AUMs above the number 

of adjudicated AUMs grazed historically on BLM-administered lands). 

Following the adjudication process, grazing management systems were developed and incorporated into AMPs 

as BLM grazing management was implemented (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). Typically, grazing permits 

were adjusted again as AMPs were implemented. This management continued from the mid-1960s until the 

Natural Resources Defense Council lawsuit pushed management toward EIS development in the mid-1970s. 

Generally, BLM Soil-Vegetation Inventory Method surveys in EISs were the basis for AUM reductions during 

this period; however, objections to this method from the range livestock industry and professional range 

management specialists led to a reevaluation and eventual discontinuation of this method (Resource Concepts, 

Inc. 2001). Reevaluation of this method determined that one-point-in-time surveys could not be used to 

accurately and consistently calculate range carrying capacity. Following the discontinuation of Soil-Vegetation 

Inventory Method surveys, a program of use and vegetation trend monitoring was established, which uses 

monitoring data to evaluate the effectiveness of grazing practices in meeting RMP, rangeland program 

summary, and AMP objectives. 

To prioritize range management funds, allotments were classified as I (Improve Current Condition), M 

(Maintain Satisfactory Conditions), and C (Manage Custodially to Protect Existing Resources) based on 

resource potential, complexity of resource issues, and current management status (Resource Concepts, Inc. 

2001). 

Management Era (1980 to Present) 

BLM WO 1986 IM 1986-706 instructed that all I and M allotments be monitored and evaluated (as 5-year 

monitoring data became available), the result of which would be grazing agreements, grazing decisions, or 

documentation for the allotment file (Resource Concepts, Inc. 2001). Vegetation condition and trends are 

important components of these evaluations, which provide data for range specialists about the impacts of 

current livestock use, wild horse use, precipitation, wildfire, and other factors to vegetation and provide 

management recommendations. Changes in management, such as reductions in livestock numbers, changes in 

season of use, or other changes in grazing management (such as implementation of a grazing system), were 

implemented through agreement or decision. 

From 1956 through 1972, the BLM conducted a classification of public lands within the MCFO (Figure 3-16) 

typically referred to as the Missouri River Basin Surveys. From this effort, eight separate reports were 

generated, which provided the grazing use by AUMs for all BLM-administered lands at the time of the surveys.

The process to estimate the available forage for livestock grazing was conducted by trained individuals and 

involved intensive vegetation sampling (clipping, weighing, and ocular estimation). The BLM, in cooperation 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Livestock Grazing 

3-119

with grazing advisory boards, used the information to adjust the AUMs allocated to a grazing permit. This 

cooperative effort resulted in decreases, increases, or no changes being implemented for every grazing permit in 

the field office. These changes were implemented in a timely manner and completed prior to 1975. 

The MCFO has consisted of two 

separate resource areas, which 

eventually became planning areas: 

the Big Dry planning area and the 

Powder River planning area. Actions 

concerning levels of grazing 

allocation in these areas differed 

through time. 

For the Big Dry resource/planning 

area (1.18 million acres of BLMadministered lands), the BLM 

completed the Big Dry Vegetation 

Allocation EIS in 1983. The ROD for 

this EIS (Big Dry Area Rangeland 

Program Summary, December 1982) 

further refined grazing allocations 

and provided that the allocation of 

vegetation would be 25 percent to 

livestock and 75 percent to other 

uses (e.g., wildlife, soil protection, 

and other uses). The ROD was 

implemented and grazing permits 

were adjusted if necessary. These 

allocations were confirmed in the 

1996 Record of Decision and 

Approved Big Dry Resource Area 

Management Plan. 

Source: BLM 1958 

The BLM completed the RMP ROD for the Powder River resource/planning area (1.32 million acres of BLMadministered lands) in 1985. This ROD mimicked the actions in the Big Dry planning area and specified that 

the allocation of vegetation would be 25 percent to livestock and 75 percent to other uses (wildlife and 

watershed protection). The ROD was implemented and is reflected in the 1986 Rangeland Program Summary 

for the Powder River Resource Area. 

Since 1986, monitoring data (vegetative and levels of use) has been the basis for increasing or decreasing 

permitted use. Through this process, the MCFO has successfully changed the grazing allocations on allotments 

to ensure that healthy ecological systems are provided for future generations. 

In the early 1980s, the BLM established three categories for allotments to identify areas where management was 

potentially needed and to prioritize workloads and the use of range improvement dollars. Allotments were 

categorized as Improve Existing Resource Conditions (I), Maintain Existing Resource Conditions (M), or 

Custodial Management (C). When allotments in the planning area were originally categorized, resource 

conditions in some of the allotments placed in the I category were not necessarily in need of improvement. 

Criteria used to place allotments in the I category included the amount of public land present in the allotment; 

willingness of permittee to invest in management; opportunities for constructing range improvements; existence 

of grazing related resource conflicts; allotments with moderate to high forage production potential and 

production at low to moderate levels; the rancher’s or BLM’s identification of opportunities for improvement in 

FIGURE 3-16. HISTORICAL BUREAU OF LAND 

MANAGEMENT STUDIES IN THE MISSOURI 

RIVER BASIN (LAND CLASSIFICATION)
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Livestock Grazing 

3-120

range condition; static or downward range trends; livestock management’s potential improvement through water 

distribution; seasons of use or other factors; and opportunities for a positive economic return on public 

investments. 

Use of the allotment categorization to prioritize work subsided when Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management were implemented in 1997. The BLM IM No. 2009-018 has 

revived use of the allotment categorization and directed offices to use it to prioritize work associated with 

processing and issuing grazing authorizations (BLM 2008g). Criteria to assign allotment categorization has 

evolved to ensure land health considerations are the primary basis for monitoring the effectiveness of grazing 

management and for prioritizing the processing of grazing permits and leases. The MCFO has reviewed 

allotment categories and will continue to review to determine an allotment’s appropriate category. Current 

categorizations include 918 Custodial (C) allotments, 654 Maintain (M) allotments, and 204 Improve (I) 

allotments. 

There are 156 allotments operating under an AMP. Of these, 80 are I category allotments, 68 are M category 

allotments, and 8 are C category allotments (BLM 2007f). These AMPs describe grazing activities designed to 

meet specific resource objectives and become part of the terms and conditions of a grazing permit or lease. 

RANGELAND HEALTH 

In 1997, the Montana BLM State Director approved the Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997c). The MCFO Standards are described below. 

 Standard 1: Uplands are in PFC. 

 Standard 2: Riparian areas and wetlands are in PFC. 

 Standard 3: Water quality meets Montana State standards. 

 Standard 4: Air quality meets Montana State standards. 

 Standard 5: 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, candidates for this status, or Montana 

species of special concern). 

Guidelines for grazing management are preferred or advisable approaches to grazing management practices, and 

are provided to maintain or improve resource conditions in upland and riparian habitats available to livestock 

grazing. 

Assessments of Standards for Rangeland Health include evaluations of rangeland conditions through the 

comparison of existing conditions to the parameters for sites according to NRCS Ecological Site Descriptions. 

Assessments include the soil and vegetation characteristics and impacts of management on native species 

conditions, including sage-grouse. Ecological Site Descriptions include considerations for vegetation structure, 

composition, and habitat characteristics that would be expected for specific sites based on soils and 

precipitation. 

If Standards for Rangeland Health are not met and livestock grazing determined to be the causal factor, 

regulation directs the authorized officer to implement actions (e.g., permit modifications, range improvement 

projects) prior to the next grazing season that will move the allotment towards meeting the Standards for 

Rangeland Health (43 CFR 4180). Permit modifications include changing season of use, changing type of 

livestock, addressing carrying capacity, directing salt and mineral placement. Range improvement projects 

include both structural and nonstructural types. Examples of structural improvements include fences and water 

developments, and examples of nonstructural improvements include prescribed fire or seedings. Range 

improvement projects are not only used to improve livestock grazing management, but also to improve 

watershed conditions and enhance wildlife habitat. The design of range improvement projects addresses wildlife 

habitat needs in the project-planning process. The MCFO has completed the assessment of all of its allotments 

in relation to the Standards for Rangeland Health. Actions have been implemented in the 41 allotments (2 

percent) determined to be failing one or more of the Standards for Rangeland Health. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Livestock Grazing 

3-121

RANGELAND MONITORING 

The BLM conducts rangeland monitoring to determine compliance with Standards for Rangeland Health (or 

progress toward these standards) or AMP objectives. If monitoring indicates that progress is occurring, or 

standards and objectives are being met, management continues. However, if progress is not shown, management 

adjustments are made. Adjustments are made by agreement or decision through consultation, cooperation, and 

coordination with permittees and the interested public in accordance with legislation, regulation, and policy. 

During periods of drought, monitoring is used to assess allotment conditions. The BLM’s 2004 Policy for 

Administering Public Land Grazing in Montana, North and South Dakota During Periods of Drought describes 

how efforts will first be directed toward allotments with resource concerns, such as sage grouse habitat. 

Climate change effects to grazing are addressed during allotment monitoring and inspections for land health 

standards in coordination with the grazing permit renewal process. 

MINERALS 

GEOLOGIC RESOURCES 

The planning area is located along the eastern portion of Montana within the western part of the Great Plains 

Geologic Province. The Great Plains Province extends from the Dakotas into the eastern portions of Montana, 

Colorado, and Wyoming. The sedimentary basins within the Great Plains Province have accumulated sediments 

several miles in thickness; these sandstones, shale, limestones, and coals provide reservoirs for Montana’s fossil 

energy resources of oil, natural gas, coal, and CBNG (ALL 2001b). 

The two most important geologic structural features in the planning area are the Williston and Powder River 

(PRB) basins (Figure 3-17 and Map 68). 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 Cedar Creek Anticline are structural features that occur within the planning area and 

that separate the PRB from the Williston Basin. The Williston Basin is bound on the east and southeast by the 

Canadian Shield and Sioux uplifts, to the west and southwest by the Black Hills Uplift, Miles City Arch, and 

Porcupine and Bowdoin domes (J.A. Peterson 1996). 

Cultural sign at Glendive Short Pine 

Off-highway Vehicle Use Area in 

Dawson County
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-122

FIGURE 3-17.

STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF THE PLANNING AREA PORTIONS

OF THE POWDER RIVER AND WILLISTON BASINS

Erathem System, Series, and 

Other Divisions PRB, Montana Williston Basin, Montana

CENOZOIC

Quaternary Alluvium Alluvium

Tertiary

Pliocene Flaxville formation

Miocene

Oligocene

Eocene Wasatch formation

Paleocene Fort Union fm

Tongue River member

Lebo shale member

Tullock member

MESOZOIC

Cretaceous

Upper

Hell Creek formation Hell Creek formation

Montana Group

Fox Hills formation

Montana Group

Fox Hills formation

Pierre formation

Bearpaw shale Bearpaw shale

Judith River formation

(Parkman SS) Judith River formation

Clagget formation Clagget formation

Eagle formation (Shannon 

SS) Eagle formation

Telegraph Ck. fm. Telegraph Ck. fm.

Colorado Group

Niobrara formation

Colorado Group

Niobrara formation 1

st White SPK

Carlile formation Carlile formation

Greenhorn formation Greenhorn formation

Belle Fourche fm Belle Fourche fm

Lower

Mowry formation Mowry formation

Muddy SS Muddy SS

Skull Creek SH Skull Creek SH

Dakota Silt Dakota Silt

Dakota formation Dakota formation

Fusion formation Kootenai formation (Fusion)

Lakota formation Lakota formation

Jurassic

Morrison formation Morrison formation

Sundance 

formation

Upper Mbr

Ellis Group

Swift formation

Rierdon formation

Lower Mbr Piper 

fm

Bowes Mbr

Firemoon Mbr

Tampico Mbr

Gypsum Springs fm Nesson 

fm

Kline Mbr

Picard Mbr

Poe Mbr

Triassic

Spearfish formation Spearfish formation

Pine Salt

PALEOZOIC

Permian Phosphoria fm Minnekahta fm Minnekahta formationOpeche fm Opeche formation

Pennsylvanian

Tensleep fm Minnelusa fm Minnelusa formation

Amsden formation Tyler formation

Mississippian

Heath formation

Otter formation

Kibbey formation

Madison LS Madison GP

Charles formation

Mission Canyon LS

Lodgepole LS
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-123

FIGURE 3-17.

STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN OF THE PLANNING AREA PORTIONS

OF THE POWDER RIVER AND WILLISTON BASINS

Erathem System, Series, and 

Other Divisions PRB, Montana Williston Basin, Montana

Devonian

Bakken formation

Three Forks fm Three Forks formation

Jefferson GP Birdbear (Nisku) fm

Jefferson formation Duperow formation

Souris River formation

Dawson Bay formation

Elk Point 

Group

Prairie Evaporite

Winnipegosis formation

Ashern

Silurian Interlake fm

Interlake formation

Stonewall

Ordovician

Big Horn 

formation

Stony Mtn 

formation

Stony Mtn 

formation

Gunton member

Stoughton member

Red River fm Red River formation

Winnipeg fm Winnipeg formation

Cambrian

Grove CK fm Deadwood 

formation Deadwood formation

Gros Ventre GP

Flathead SS

PRECAMBRIAN

Proterozoic

Archean Pre-Belt Rocks Pre-Belt Rocks

Powder River Basin 

The PRB covers about 12,000 square miles, with the smaller portion in Montana (Ellis et al. 1999). The PRB 

formed through Laramide tectonics that uplifted the area to the west and, subsequently, these uplifted areas 

contributed sediments to the basin during the Late Cretaceous and Early Tertiary periods. The PRB is 

asymmetrical in shape with the strata dipping toward the basin axis, which trends northwest to southeast and is 

located near the western basin margin (Ellis, Stricker, Flores, and Bader 1998). The strata dip away from the 

surrounding topographic highs of the Bighorn Uplift to the west, the Casper Arch, Laramie Mountains, and 

Hartville Uplift to the southwest and south, and the Black Hills Uplift to the east. Along the western side of the 

basin, the strata have steep dips, averaging between 20 and 25 degrees. Along the eastern side of the basin, the 

dips are much shallower, ranging from 2 to 5 degrees (Ellis et al. 1998). 

Outcrops within the PRB consist primarily of Tertiary rocks from the Paleocene Fort Union and Eocene 

Wasatch formations. However, within the PRB portion of the planning area, rocks of the Fort Union formation 

are more numerous. The Fort Union formation is divided into three members (in descending order), the Tongue 

River, Lebo, and Tullock members. The formation consists of interbedded sandstones, siltstones, mudstones, 

carbonaceous shale, and coals. Numerous coal beds occur in the Fort Union formation and are of subbituminous rank. The Tongue River member contains the most important, minable coal beds in the Fort Union 

formation (Sholes and Daniel 1992). The coal beds are more laterally extensive and thicker within this interval. 

These coal beds are being mined and are the source of the CBNG near the western boundary of the planning 

area. The Tongue River member varies in thickness between 750 feet near the outcrop, to over 3,000 feet near 

the axis of the PRB (Roberts et al. 1999a; Roberts et al. 1999b). One of the coal beds mined in the southern 

portion of Big Horn County was over 80 feet in thickness. In addition to the Tertiary rocks, deeper Cretaceous 

strata, including the Judith River formation, Eagle and Muddy sandstones, and the Dakota and Lakota 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-124

formations, are overlain by Bearpaw shale and are present across the PRB at depths ranging from 2,000 to 9,000 

feet (Noble et al. 1982). 

Cretaceous rocks also outcrop in the planning area. This occurs primarily along the Missouri River, in the areas 

of the Poplar and Porcupine domes, along the Cedar Creek Anticline, and in the southeast portion of the 

planning area where the Black Hills Uplift has influenced the strata. The oldest Cretaceous unit that outcrops in 

the planning area is the Mowry formation, which occurs in the extreme southeast portion of the planning area. 

Williston Basin 

The Williston Basin is the other important geologic structural feature in the planning area. The Williston Basin 

is a nearly circular basin with the center located near Williston, North Dakota. The Williston Basin 

encompasses approximately 300,000 square miles extending into South Dakota and the Canadian provinces of 

Saskatchewan and Manitoba. At its deepest point, sediments are believed to be as much as 16,000 feet thick, 

with the strata becoming shallower and thinner toward the margins. It is believed that initial basin subsidence 

occurred during the Late Cambrian to Early Ordovician periods. Two prominent structural features, the Cedar 

Creek Anticline and the Poplar Dome, occur in the Montana portion of the Williston Basin (Heck, LeFever, 

Fischer, and LeFever 2002). 

The sedimentary rocks within the Williston Basin are unique because the basin contains one of the most 

complete rock records observed, with sedimentary rocks from the Cambrian through the Holocene periods 

(Schmoker 1996; Heck et al. 2002). Outcrops within the planning area of the Williston Basin consist primarily 

of Tertiary sediments from the Fort Union formation. This formation consists of sandstones, siltstones, 

mudstones, limestones, carbonaceous shale, and coals (Flores 1992). Sandstone is the most common rock type 

and limestone is the least common. The coal beds are mainly lignite in rank. Within the planning area, the Fort 

Union formation contains economic coals that are laterally extensive. Although CBNG has not been produced 

from coals within the Williston Basin, a small surface mining operation is located in the eastern portion of the 

planning area. 

Geologic Hazards 

Geologic hazards within eastern Montana consist primarily of threats from earthquakes but even these events 

are rare. Most strong earthquakes in Montana have occurred in the western third of the state. The only 

significant earthquake outside this area was a magnitude 6 event that occurred on June 24, 1943, within the 

planning area, in the southern portion of Sheridan County. A well-constructed granary located at Froid, 

Montana, was so severely damaged that wheat spilled out, and cracked plaster and minor chimney damage were 

reported at the towns of Homestead, Redstone, and Reserve, Montana (USGS 1974). 

MINERALS 

As described in the Geologic Resources section, minerals of commercial value occur throughout the planning 

area. Private entities, state governments, or the federal government own or administer mineral ownership, like 

surface administration or ownership (Map 69). The following discussion relates to leasable minerals (coal, oil 

and gas, phosphate, asphalt, sulfur, potassium, and sodium), locatable minerals (gold, silver, bentonite, uranium, 

and other metals), and mineral materials (sand, gravel, building stone, pumice, and clay) administered by the 

federal government. 

Leasable Minerals 

Coal 

There are approximately 10,924,000 BLM-administered coal acres in the planning area. Currently, five surface 

mines (Absaloka, Decker, Rosebud, Savage, and Spring Creek) produce coal in the planning area (Maps 70

through 74). The inactive Big Sky Mine is also located in this area and currently undergoing final reclamation. 

Four of the mines (Absaloka, Decker, Rosebud, and Spring Creek) mine coal beds within the Tongue River 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-125

member of the Fort Union formation and are located in the Montana portion of the PRB. This area contains 

large coal deposits, much of which is administered by the federal government. The coal is sub-bituminous in 

rank. Extensive CBNG resources are being developed in the southwestern portion of the planning area. Some of 

the coal mined in the planning area is exported out of state and the remainder of the coal is burned at minemouth located power plants. A small amount of coal is trucked in state to power plants and manufacturing 

facilities. 

The Absaloka Mine, located in Big Horn County, operates entirely on Indian coal leases. The coal is owned by 

the United States in trust for the Crow Indian Tribe. The BLM does not administer the coal leases but does 

provide review and approval authority for certain aspects of the mine plan and inspection for production 

verification to ensure maximum economic recovery of coal for the benefit of the Crow Tribe. The coal 

screening process and BLM planning efforts do not apply to Indian trust coal lands. 

The Savage Mine is a small surface operation located near Sidney, Montana, and is the only mine within the 

Montana portion of the Williston Basin. The coal (lignite in rank) is trucked to a local power plant and sugar 

beet processing facility. 

In 2006, total production from the five mines located in the planning area was about 41.49 million tons. These 

operations encompass approximately 48,790 acres (Montana Coal Council 2007). Of the 15 major coal resource 

states, Montana ranks first, with a resource base of approximately 120 billion tons, with 100 billion tons located 

within the Montana portion of the PRB. The federal government administers the majority of this coal, but only 

approximately 1.2 billion tons are considered recoverable, according to the DOE-EIA (DOE-EIA 2006). See 

Map 75 for coal development potential in the planning area. 

The Powder River RMP focused primarily on the management of federal coal resources. The principal factor 

considered for coal resource development during land use planning is the identification that states coal areas are 

acceptable for further consideration, which includes coal leasing as defined by 43 CFR 3420.1 4(e): 

“The major land use planning decision concerning the coal resource shall be the identification of areas 

acceptable for further consideration for leasing which shall be identified by the screening procedures listed 

below.” 

Four coal screens must be applied as described below. 

 Identification of Coal with Development Potential: Areas could be eliminated from further 

consideration if they do not contain coal with development potential. 

 Surface Owner Consultation: Negative surface owner views could cause lands to be eliminated from 

further consideration. 

 Application of Unsuitability Criteria: Areas can be eliminated if determined to be unsuitable for 

surface mining based upon application of a list of 20 unsuitability criteria. 

 Multiple Use Conflict Analysis: Additional areas of coal resource may be eliminated from 

consideration based on multiple use considerations if other federal resource values are determined to 

be superior to the coal resource. 

The Powder River RMP Task Force applied these coal screens to the new areas composing the recently 

modified planning area boundary because some coal areas were previously screened in previous management 

framework plan efforts. Coal areas identified during previous RMP planning efforts include 68.4 billion tons of 

federal coal designated with developmental potential, 4.62 billion tons of coal eliminated from consideration 

because of negative surface owner viewpoints, 4.76 billion tons eliminated because of application of the 

unsuitability criteria, and 4.51 billion tons eliminated because of multiple surface-use conflicts, for a total of 

54.37 billion tons of coal available for leasing. 

In the Big Dry RMP area, coal resource totals 19.28 billion tons, of which 47.5 percent (or 9.16 billion tons), 

are federal minerals. Coal is subject to individual tract analysis and lease-by-application rules (43 CFR 3420.1, 

BLM Manual H-3420-1). Any party desiring a coal lease can apply and the application would be considered 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-126

based on its own merits. The coal planning process is described in the Coal section of the Minerals Appendix. 

Oil and Gas 

Oil and gas development has been underway in the planning area since the early 20th century and is currently 

focused in two exploration and production areas, the Williston Basin (which includes the Cedar Creek 

Anticline, Poplar Dome, Williston Basin northeast, and all remaining areas within the basin) and the PRB. 

There are approximately 5.8 million acres of BLM-administered oil and gas mineral estate in the planning area 

and the RFD identified areas with high, medium, low, and very low development potential. Based on this 

analysis, approximately 49 percent of the BLM-administered oil and gas minerals were considered to have high 

development potential, approximately 31 percent considered to have medium development potential, and 20 

percent considered to have low development potential (Map 5). The BLM offers multiple oil and gas lease sales 

per year (Table 3-30). 

MBOGC compiles well completion data and APDs for wells drilled in Montana. Well data for the planning area 

was extracted from the database to define the number of registered APDs and the number of producing wells 

(MBOGC 2010). The well and field data define three currently active areas: the PRB, Williston Basin, and 

Porcupine Dome. 

Areas with a high development potential occur within the PRB, Cedar Creek Anticline, and Williston Basin 

(northeastern Montana) (see the RFD in the Minerals Appendix). The PRB contains CBNG within the Lower 

Tertiary Fort Union formation, while in the Cedar Creek Anticline and the northeastern Williston basin areas, 

oil and gas resources occur in various formations (from the Cambrian Deadwood through the Upper Cretaceous 

Eagle formations). The northeast Williston Basin and Cedar Creek Anticline areas are the two of the most active 

oil- and gas-producing regions in Montana and recent CBNG development has made the PRB one of the largest 

natural-gas-producing regions in Montana. 

As of October 2011, 

the State of Montana 

indicated that there 

were 3,733 

producing wells, 

1,086 shut in wells, 

614 active injection 

wells, and 317 

temporarily 

abandoned wells in 

the planning area. 

Seventy-seven 

percent, or 2,896, of 

these wells are 

located within the 

Williston Basin geologic area; this includes 1,634 producing wells from the Cedar Creek Anticline. The PRB 

contained 642 producing oil and gas wells. 

In 2006, natural gas and oil prices were over $7 per one thousand standard cubic feet of gas and $50 per barrel, 

respectively; both values were considerably higher than previous projections. The United States Department of 

Energy’s Energy Information Administration (DOE-EIA) had predicted a decrease in the price of these 

commodities over the next 10 years. If this occurs, it would likely result in slightly slower development rates 

than if the current price trends continue. The January 8 to January 14, 2010 issue of the Rocky Mountain Oil 

Journal listed the Williston Basin sweet crude oil price at $64.50 per barrel and Opal, Wyoming, gas pricing as 

$5.84 per thousand cubic feet. The 2010 DOE-EIA Energy Outlook projects both crude oil and natural gas 

prices to increase in the future. This would result in the rate of development predicted in the RFD. 

TABLE 3-30. 

OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES FOR THE 

MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE (2005 TO 2009)

Sale Date

(Calendar

Year)

Parcels

Offered

Parcels

Sold

Acres

Offered

Acres

Sold

Total

Bonus

Average

Bonus

per Acre

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

Total 725 373 793,498 318,101 $3,789,445.50 $11.91

Average

Annual 145 75 158,700 63,620 $757,889.10 $11.91
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-127

Proposed Carter Master Leasing Plan 

In accordance with WO guidance (BLM 2010j), a master leasing plan (MLP) area has been proposed for a 

portion of Carter County. The area is approximately 393,000 acres in size, containing 139,000 acres of BLMadministered surface; 229,000 acres of private land; and 25,000 acres of state land. The BLM administers 

approximately 282,500 acres of oil and gas with 3,678 acres currently leased. This area is within the PRB and 

contains both high potential and low potential for oil and gas development. Figures for wells that could be 

drilled and produced in the MLP area are included in the PRB numbers. 

MLPs expand the tools available to the BLM to address resource conflicts prior to leasing and present finerscale analysis for identified smaller areas than the entire RMP planning area. It can help to control the amount 

and kind of surface uses based upon current condition and identified conflicts between resource values and 

leasing. 

Resources found in the proposed MLP area include sage-grouse habitat and leks, raptor nests, a great blue heron 

rookery, big game crucial winter range, sensitive soils, riparian areas, major streams, uranium paleontological 

localities and cultural resource sites. For further discussion about cultural resources in the area, see the Cultural 

Resources section of this chapter. For further discussion regard wildlife in the area, see the Wildlife section of 

this chapter. The Little Missouri River borders the southeast corner and Boxelder Creek runs through the 

northwest corner of the MLP. Major ROWs included in the MLP Area include Montana Highway 323 and 

United States Highway 212. 

Sage-grouse habitat (139,000 acres) in the area is currently managed uniformly across the proposed MLP Area. 

Wind speeds in the area indicate a good potential for generating wind power. The Finger Buttes ACEC, 

designated for its scenic quality, is also found within the proposed MLP area. The area is currently managed 

according to VRM Class II (480 acres), VRM Class III (10,000 acres), and VRM Class IV (130,000 acres) 

objectives. 

Decker Area 

The Decker area, located in the southwestern corner of the planning area, is managed under the BLM’s 2003 

Record of Decision for the Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans, which was supplemented by 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. See the Minerals 

Appendix for more information about management of CBNG in this area. For monitoring in this area, see the 

Wildlife Monitoring and Protection Plan in the Fish and Wildlife Appendix. 

Geothermal 

Geothermal energy is heat energy contained in the rocks of the earth’s crust. Certain geologic conditions and 

processes resulted in shallow geothermal resources that underlie substantial portions of many western states, 

including land administered by the MCFO. As of 2010, there was a low level of interest in developing 

Montana’s federally owned geothermal resources. 

These shallow resources can be classified as low temperature (less than 194o F), moderate temperature (194o F 

to 302o F), and high temperature (greater than 302o F). Low and moderate temperature resources are generally 

used for heating, rather than power generation. Binary steam plants can now generate power with fluid between 

225o and 360o F.

There is limited geothermal energy potential within the planning area because it is far removed from active 

volcanic or tectonic activity. Within the planning area, known resources, discovered during the course of oil and 

gas exploration, are limited to warm and hot water occurring in Paleozoic carbonates and warm water occurring 

in Cretaceous sandstones. One documented use of geothermal energy has occurred southeast of Ashland, 

Montana, where several “dry” oil and gas wells were converted to provide warm water for stock (Sonderegger 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-128

and Bergantino 1981). The BLM has only received two inquiries since 1979 regarding the development of 

federal geothermal resources in Montana (BLM 2004f).

Locatable Minerals 

Locatable minerals are those minerals for which a mining claim can be staked. 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 and high potential for bentonite and uranium. 

The Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 22 et seq.) provides for the exploration, discovery, and mining of metallic 

and certain non-metallic minerals on federal lands. Any U.S. citizen or corporation organized under state laws 

can locate mining claims. A mining claim is located on federally administrated minerals that potentially contain 

deposits of locatable minerals. 

Exploration and mining activity on most BLM-administered lands are subject to the regulations found in 43 

CFR 3809. These regulations require that a notice be filed for all cases when an exploration proposal would 

disturb less than 5 acres. For exploration operations disturbing more than 5 acres of mining operations, a plan of 

operations (PO) is required. They further require the operator to prevent the unnecessary and undue degradation 

of the land, complete full reclamation of any disturbance, and provide a financial guaranty sufficient to cover 

100 percent of the cost of reclamation. There is no requirement to file a notice for casual use activity. 

Mining activities that disturb more than 5 acres requires the submittal of a PO that includes a mining and 

reclamation plan as well as a description of all essential measures to prevent the unnecessary and undue 

degradation of the land. The BLM also requires a financial guaranty of 100 percent of the estimated cost to 

reclaim the disturbed area. The completion of a NEPA analysis that includes an opportunity for public comment 

on the mining proposal, is also required as part of the evaluation process. 

Bentonite 

Bentonite clay is the predominate major locatable mineral in the planning area, occurring in the Cretaceous 

Belle Fourche and Mowry formations in the southeast corner of the planning area within the PRB. These 

deposits, located in southern Carter County near the town of Alzada, have been extensively mined by two 

companies. Bentonite also occurs in other Cretaceous rocks, such as the Hell Creek formation and Bearpaw 

shale. Bentonite is exposed along the Missouri River as far downstream as Brockton on the Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation, and along the axis of the Cedar Creek Anticline from Baker to Glendive. 

Because limited exposures restrict the data available regarding the quantity and quantity of bentonite, an 

accurate determination of bentonite development potential in the planning area is difficult to make. However, 

since there are two active bentonite-mining operations in southern Carter County, future development of this 

resource in the planning area is anticipated to continue (Map 76). 

Uranium 

Uranium mineralization has been documented in sandstones composing the Lower Cretaceous Fall River and 

Lakota formations in the planning area within southern Carter County. From the 1970s through the late 1980s, 

mining and energy companies completed thousands of reconnaissance and closely spaced delineation drill 

holes. 

Compilation and analysis of these data indicate the potential to expand existing mineralized areas. Meetings 

with state regulators have been conducted with the intention of permitting several of these projects for 

continued exploration and development. At this time, the exploration activity is being conducted on private 

land, where BLM has no management authority but some uranium mineralization on BLM-administered land in 

this area is anticipated and exploration proposals could be forthcoming. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Minerals 

3-129

It is too early to determine if the uranium deposits that occur in the planning area will be developed but, if 

continued exploration efforts result in the identification of sufficient minable reserves, it is anticipated that 

development of this resource may occur. Previous testing from the 1970s and 1980s indicates that conditions 

are favorable for in situ uranium recovery. This mining method would result in a smaller environmental 

footprint when compared to traditional mining methods (Map 77). 

Gold 

In the 1930s, gold placer mining occurred in the Yellowstone River as far downstream as Miles City, but there 

is no record of the quantity produced. Because gold is rare and extremely fine-grained, gold mining is 

considered a recreational activity in the planning area. 

Mineral Materials 

Federal mineral materials consist of sand and gravel used for road surfacing and construction projects These 

mineral materials are dispensed in the best interest of the public while providing for reclamation of mined lands 

and preventing unnecessary degradation of non-mineral resources. Mineral materials occurring within the 

planning area consist primarily of clinker, sand, and gravel (with small amounts of petrified wood, agate, and 

building stone). Mineral materials occurring on public land are reserved to the government and the land 

patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act (30 U.S.C. 54 and 43 U.S.C. 299). 

Because there are minimal gravel deposits and scoria in the planning area, clinker or scoria is commonly used in 

place of gravel for road-surfacing material. Clinker is reddish to black colored, heat-hardened rock formed by 

the burning of coal beds that thermally alter the overlying strata. Within the Fort Union formation, clinker 

covers approximately 1,500 square miles in the planning area and commonly caps ridges to form higher 

topographic landscapes. Approximately 50 to 90 billion cubic yards of clinker are present in the planning area. 

Coal mines located in the western portion of the planning area use clinker for surfacing haul roads and 

construction pads for structures and equipment. 

Sand and gravel deposits occur in the major river valleys and cap terraces that are adjacent to and overlying 

some rivers. Sand and gravel terraces commonly occur approximately 300 feet above the Yellowstone River. 

Southwest of Forsyth, these deposits cap ridges up to 1,000 feet above the Yellowstone River. Smaller terrace 

deposits consisting of coarse quartz sand occur along Little Beaver Creek, north of Ekalaka. Several firms mine 

sand and gravel for road and construction projects in this area. 

In the future, clinker, sand, and gravel will continue to be used for road surfacing and construction projects, 

while additional coal and CBNG development may increase the use of clinker. As long as the clinker remains 

within the boundary of the lease and is used for lease development, no charge is assessed for clinker removed in 

the process of extracting coal from under a federal lease. As mentioned above, mineral materials are reserved to 

the government on public lands and lands patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act. Within the 

planning area, there are numerous active pits for mineral materials. The number and location of these pits are 

related by the number and location of ongoing construction projects. With the increase in oil and gas drilling in 

the planning area, the demand for scoria use in access road and drill pad construction has increased. Mineral 

materials may be obtained under a free use permit issued by federal, state, or local government agencies but the 

permit can only be sold to individuals or corporations. Limited amounts of petrified wood and agate may be 

collected for casual use without charge. 

RECREATION 

Recreation is a part of most lifestyles and an important element in overall quality of life. Lands within the 

planning area offer a diverse array of recreational activities and provide broad spectrum of recreational 

experience opportunities (Map 48). Recreational opportunities are available to the public on all BLMadministered lands with legal access. Recreation activities available within the planning area include hunting, 

wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, OHV use, rock collecting, mountain 

biking, floating, horseback riding, photography, and snowmobiling. However, the most intensive, area-wide 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Recreation 

3-130

recreational use occurs during the big game hunting season. The majority of BLM-administered lands in the 

planning area contain populations of big game, at least seasonally, that attract hunters from throughout the state 

and entire country. Fishing opportunities include fishery reservoirs offering trout and bass and winter months 

provide opportunities for ice fishing. To a limited extent, public lands have access to the Yellowstone and 

Missouri rivers where catfish, walleye, sauger, sturgeon, pike, and bass are available. 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT AREAS 

The recreation management areas are classified as either special recreation management areas (SMRA) or 

extensive recreation management area (ERMA). The recreation management areas are land units in which 

Recreation and Visitor Services objectives are recognized as a primary resource management consideration and 

specific management is required to protect the recreation opportunities. The recreation management area 

designation is based on recreation demand and issues, recreation setting characteristics, resolving use or user 

conflicts, compatibility with other resource uses, and resource protection needs. The BLM will use Recreation 

Setting Characteristics classifications to manage for a variety of recreation opportunities, including degree of 

development (see the Recreation Appendix for these classifications). All BLM-administered public lands are 

classified in one of three Recreation Management Area categories, as described below. 

 SRMAs are administrative units where the existing or proposed recreation opportunities and recreation 

setting characteristics are recognized for their unique value, importance or distinctiveness, particularly 

in comparison to other areas used for recreation. Management focus is to protect and enhance a 

targeted set of activities, experiences, benefits, and desired recreation setting characteristics. 

Recreation and Visitor Services management is recognized as the predominant land use planning 

focus. 

 The ERMAs are administrative units that require specific management consideration in order to 

address recreation use, demand, or Recreation and Visitor Services program investments. Management 

focus for ERMAs is to support and sustain the principal recreation activities and the associated 

qualities and conditions of the ERMA. 

 Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas are all lands not designated as a 

SRMA or an ERMA. Management focus is to meet basic Recreation and Visitor Services and resource 

stewardship needs for these areas. 

Special Recreation Management Areas 

The MCFO has identified three SRMAs in the planning area to direct recreation program priorities toward areas 

with high resource values, elevated public concern, or significant amounts of recreational activities. The three 

areas currently managed as SRMAs include the Powder River Depot, Calypso, and Lewis and Clark Trail. 

Summaries of SRMAs in the planning area follow. 

Powder River Depot SRMA 

The Powder River Depot SRMA is located approximately 6 miles southwest of Terry, Montana, and contains 

approximately 162 acres and 2 miles of river frontage along the Yellowstone and Powder rivers (Map 78). The 

SRMA includes a portion of the Lewis and Clark National Trail as well as views of Sheridan Butte and the 

Terry Badlands WSA. The area is also located within a portion of the Powder River Depot ACEC. The SRMA 

is popular for dispersed recreation, particularly fishing. Other recreational uses include rock collecting, driving 

for pleasure, wildlife viewing, hunting, photography, and camping. Historians have additional interest in the 

location because the area is within a cultural complex rich with early history. There are two-track roads leading 

to noticeable, primitive campsites in the area. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Recreation 

3-131

Calypso SRMA 

The Calypso SRMA is approximately 71 acres and located next to the Terry Badlands WSA and along the 

Yellowstone River (Map 78). The SRMA includes a portion of the Lewis and Clark National Trail and is a 

popular fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, sightseeing, and wildlife-viewing area. Dispersed recreation 

occurs within this SRMA, including primitive camping opportunities. 

Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA 

The Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA is a corridor that encompasses a portion of the Missouri and Yellowstone 

rivers and totaling about 16,350 acres of BLM-administered land (Map 49). This SRMA includes the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail, a developed recreation site, and dispersed use sites along the river shoreline. 

Primary recreation opportunities include fishing, camping, power boating, river floating, swimming, hiking, 

hunting, and wildlife viewing. See the Special Designation Area section for more information about the Lewis 

and Clark Trail. 

Other Areas 

In areas in which recreation resources receive heavy use, developed recreation sites are often constructed or 

planned for to aid in managing impacts. Other areas of high interest to recreational users that are not currently 

SRMAs include: 

 Big Sky Back Country Byway (Map 48), 

 Dean S. Reservoir (Map 79), 

 Glendive Short Pine OHV Area (Map 27), 

 Hay Draw TMA (Map 80), 

 Knowlton TMA (Map 81), 

 Howrey Island (Map 82),

 Matthews Recreation Area (Map 83), 

 Moorhead Recreation Area (Map 84), 

 Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area (Map 85), 

 Strawberry Hill Recreation Area (Map 86), and 

 Terry OHV Area (Map 28). 

Proposed Special Recreation Management Areas 

Proposed SRMAs include Dean S. Reservoir, Glendive Short Pine OHV Area, Howrey Island, Matthews 

Recreation Area, Moorhead Recreation Area, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, and the Terry OHV 

Area. The three existing SRMAs will continue to be managed as such. Descriptions of proposed SRMAs 

follow. 

Dean S. Reservoir 

Dean S. Reservoir is located approximately 11 miles east of Miles City, Montana. This proposed SRMA 

includes fire pits and picnic tables enclosed within a fenced reservoir. In the past, the reservoir has been stocked 

with fish, including trout and bass. During low water years or drought years, the reservoir is not deep enough to 

sustain a fish population. Primary recreation opportunities include fishing, camping, wildlife viewing, short 

hikes, photography, sledding, and ice skating. 

Glendive Short Pine OHV Area 

The Glendive Short Pines OHV Area is an open OHV area on approximately 2,800 acres of BLM-administered 

land. The area is located approximately 6 miles south of Glendive, Montana. The Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail and Lewis and Clark SRMA are very close to the northwest boundary of the OHV Area. A vault 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Recreation 

3-132

toilet, OHV loading ramp, and kiosk are located within the site. Primary recreation opportunities include OHV 

use, hunting, camping, and snowmobiling along with some dispersed use such as occasional rock collection and 

hiking. 

Howrey Island 

Howrey Island is located approximately 6 miles southwest of Hysham, Montana, on approximately 600 acres of 

BLM-administered land. The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and the Lewis and Clark SRMA are 

within the boundary of Howrey Island. The area includes a boat ramp, parking area, vault toilet, AmericanDisabilities-Act-compliant concrete trail and picnic tables, fire pits, and benches along the trail. Primary 

recreation activities include water-related activities such as fishing and boating, wildlife viewing, hiking, 

camping, hunting, biking, bird watching, and photography. 

Matthews Recreation Area 

Matthews Recreation Area is located approximately 9 miles northeast of Miles City, Montana, on 

approximately 90 acres of BLM-administered land. The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail and the Lewis 

and Clark SRMA are within the boundary of Matthews Recreation Area. Amenities at the site include a ramada, 

American Disabilities Act-compliant fishing platform, vault toilet, and campground host area and picnic tables, 

fire pits, and fire grills. Primary recreation activities include fishing, camping, and hiking. Hunting is allowed 

with a shotgun or bow and arrow. 

Moorhead Recreation Area 

The Moorhead Recreation Area is located approximately 30 miles southwest of Broadus, Montana, and about 4 

miles north of the Wyoming border. The campground is on approximately 15 acres of BLM-administered land. 

The area includes a vault toilet and picnic tables and fire rings. Concrete foundations, remnants of a historical 

dam project that was never completed, are located on a hill above the campground. Primary recreation activities 

include camping, picnicking, and hiking. The campground receives heavy use during hunting season. 

Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area 

Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area is located approximately 18 miles south of Miles City, Montana. 

There are several access points to this approximately 21,000 acres of BLM-administered land. The lands were 

part of a land exchange completed in 2010. There are no amenities at the site. Primary recreation activities 

include hunting, hiking, mountain biking, wildlife viewing, sledding, snowmobiling, and horseback riding. 

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area 

Strawberry Hill Recreation Area is located 8 miles east of Miles City, Montana, on approximately 4,200 acres 

of BLM-administered land. The entrance to the recreation area is on state land, which contains a ROW for 

public access. The area includes a parking area, and primary recreation activities include hiking, mountain 

biking, horseback riding, and picnicking. During the winter, popular activities include snowshoeing, sledding, 

and snowmobiling. 

Terry OHV Area 

The Terry OHV Area is located approximately 2 miles north of Terry, Montana, on approximately 100 acres of 

BLM-administered land. The area is a designated open OHV area. The Lewis and Clark SRMA is near the 

southern boundary of the OHV area. Primary recreation activities include OHV use and some hunting. 

The remainder of the planning area (those areas not managed as SRMAs or national back country byways) can 

also be managed as ERMAs and open to dispersed recreational use with minimal regulatory constraints. 

Recreational activities within the ERMA generally occur in combination with other resource activities. The 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Recreation 

3-133

BLM management within ERMAs is generally limited to custodial actions to prevent conflicts between resource 

uses and provide for the health and safety of the public and the health of the lands. 

RECREATION USE 

The Recreation Management Information System estimates participation of recreational activities recorded at 

BLM-administered sites and areas. Estimates are based on observations and professional judgment because 

there are no fee sites to record registration within the planning area. Visitation rates are estimated by numbers of 

participants and visitor days. Participants are the actual number of people who take part in a recreational 

activity. A visitor day is a common unit of measure of recreation used among federal agencies and one visitor 

day represents an aggregate of 12 visitor hours at a site or area. (It should be noted that the number of 

participants and the number of visitors might differ because one visitor can participate in several recreational 

activities and recorded as a participant several times.) Increases or decreases in visitation to some areas may 

result from gas prices; drought cycle influences on water levels in waterbodies, streams, or rivers; or other 

influences that affect local tourism. Reported recreation-related visitor use days over the last 5 years in the 

planning area are estimated at over 506,731 visits. Adjustments made in 2009 to account for underreported 

dispersed use across the planning area more narrowly estimate visitor use at over 106,000 visits annually. 

Estimation protocols and technologies to inventory visitor days continue to evolve. 

The highest participation by activity include hunting, wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, fishing, picnicking, 

camping, target practice, and hiking. Hunting had the most visitor days out of the top 10 recreation activities in 

the planning area, with approximately 136,692 participants spending more than 59,583 visitor days in 2009 

alone. Approximately 82,466 participants viewed wildlife for more than 12,069 visitor days, while 

approximately 8,678 participants spent more than 2,165 days fishing and 9,099 participants used 11,580 visitor 

days for camping. 

Popular activities within developed recreation sites vary for each site. For example, OHV use at the Glendive 

Short Pine OHV area averages approximately 2,000 participants and 1,000 visitor days annually, Knowlton and 

Hay Draw TMAs are very popular for dispersed big game hunting and camping, and Matthews and Howrey 

Island are popular for fishing, day use, and camping. 

SPECIAL RECREATION PERMITS 

The MCFO administers special recreation permits to manage organized commercial and noncommercial 

recreation activities. Special recreation permits are issued to accommodate six categories of recreational use, as 

follows: commercial, competitive, vending, individual or group use in special areas, organized group activity, 

and event use. Lengths of permits depend on the activities proposed, areas in question, and the past record of the 

potential permittee. Permits may be issued for periods of up to 10 years but are for day use only. 

The MCFO manages approximately 50 special recreation permits each year, and the primary activity for these 

permits is big game hunting. Most hunting outfitter or guides pursue mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, 

elk, and upland birds. Currently, there are no hunting camps existing within the planning area. 

Special recreation permits are also issued for OHV group riding events, paleontological events, trail runs, 

horseback riding, and trail rides. All existing permits have been issued on a first-come, first-served basis. Fee 

collecting for these special recreation permits are used to offset administrative costs, monitor approved 

activities, and protect recreation resource values for future use. 

Trends 

The current trends in recreational use in the planning area indicate a steady increase. Many of the recreational 

activities are directly tied to various natural resources and correlation between the condition of the resources 

and the number of users. The recreation trends tied most directly to resource conditions are those that require 

healthy wildlife populations. These include hunting and fishing recreation trends. Annual precipitation will 

affect the level of rivers, reservoirs, and streams and related recreation, such as fishing and floating. Given 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Recreation 

3-134

favorable conditions for these resources, their recreational use will likely continue to rise. 

 

Tourism is an important component of Montana’s economy, creating a significant demand for outdoor 

recreation facilities. State and regional tourism marketing efforts are directed at attracting higher value, lower 

impact non-resident visitors to maximize tourism revenues while minimizing the tourism’s effect on 

Montanans. Since demand for both motorized and non-motorized recreation access will likely continue to 

increase, facilities will be needed to effectively meet this demand and simultaneously manage Montana’s 

natural and cultural assets in a sustainable manner. The rising public demand for recreational opportunities will 

likely increase the complexity of managing dispersed recreation. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY 

Renewable energy includes solar power, wind, biomass, and geothermal resources (see the Forestry section for 

biomass and the Minerals section for geothermal leasing). As demand for clean and viable energy to power the 

nation has increased, consideration of renewable energy sources available on public lands has come to the 

forefront of land management planning. No special management provisions were considered in the Powder 

River and Big Dry RMPs specifically concerning renewable energy resources (BLM 1985c and 1996). 

Applications for renewable energy ROWs for wind and solar projects would be analyzed on a case-by-case 

basis, although there has been no demand for these projects on public lands in the planning area to date. 

In cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the BLM assessed renewable energy 

resources on public lands in the western United States (BLM and NREL 2003). The assessment reviewed the 

potential for concentrated solar power, photovoltaic, wind, biomass, and geothermal on BLM-, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA)-, and USFS-administered lands in the west. Hydropower was not addressed in the BLM and 

NREL report. The BLM and NREL report did not identify the MCFO as one of the top 25 BLM planning units 

with the highest potential for any kind of renewable energy but the MCFO was rated as favorable for wind 

power with a high potential for renewable power. 

In June 2005, the BLM also prepared a Wind Energy Development Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (PEIS) to evaluate issues associated with wind energy development on western public lands 

administered by the BLM. The PEIS established policies and best management practices (BMPs) for the 

administration of wind energy development activities and minimum requirements for mitigation measures for 

wind projects on BLM-administered lands. Analyses conducted in this PEIS support the amendment of specific 

land use plans where potentially developable wind resources are located. The plan covers an 11-state study area 

and identifies BLM RMPs that should be amended under this PEIS; however, this RMP and the previous RMPs 

managed by the MCFO (the Powder River and Big Dry RMPs) are not mentioned in the PEIS because this 

RMP revision addresses this issue directly. Proposed amendments include adoption of the proposed 

programmatic policies and BMPs as well as identification of specific areas where wind energy development 

would not be allowed. WO IM No. 2009-043 (BLM 2008e) updates and clarifies the policies and BMPs 

provided in this PEIS. BLM’s Washington IM 2010-077 also provides guidance for wind energy cases. 

The DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the BLM are currently preparing a PEIS to 

evaluate utility-scale solar energy development, amend relevant BLM land use plans in consideration of 

establishment of a new BLM solar energy development program, and develop and implement agency-specific 

programs. These programs would facilitate environmentally responsible utility-scale solar energy development 

by establishing environmental policies and mitigation strategies related to solar energy development in six 

western states (Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, and Utah). The study area has been 

limited to these six states because they encompass the most prospective solar energy resources suitable for 

utility-scale development over the next 20 years. Current BLM guidance to facilitate the processing of ROW 

applications for solar energy projects on public lands can be found in the BLM’s WO IM No. 2007-097, 2009-

013 (2008), 2010-077, 2010-141, and 2011-003 (2010).
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Renewable Energy 

3-135

WIND RESOURCES 

The American Wind Energy Association ranks Montana fifth in the nation for wind-energy potential (AWEA 

2010). As a renewable resource, wind is classified according to wind power classes, which are based on typical 

wind speeds. These classes range from Class 1 (the lowest) to Class 7 (the highest). In general, at 50 meters, 

wind power Class 4 or higher can be useful for generating wind power with large turbines. Class 4 and above 

are considered to have high potential for development based on 50-meter mapping, although some Class 3 areas 

may have increased potential for development based on higher wind speeds at 80-meter heights. Possible high 

wind shear could cause higher wind power class values at 80 meters than those shown on the 50-meter map in 

particular locations in the Class 3 areas. This map indicates that the planning area has wind resources consistent 

with utility-scale production. Approximately 548,000 acres of BLM administered land within the planning area 

are rated at a Level 4 (Good) or above for wind potential. Table 3-31 displays the acres in the planning area by 

their wind potential, Classes 1 through 7. Map 87 identifies the wind potential of BLM-administered surface in 

the planning area, Classes 1 through 7, based on 50-meter data, by low (Classes 1 and 2), moderate (Class 3), 

and high potential (Classes 4 through 7). 

Since the completion of the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs, there have been no wind energy generation 

facilities authorized on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. Although there have been a few 

inquiries about the possibility of erecting wind turbines sites on BLM-administered lands, no applications have 

been submitted and subsequently no authorizations have occurred. 

Montana Dakota Utility’s Diamond Willow Wind Farm near Baker, Montana, is the only known existing (there 

are no known proposed) utility-scale wind project within the planning area (Montana Department of Commerce 

2010b). It is not located on BLM-administered lands. This facility, which was completed in 2008, includes 13 

turbines and a total capacity of 19.5 megawatts (additional turbines may be added to this site in the future). 

However, smaller proposals (less than 10 towers) may be encountered in the near future because of incentives 

offered to municipalities for such development. Despite this current low level of interest in wind energy, it is 

possible that with improvements in technology and a more favorable economic climate, interest in the 

development of wind energy facilities on public lands will increase. 

TABLE 3-31.

WIND POTENTIAL IN THE PLANNING AREA

Wind Power 

Class

and

Resource 

Potential

BLMadministered 

Acres in the 

Planning Area

and Percentage 

of Planning 

Area (%)

BLMadministered 

Acres of Wind 

Potential and 

Percentage of 

Planning Area 

(%)

Total Acres in 

the Planning 

Area and 

Percentage of 

Planning Area 

(%)

Total Acres of 

Wind Potential

and Percentage 

of Planning 

Area (%)

Class 1: Poor 68,333 (2) 602,520 

(22)(Low)

877,738 (3) 6,769,529 (26)

Class 2: (Low)

Marginal 534,187 (19) 5,891,791 (23)

Class 3: Fair 1,608,731 (58) 1,608,731 (58) 

(Moderate) 14,964,377 (58) 14,964,377 (58)(Moderate)

Class 4: Good 528,868 (19)

547,904 

(20)(High)

4,004,091 (15)

4,110,287 (16)

(High)

Class 5: 

Excellent 18,335 (<1) 102,638 (<1)

Class 6: 

Outstanding 701 (<1) 3,558 (<1)

Class 7: 

Superb 0 (0) 0 (0)
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Renewable Energy 

3-136

SOLAR RESOURCES 

Utility-scale solar energy facilities are facilities that can generate large amounts of electricity for direct input to 

the electricity transmission grid. Solar energy technologies potentially suitable for use in utility-scale 

applications include concentrating solar power technologies and photovoltaic technologies. 

Concentrating solar power plants generate electric power by using mirrors to concentrate (focus) the sun's 

energy and convert it into high-temperature heat, which is then channeled through a conventional generator. 

The plants consist of two parts: one that collects solar energy and converts it to heat and another that converts 

the heat energy to electricity. The BLM and NREL study (2003) did not identify any BLM-administered lands 

within the planning area with a high potential for this type of energy source and indicated that the potential for 

this type of renewable energy lies primarily in states to the south and southwest of Montana. In keeping with 

this assessment, the MCFO has not had any expressions of interest in developing concentrating solar power 

facilities on public lands. 

Photovoltaic technologies convert the sun's radiant energy directly to electricity. Photovoltaic technologies use 

solar panels to capture light energy from the sun and then use that light energy to drive an electric current. The 

BLM and NREL study (2003) did not identify the MCFO as one of the top 25 BLM planning areas for 

photovoltaic potential. The MCFO has not authorized any photovoltaic facilities strictly for commercial power 

production, nor has interest been expressed by industry in developing such facilities on BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area. Since the completion of the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs, there have been no 

solar energy facilities authorized on BLM-administered lands within the planning area. There are no known 

existing or proposed utility-scale solar projects within the planning area (Montana Department of Commerce 

2010b). 

Localized, small-scale solar projects utilizing photovoltaic panels to power livestock wells occur in the planning 

area, but are developed under specific resource program provisions rather than authorized via a ROW grant. 

TRANSPORTATION 

This section describes transportation (roads, primitive roads, trails, bridges, and culverts), maintenance, and 

construction. Travel route availability decisions (Open, Closed, or Limited) are determined through site-specific 

travel management plans as discussed under the OHV section. Types and usage of recreation and 

communication sites are discussed under Recreation and Lands and Realty.

ROADS AND TRAILS 

Transportation system roads provide physical access to public, state, private, and other federal lands throughout 

the planning area. Demands for the existing transportation network are directly related to the resources and uses 

found on the public lands. The transportation system provides access for commercial activities (e.g., livestock 

grazing, timber harvest, minerals development, outfitting and guiding), non-commercial activities and casual 

use (e.g., OHV use, hunting, fishing, firewood gathering, recreational driving), and administrative access to 

manage resources. 

In compliance with BLM’s Roads and Trails Terminology, Technical Note 422 (BLM 2006c), the 

transportation system represents the sum of the BLM’s recognized inventory of linear features (roads, primitive 

roads, and trails). The terms roads, primitive roads, and trails describe specific categories of transportation 

linear features and represent subsets of the BLM’s transportation system (Table 3-32). 

The BLM uses facilities asset management as the system for the management of all BLM transportation system 

assets. In this context, the term “assets” refers to linear features that have been formally identified (or 

designated) as BLM assets. The planning area has approximately 8,361 lane miles of BLM-administered system 

roads, and 514 lane miles of these are recorded in facilities asset management. However, this information will 

change as travel plans are completed 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Transportation 

3-137

Maintenance intensities provide guidance for appropriate standards of care to recognized routes within the BLM 

and provide consistent objectives and standards for the care and maintenance of BLM routes according to 

identified management objectives. 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 annual route 

maintenance (see the Travel and Maintenance Appendix for more information regarding maintenance 

intensities). 

The maintenance intensities have not yet 

been determined for the facilities asset 

management roads. The BLM anticipates 

the roads will be identified as Level 1 or 

Level 3. Level 1 roads are typically twotrack roads that receive minimal 

maintenance. Level 3 roads are used more 

frequently than Level 1 roads and may 

access or connect larger blocks of public 

land or are important for recreational and 

commercial access. These roads do receive 

some level of maintenance that is generally 

intended to keep the route open for the 

majority of the year. 

Almost all of the roads are single lane and 

all Level 1 roads are natural material. Level 3 roads have a variation of natural material to some aggregate. A 

few high usage roads are double lane (greater than 15 feet in width). Culverts and cattle guards on the roads are 

constructed and maintained as part of the transportation system. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2007, Comprehensive Condition Assessments of Bureau roads are performed on a 10-

year cycle and inspected after events (such as severe storms) to determine emergency actions or priority 

maintenance needs. These roads do not include roads that fall within the boundaries of administrative and 

recreation sites. Roads within these boundaries are assessed during the recreation or administrative site 

assessments, which are used to assist in the identification and prioritization of maintenance needs. 

An average of 100 to 120 lane miles of BLM-administered road is maintained annually by the MCFO. The 

MCFO also maintains 4 miles of trails. While the maintenance intensities are identified for roads, funding often 

does not allow the BLM to meet the maintenance provisions of the assigned levels. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND OHV USE 

Travel management and OHV use BLM regulations that require that all BLM-administered lands be designated 

as Open, Limited, or Closed to OHVs (43 CFR 8342.1). As part of the travel management planning process, the 

designation will change from limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails to limited to designated roads, 

primitive roads, and trails upon the completion of a travel management plan. Public expectations and demand 

for motorized and non-motorized recreation has changed substantially. Advances in motorized and nonmotorized recreation travel technology and use have increased the public’s ability to traverse conditions and 

terrains not previously predicted. As a result, there is increased conflict between motorized and non-motorized 

users. Public interest and demand for motorized and non-motorized travel opportunities are expected to 

continue to increase. Travel management will continue to be addressed at the site-specific planning level. The 

vast majority of OHV use throughout the planning area is limited to existing roads and trails. 

TABLE 3-32. 

TRANSPORTATION LINEAR FEATURE DEFINITIONS

Road

A linear route declared a road by the owner, 

managed for use by low-clearance vehicles 

having four or more wheels, and maintained 

for regular and continuous use.

Primitive 

Road

A linear route managed for use by four-wheel 

drive or high-clearance vehicles. Primitive 

roads do not normally meet any BLM road 

design standards.

Trail

A linear route managed for human-powered, 

stock, or OHV forms of transportation or for 

historical or heritage values. Trails are not 

generally managed for use by four-wheel 

drive or high-clearance vehicles.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Travel Management and OHV Use 

3-138

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANS 

Areas within the planning area with existing travel plans include the Knowlton and Hay Draw Travel 

Management Areas (TMAs). Brief descriptions of these areas follow. 

The Knowlton TMA is located approximately 40 air miles east of Miles City, in portions of Custer and Fallon 

counties (Map 81). The area encompasses approximately 40,000 acres of BLM-administered land with 

approximately 17,000 acres with legal public access. The proposal was developed using a community-based 

decision making process facilitated by the Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council. The objectives of the 

plan are to increase wildlife security through a reduction in motorized vehicle impacts, reduce motorized 

vehicle impacts to non-motorized users, and provide some allowance for motorized, on-road big game retrieval 

to assist hunters in retrieving downed big game animals. 

The Hay Draw TMA is located in Carter County, approximately 21 air miles east of Broadus, Montana (Map 

80). The project area encompasses approximately 19,300 acres of BLM-administered lands and approximately 

12,840 acres of school trust land. The objectives of the plan are to provide motorized access within a reasonable 

distance of hunting opportunities on BLM-administered land and maintain the integrity of the crucial mule deer 

and pronghorn winter range habitat. 

LEVEL AND TRENDS OF OHV USE 

Increased OHV use has emerged as a significant issue in the planning area because of concerns related to 

potential resource degradation due to high levels of OHV use. General estimates of OHV use in the planning 

area can be assumed through review of the estimates prepared for Montana public lands as part of the Final Offhighway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, 

and Portions of South Dakota (BLM and USFS 2001). This report estimated that the number of trucks used in 

off-highway applications increased 12 percent between 1990 and 1998, while ATVs and motorcycles 

(considered a separate group in this report) increased by 61 percent (Table 3-33).

Furthermore, recreational use projections indicate that OHV use could reach 24,597 ATVs and motorcycles and 

33,727 trucks by 2005. By 2015, these numbers are projected to increase to 36,249 ATVs and motorcycles and 

36,797 trucks (BLM and USFS 2001). The above data suggest that OHV use is one of the fastest growing 

activities in Montana. With the registration of OHVs increasing on an annual basis, it is expected that OHV use 

will continue to increase throughout all public lands in Montana, including the planning area. 

TYPE OF OHV USE 

OHV use is a popular method to explore public lands, and it 

provides access for non-motorized recreational purposes, such as 

fishing, hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, and primitive 

camping opportunities. Motorized OHV use in the planning area 

consists primarily of riding and driving ATVs, motorcycles, and 

full-sized trucks and vehicles for pleasure. Participation in these 

recreational activities varies by season, topography, vegetative 

cover, and number of people taking part in the activity. Public 

lands in the planning area provide many opportunities for OHV 

use, varying from backcountry to concentrated-use areas. 

Non-recreational OHV use of the planning area includes 

agricultural management, energy development, and landmanagement activities. Employees of government agencies, 

ranchers, energy companies, and utility providers are permitted 

users who utilize OHVs to access and maintain the infrastructure 

required for the continued operation and maintenance of their facilities. 

TABLE 3-33. 

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF 

VEHICLES 

USED OFF-HIGHWAY IN 

MONTANA (1990 TO 1998)

Year Trucks ATVs and 

Motorcycles Total

1990 24,162 7,399 31,561

1991 23,930 8,404 32,334

1992 24,706 10,020 34,726

1993 26,193 11,729 37,922

1994 26,584 13,165 39,749

1995 26,919 14,072 40,991

1996 26,941 15,352 42,293

1997 27,308 16,898 44,206

1998 27,423 18,953 46,376

Source: BLM and USFS 2001
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Travel Management and OHV Use 

3-139

Snowmobile use also occurs within the planning area and snowmobile use is mostly unrestricted on BLMadministered lands within the planning area when snow cover is adequate. However, snowmobiles are not 

considered OHVs as defined in the Final Off-highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Plan Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota (BLM and USFS 2001) because 

they are usually driven on a layer of snow and their environmental effects are different from those of motorized, 

wheeled OHVs. 

OFF-HIGHWAY VEHICLE ACCESS 

Existing roads and trails, some of which are user created, provide access to the general areas where most 

recreation activities take place on public lands in the planning area. Roads and trails already lead to most sitespecific recreation spots, such as dispersed camping and picnicking sites, water-related access sites, shooting 

areas, and viewing areas but the public land ownership pattern in the planning area (and Montana) is highly 

fragmented, which results in access difficulties and potential conflict. Conflicts over access can take place 

wherever fragmented ownership occurs (such as along waterways) or wherever prime resource values occur and 

recreation or other user demands are high. Even where access exists, the lack of boundary markers and adequate 

maps often contributes to confusion about access and can result in conflicts among the public, public land 

administrators, and owners of associated or intermingled private lands. 

REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE USE 

Demand for access to public lands is expected to increase while public access to private lands is expected to 

decrease over time, and a number of factors, including public awareness, increased tourism, and increased 

restrictions by private landowners, are responsible for this trend. Federal, state, and local agency marketing 

efforts to increase tourism are expected to increase visitation. With an increase in non-local users, demand for 

commercially guided activities (such as hunting, fishing, and sightseeing) will increase. However, demand is 

expected to increase much faster than the BLM’s ability to acquire new access. Continued private acquisition 

and fencing is expected to decrease land availability and limit access, causing local users’ demands on public 

land to increase. OHV use will continue into the future; however, the general lack of understanding of land use 

ethics have increased inappropriate uses of OHVs on federal lands and represent management challenges for the 

BLM. 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Lands and realty involves issues of land disposal, acquisition, use, ROW corridors, withdrawals, and 

transportation systems. Although FLPMA directed the BLM to retain public lands, lands and realty issues arise 

regularly, often accompanying other resources or resource concerns. This section addresses each of these areas 

as they apply to the planning area. 

LANDS AND REALTY OWNERSHIP PATTERNS 

The MCFO administers approximately 2.8 million surface acres and 11.0 million subsurface acres of mineral 

estate in eastern Montana. (See Table 1-1 in Chapter 1 for more information.) The 17-county planning area 

consists of more than 25 million surface acres and includes all of Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, 

Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, and Wibaux 

counties and portions of Big Horn and Valley counties. Miles City is the largest community in the planning 

area. Other cities in the planning area include Wolf Point, Plentywood, Glendive, Sidney, Colstrip, Terry, 

Jordan, Circle, Broadus, Ekalaka, Alzada, Culbertson, Forsyth, Lame Deer, and Baker. 

A complex history of homestead and railroad land grants has caused generally fragmented surface and 

subsurface mineral ownership. Lands containing all federally owned minerals are either public domain or lands 

in which the surface area was patented under the Stock Raising Homestead Act of 1916 (BLM 1984 and 1995). 

Ownership or administration of surface and subsurface lands also extends to other federal, state, tribal, or 

private interests in the planning area. These agencies include the Fort Peck Tribe, the Bureau of Reclamation 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Lands and Realty 

3-140

(BOR), USFS, USFWS, BIA, Crow Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and the State of Montana as well as local 

counties and private entities within the planning area. The USDA administers the lands containing the Fort 

Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, which is located southwest of Miles City. 

Primary Land Uses 

The primary uses of public lands in the planning area include livestock ranching; recreation; and major oil, gas, 

and coal development. The latter industrial developments occur primarily in Fallon, Richland, Roosevelt, 

Dawson, Wibaux, Big Horn, Rosebud, and Sheridan counties. Other land uses in the planning area includes 

wildlife habitat and recreation (BLM 1984 and 1995). Notable areas reserved for wildlife habitat include the 

Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lamesteer National 

Wildlife Refuge, Fox Lake Wildlife Management Area, and game management areas within the planning area. 

The principle recreation areas occur primarily in the Custer National Forest (at the southern boundary of the 

planning area) and along the Yellowstone, Powder, Tongue, Missouri, and Little Missouri rivers. These areas 

offer a variety of dispersed recreational opportunities. 

Rights-of-Way 

ROWs across public lands are generally granted under Title V of FLPMA and Section 28 of the Mineral 

Leasing Act (43 CFR 2800 and 2880 and 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) or pursuant to U.S.C. Title 23, Section 317 for 

highways under the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1958 (August 27, 1958, as amended). In areas in which ROWs 

are allowed, stipulations from the BLM Handbook 2801-1 are used to protect resource values. 

The planning area contains various types of federally authorized ROWs, which typically include uses for utility 

and transportation purposes, communication sites, water-related facilities (such as ditches, canals, dikes, wells, 

reservoirs, and water pipelines), associated facilities, and oil and gas pipelines. There are approximately 919 

authorized ROWs on BLM-administered lands within the planning area, affecting 84,314 acres of federal 

surface. Of these authorized ROWs, 282 (affecting 2,840 acres) are subject to rental payments. On average, 25 

ROWs are issued each year; however, more were issued in recent years than in past years. 

The 1996 Big Dry RMP identifies ROW avoidance areas that include cultural and wildlife ACECs, Makoshika 

State Park (lands since patented to MFWP), and SRMAs. The Smoky Butte ACEC was designated a ROW 

exclusion area 

(BLM 1996). In past planning efforts, fragmented federal ownership pattern in the planning area caused ROW 

corridors to be considered but not carried forward. Applicants are encouraged to locate new facilities within 

existing ROWs (BLM 1985c and 1996). 

Communication Sites 

Nine existing sites have communication site plans in place and these plans are updated, as needed, if additional 

uses are authorized (Table 3-34). There are two other small communication sites without site plans authorized 

in the planning area, as described below. 

 The Smoky Butte ACEC site, which may have a plan developed on it in the future with a television 

repeater station (T. 18N, R. 36E, Section 12, NWSW); and 

 the Larsen Ranch mobile two-way radio site (T. 11N, R. 52E, Section 19, Lot 2), in which a plan is not 

needed and will not be developed. 

Unauthorized Uses 

Unauthorized land uses also occur in the planning area (BLM 1985c, 1996, 2010g). These unauthorized uses 

generally include agriculture, occupancy, exclosures, abandonment of property or trash, and ROWs. For these 

types of unauthorized uses, most of the cases are small, agricultural trespasses that are fewer than 10 acres in 

size. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Lands and Realty 

3-141

Other unauthorized uses relating to occupancy include abandoned structures (e.g., mobile homes) or agricultural 

structures (e.g., barns). Unauthorized exclosures typically consist of fences used to protect sources of water or 

other natural resource features installed on public lands without prior approval. Unauthorized ROW trespasses 

consist of utility and transportation uses, communication sites, oil and gas pipelines, roads, and water-related 

facilities installed on public lands without proper approval. 

ROADWAYS 

The planning area also includes several major roads and highways that provide access to public lands. Examples 

of major highways include Interstate 94, which crosses through the center of the planning area as well as a 

variety of state highways. For example, State Highways 2, 13, 16, 24, and 201 traverse the northern segment of 

the planning area, while State Highways 22, 200, 12, 39, 59, 323, and 212 are located in the central and 

southern segments of the planning area. The State of Montana, local counties, BLM, USFS, and private 

individuals and corporations maintain roads and highways in the planning area. 

Land Use Authorizations 

Leases and permits, authorized under Section 302 of FLPMA for various land uses, are spread throughout the 

planning area. Two Section 302 leases have been issued to coal companies for land use related to coal mining. 

Fifteen Section 302 permits are authorized in the planning area, with eight for agricultural uses (farming) and 

the rest for various uses (including a shop, a garage, a shed, gravel storage, a monitoring well, and 

environmental monitoring and coal mine reclamation). Short-term permits are issued for filming purposes. All 

of these leases and permits are subject to rental payments. The USFS issued eight permits on Bankhead-Jones 

lands prior to those lands entering under BLM’s administration. These permits are for two roads, two pipelines, 

a barn and granary, a telephone line, a reservoir, and stock water storage. Only one of these permits was subject 

to rental payments (which were paid in full) while the other seven were not (BLM 2010g). 

TABLE 3-34.

COMMUNICATION SITES WITH PLANS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Communication 

Site

Legal Location1

(Principal Meridian Montana)

Number 

of 

Facilities

Type of Site and Use

Alzada T. 8S, R. 57E, Sec. 10, SENE 2 Government only, low power nonbroadcast uses

Fallon T. 14N, R. 52E, Sec. 32, SW 1 Non-broadcast, two-way, cellular, 

and microwave uses

Flowing Well T. 18N, R. 43E, Sec. 8, NE 2 Non-broadcast, two-way radio, 

cellular, and microwave uses

Fort Peck T. 26N, R. 42E, Sec. 9, NE 1 Non-broadcast cellular and 

microwave uses

Locate T. 8N, R. 53E, Sec. 27, NW 1 Low power non-broadcast uses

Lookout Butte T. 6N, R. 60E, Sec. 4, NESW 1 Low power broadcast translator 

uses

Rosebud Buttes T. 5N, R. 42E, Sec. 24, NE 2 Full power broadcast and other 

low-power non-broadcast and 

low-power broadcast uses 

Sheep Mountain T. 15N, R. 47E, Sec. 24, NW 2 Government only non-broadcast 

two-way radio uses

McGuire Creek T. 21N, R. 43E, Sec. 13, NW 1 Low power, non-broadcast, 

cellular, and two-way radio

1These legal descriptions do not delineate the boundaries of the right-of-way use areas, but give approximate locations. 

Boundaries of the use areas are defined in individual site plans.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Lands and Realty 

3-142

The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (R&PP) of June 14, 1926 (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.), as amended, 

authorizes the lease of public lands for recreational or public purposes to state and local governments and to 

qualified non-profit organizations. There are no current R&PP leases authorized within the planning area (BLM 

2010g). 

Land Tenure (Including Access) 

Land tenure (or land ownership) adjustment refers to those actions resulting in the disposal of BLMadministered land or the acquisition of nonfederal lands or interests. In the planning area, these actions have 

normally included sales (offered on the initiative of the BLM often in response to public requests), exchanges, 

transfers, direct purchases, and withdrawals. See Map 41 for land pattern adjustment and access information. 

(The lands are identified by map as allowed for during land use planning as stated in the H-1601-1 Land Use 

Planning Handbook, Appendix C, page 20, E. Lands and Realty Number 1, and not by legal description.) The 

planning area has a scattered land pattern of approximately 4,536 tracts of federal BLM-administered land in 

1,194 townships and 40,780 sections. 

For sales to occur, the tract of public land, which must be identified through land use planning, must meet one 

or more of the following disposal criteria (Section 203(a) of FLPMA) described below. 

 It is difficult and uneconomical to manage as part of the public lands and is not suitable for 

management by another federal department or agency. 

 It was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other federal 

purpose. 

 Disposal of the tract will serve important public objectives. 

There were 41,181 acres of public land identified in the Powder River RMP for possible disposal by sale, but no 

sales have been completed (BLM 1985c). A 640-acre tract of land was identified in the Big Dry RMP to be sold 

to Fallon County for a sanitary landfill and was completed in September of 2001 (BLM 1996). Although this is 

the only sale completed recently in the planning area, several others were completed in the early to mid-1980s 

(BLM 2010g). 

The R&PP authorizes the sale of public lands for recreational or public purposes to state and local governments 

and to qualified non-profit organizations. Eight R&PP patents have been issued in the planning area; of these, 

three (for a game management area and two parks) were issued before the Powder River and Big Dry RMPs 

were completed. The Powder River RMP identified 331 acres of public land with potential for community 

expansion that could be considered for disposal under the R&PP (BLM 1985c). Four patents were issued for 

36.02 acres in the Powder River RMP area: 0.84 acres for an historic cemetery in Carter County (1988), 11.83 

acres for a college rodeo arena (1992), 7.72 acres for an administrative site for MFWP (1994), and 15.63 to the 

Eastern Montana Fair Board for Horseman’s Park (1998). The Big Dry RMP identified 2,700 acres of public 

land to be patented (under the R&PP) to MFWP as an addition to the Makoshika State Park (BLM 1996). 

Within the Big Dry RMP area, the Makoshika State Park R&PP patent was issued for 2,699.64 acres on June 6, 

2000 (BLM 2010g). 

The Powder River RMP categorized 123,542 acres of public land for potential disposal through exchanges or 

jurisdictional transfers (BLM 1985c). Disposal, retention, and acquisition criteria were established, and the 

disposal and retention lands identified on a map. The BLM would consider proposals from the public and react 

to other land adjustment proposals. Improved land ownership patterns would be achieved using exchange as the 

preferred method of land transaction (BLM 1985c). There have been 52,613.31 acres of public land disposed of 

in 15 exchanges in the Powder River RMP area and 23,324.10 acres acquired by exchange. One of these 

exchanges was an assembled land exchange in which 15,572.93 acres of scattered parcels of federal land were 

disposed of and 14,036.79 acres were acquired, which created a block of federal land of just over 20,500 acres. 

Ten of these exchanges were one-on-one exchanges where 12,912.50 public acres were disposed of and 

9,287.31 acres of private land were acquired to block up with other public land. Following completion of one of 

these exchanges, the USFS received 1,036.91 acres of acquired land via jurisdictional transfer and the BLM 

acquired two access easements as a part of two of these exchanges. The Billings RMP area (under the 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Lands and Realty 

3-143

jurisdiction of the Billings Field Office) used 11, 519.44 acres of public land in the Powder River RMP area for 

two pooling exchanges, but MCFO did not acquire any lands within the Powder River RMP area (under 

jurisdiction of the MCFO) through these two exchanges. There were 8,175.30 acres of public land patented 

within the Powder River RMP area to the State of Montana in the Phase III Exchange for the Crow Boundary 

Settlement Act (25 U.S.C. 1776), and 4,433.14 acres were patented within the Powder River RMP area to 

private individuals in the Phase IV Exchange for the Crow Boundary Settlement Act. The MCFO did not 

acquire any lands within the Powder River RMP area through these exchanges (BLM 2010g).

Prairie cordgrass on 

Cedar Creek 

The Big Dry RMP provided that emphasis was placed on land tenure 

adjustment and easement acquisition within the planning area (BLM 

1996). All land exchanges will be based on willing buyer and willing 

seller. The goal of the lands program is to consolidate the scattered public 

lands, increasing management efficiency and accessibility. Disposal, 

retention, and acquisition criteria were established, and disposal and 

retention areas identified on a map. Exchanges or acquisitions will be 

considered to acquire desirable tracts within the disposal areas or to add 

to existing public lands within those areas meeting the long-term 

management objective criteria. Individual tracts or parcels in the retention 

areas will be disposed or repositioned through sale or exchange when 

significant management efficiency, greater public values, or other 

objectives would be met. There were 6,586.05 acres of public land 

patented to the State of Montana within the Big Dry RMP area in the 

Phase II and III exchanges for the Crow Boundary Settlement Act. No 

other exchanges have been completed within the Big Dry RMP area (BLM 2010g). 

Easements are sought to provide legal access to isolated tracts of public land and can be made a part of land 

exchange and sale transactions for access purposes (BLM 1985). The purchase of easements, execution of land 

exchanges, validation of Revised Statute 2477 ROWs, and reciprocal ROWs will continue to improve access 

(BLM 1996). There are 35 easements on record within the planning area: 7 non-exclusive easements for 

stockwater pipelines, 15 old exclusive (providing public access) access road easements (3 of which were 

acquired as part of land exchanges and 1 easement that acquired in return for a reciprocal ROW), and 13 

easements acquired for access roads since the Powder River and Big Dry RMPs were completed. Three of these 

13 easements were acquired as part of land exchanges, and one was acquired to provide access to public land 

blocked up by exchange. All of these more recent access easements are exclusive (except one non-exclusive 

easement with the right of access for the public and one non-exclusive easement that provides administrative 

access only). An older easement that no longer provided legal access because a highway was relocated was 

relinquished when it was replaced by a new easement that reestablished access (BLM 2010g). 

There was one land transfer within the planning area from another agency to the BLM when the Army Corps of 

Engineers transferred 242.60 acres of land declared excess within the Big Dry RMP area in 1993 (BLM 2010g). 

Excluding USFS acres (which are unknown), total withdrawals in the planning area include approximately 

441,168 acres (BLM 1985c, 1996, 2010g) (Table 3-35). The withdrawals are either recommended for 

continuation of existing withdrawal or recommended for revocation of withdrawals. For continuation of existing 

withdrawals, all withdrawals and extensions on BLM-administered lands, having a specific period, must be 

reviewed by the Secretary of the USDI toward the end of the withdrawal period. The withdrawals may be 

extended or further extended only upon compliance with Title 43, Chapter 35, Subchapter II, and Section 1714 

of the CFR and only if the Secretary determines that the purpose for which the withdrawal was first made 

requires the extension (and then only for a period no longer than the length of the original withdrawal period). 

For revocation actions, once relinquished, these lands would be opened to the public land laws and managed in 

a manner similar to that on adjacent public lands. See the Lands and Realty-Renewable Energy Appendix for 

more detailed descriptions of these withdrawals. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Lands and Realty 

3-144

 

Zook Creek Wilderness Study 

Area in Rosebud County 

TABLE 3-35. 

LAND WITHDRAWALS IN THE PLANNING AREA

Type of 

Withdrawal RMP Area Name or Location Acres Withdrawn

Continuation

Big Dry International Boundary 293

Big Dry Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge 24,508

Big Dry Fox Lake Game Management Area 160

Big Dry Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife 

Waterfowl Production Area 26

Big Dry Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 290,222

Big Dry Corps of Engineers (Fort Peck) 3,756

Big Dry Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site 62

Big Dry and 

Powder River Fort Keogh Livestock Experiment Station 55,765

Powder River Custer National Forest Unknown

Powder River Belltower Town site 80

Powder River BIA-Northern Cheyenne Trust-Water Rights 

Settlement 320

Powder River (a 

portion is within 

the Billings Field 

Office area)

BIA-Crow Trust-Crow Boundary Settlement

9,873

Continuation Subtotal 385,0651

Revocation

Big Dry Lower Yellowstone Project 51,872

Big Dry Fort Buford Project 914

Big Dry Public Water Reserve 107 (McCone)

2

238

Big Dry Milk River Project 37

Big Dry Corps of Engineers (Fort Peck)

3

206,976

Big Dry Buffalo Rapids Project (BOR) 305

Powder River Power Sites Classification (Moorhead Reservoir

area, surface only) 2,777

Powder River Tongue River Reservoir 160

Revocation Subtotal 263,279

Total Acres of Withdrawals 441,1681

1Total does not include USFS withdrawn acres, which are unknown.

2 Of the 238 acres in Public Water Reserve 107, 200 lie within the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. These acres 

are not included in the total acres of withdrawals.

3 All of the Fort Peck Dam area overlaps the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, so these acres are not included in 

the total acres of withdrawals.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-145

SPECIAL DESIGNATION AREAS 

This section describes the existing condition of special designations areas in the planning area. Special 

designations include: 

 ACECs, 

 Back Country Byways, 

 National Trails, 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

 Wilderness and WSAs. 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 

ACECs are unique to the BLM and can only be designated on BLM-administered surfaces. BLM regulations 

define an ACEC as an area “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” (43 CFR Part 1610). While an ACEC may emphasize one or 

more unique resources, other existing multiple use management can continue within an ACEC as long as the 

uses do not impair the values for which the ACEC was designated. The MCFO administers 16 designated 

ACECs (Table 3-36 and Map 88). In addition, several areas were nominated for ACEC consideration (see the 

Special Designations Appendix, Nominated ACECs for more information.) 

Ash Creek Divide 

The Ash Creek Divide ACEC, located in 

Garfield County, has produced fossils and 

research data proven significant to the national 

and global scientific communities (Map 42). 

This area has also generated scientific papers 

and yielded information regarding 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 Ash Creek Divide provides an 

example of the fossil record through exposed 

bedrock and high quality preserved fossils. 

The area is expected to provide further data as 

new material weathers out of the rock. 

Battle Butte 

The Battle Butte Battlefield is one of twelve 

major battlefields of the Sioux War of 1876 

(Map 88). This war and associated sites are of 

major interest to national historians, history 

enthusiasts, and the Sioux, Crow, and 

Cheyenne Tribes. The Battle Butte ACEC, site 

of the Battle Butte or Wolf Mountains Battle, 

is located in Rosebud County. The battle was 

fought on 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 

TABLE 3-36. 

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN ADMINISTERED BY THE MILES CITY 

FIELD OFFICE

ACEC Reason for Designation Acres

Ash Creek Divide Paleontological resources 7,931

Battle Butte Cultural resources 120

Big Sheep 

Mountain Cultural resources 360

Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction Wildlife 11,166

Bug Creek Paleontological resources 3,840

Finger Buttes Scenery 1,520

Hell Creek Paleontological resources 19,169

Hoe Cultural resources 144

Howrey Island Threatened and 

endangered wildlife 321

Jordan Bison Kill Cultural resources 160

Piping Plover Wildlife 16

Powder River 

Depot Cultural resources 1,386

Reynolds 

Battlefield Cultural resources 336

Sand Arroyo Paleontological resources 9,056

Seline Cultural resources 80

Smoky Butte Geology, recreation 80

Total 55,685
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-146

Infantry. They marched from the Tongue River Cantonment south along the Tongue River in search of 

American Indian winter villages. After a 10-day march up the river, Miles’s command encountered warriors 

from Crazy Horse’s winter camp of 1,200 inhabitants located south of Birney, Montana. Estimated at 600 

warriors, the Sioux attacked west of the Tongue River and then occupied the high ground (Battle Butte) to the 

south of Miles’s forces. The Sioux held the advantage, firing down into the U.S. soldiers’ positions before 

Colonel Miles ordered his men to attack uphill to take command of this position. Once Miles’s men were able to 

hold the high ground, the Sioux’s advantage was lost. Low on ammunition, the Sioux retreated upstream and 

were able to escape up the Tongue River in the ensuing blizzard. 

Big Sheep Mountain 

The Big Sheep Mountain ACEC is located in Prairie County and represents a range of cultural periods dating 

back approximately 10,000 years (Map 88). Early residents used the area repeatedly and material left behind 

provides important information about time sequences and changes in use. The site contains projectile points, 

fire hearths, bone and tooth fragments, stone tools, and rock chips. The site’s unique properties may contribute 

important scientific information on nearly the full range of cultural traditions from the Paleo-Indian period to 

the Late Plains Archaic Period (3,000 to 1,500 before present).

Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction 

The Black-footed Ferret Reintroduction ACEC is located in Custer and Prairie counties (Map 89). The blackfooted ferret is an endangered species dependent on prairie dog colonies. In order for the black-footed ferret to 

recover, it will be necessary to establish 10 separate self-sustaining colonies; however, because there may not be 

10 suitable reintroduction sites in the United States, all reintroduction areas are nationally important. This area 

is considered a potential reintroduction area because it contains active prairie dog towns on public lands. 

In addition to the endangered black-footed ferret, burrowing owls, swift fox, and mountain plovers are also 

associated with prairie dog habitat. When this ACEC was designated, it contained approximately 1,151 public 

acres of active prairie dog towns, but plague has reduced the active area to about 435 acres and an additional 

182 acres (within the same complex) on public lands outside the ACEC. 

Bug Creek 

The Bug Creek ACEC, located in McCone County, contains portions of the Hell Creek formation and the 

overlying Tullock member of the Fort Union formation, which are significant for paleontological resources 

spanning the late Cretaceous Period (100 to 65 million years ago) to the early Tertiary Period (65 to 25 million 

years ago) (Map 43). 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 major life forms. 

Because it contains extensive exposures of bedrock and quality preserved fossils, the Bug Creek area is one of 

the preeminent and most studied examples of this fossil record. Fossils and other data collected in this area yield 

information about the end of the dinosaur age and the start of the mammal age. 

Finger Buttes 

The Finger Buttes ACEC is located in Carter County and no legal access is available (Map 90). Part of the 

Arikaree formation, the Finger Buttes represent more than badlands topography (typical topography for 

southeastern Montana) and contain scenic qualities of color, line, and form in tall, slim, smokestack-like tan to 

gray sandstone monuments, towers, and prominences. Highlighted against the horizon, the scenic values are 

unique and do not exist elsewhere in the region. 

An area in Carter County has been identified for an oil and gas master leasing plan (MLP) (see Oil and Gas for 

more information on MLPs). The 1,521 acres Finger Buttes ACEC, which was designated for scenic values in 

1996, is located within the proposed MLP area. The ACEC has low potential for oil and gas development. For 

more information on the ACEC, see the Special Designation Areas Appendix.
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-147

Hell Creek 

The Hell Creek ACEC is located in Garfield County (Map 44). The Hell Creek ACEC’s fossils and research 

data are significant to the national and global scientific communities, generating scientific papers and 

populating museum displays. Comparison of fossils and other data collected yielded information about the types 

of animals and plants that occurred in the area, the environment in which they lived, and the cause and effects of 

the mass extinction at the close of the Cretaceous Period. Approximately one-half of the Hell Creek NNL is 

included within the ACEC boundaries. The area is expected to provide further data as new material weathers 

out of rock. 

Hoe

The outstanding feature of the Hoe ACEC, located in Prairie County, is three bison scapulas (shoulder blades) 

used as gardening hoes (Map 88). American Indian use, documented by projectile points and pottery fragments, 

occurred during the Late Prehistoric Period (1,500 BP to 200 BP). Several fragments of pottery, a bone awl, 

stone tools and flakes, and fire-cracked rock indicate farming and non-nomadic lifestyles, typical of the tribes in 

the middle Missouri River region in North and South Dakota that lived in permanent villages and tended 

gardens. Because Montana has a short growing season, sites of this type are not usually found in this state, and 

this ACEC represents the western-most findings of the middle Missouri tradition of agriculture. 

Howrey Island 

The Howrey Island ACEC, located in Treasure County, is one of the few BLM-administered islands in the 

Yellowstone River (Map 82). White-tailed deer, ring-necked pheasants, numerous furbearers, and various nongame species are among the variety of wildlife inhabiting the island. An active bald eagle nest, which has 

successfully fledged young birds for a number of years, is also present. This ACEC is also nesting and broodrearing habitat for Canada geese and other waterfowl species. Howrey Island is designated a watchable wildlife 

area and contains a self-guided nature trail for public use. 

Jordan Bison Kill 

The Jordan Bison Kill ACEC, located in Garfield County, is a 2,000-year-old bison jump, a rarity in the 

planning area (Map 88). A sandstone cliff forms the main part of the kill site, and a nearby prehistoric campsite 

is associated with the jump. According to results of carbon dating, the campsite was used at least twice. 

Piping Plover 

The Piping Plover ACEC is located in Sheridan County (Map 91). The piping plover is a threatened bird species 

associated with saline wetlands, typical of northeastern Montana. One parcel of BLM-administered land in 

Sheridan County, bordering a saline wetland near the town of Westby, is known to contain nesting piping 

plovers. 

Powder River Depot 

The Powder River Depot (site of the Powder River Depot ACEC), located in Prairie County, was the main 

supply depot for the armies that pursued the fleeing Sioux and Cheyenne Tribes throughout the summer of 1876 

(during the Sioux War). This area contains a wealth of archeological information regarding the encampment and 

everyday life of the soldiers. The Powder River Depot was the location of General Terry’s supply depot that 

supplied General Custer’s troops before they left for the Battle of Little Bighorn. Left behind were three 

infantry companies, the 7th Cavalry band, personnel lacking proper equipment or suitable mounts, some civilian 

personnel, and wagons used in the march from Fort Lincoln. As many as 3,000 soldiers camped at the depot 

during the peak of the occupation (Map 88). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-148

Reynolds Battlefield 

The Reynolds Battlefield ACEC, one of twelve battlefields in the region and the site of the first major battle of 

the Sioux War of 1876, is located in Powder River County (Map 88). The Big Horn Expedition, under the 

command of General Crook, 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 Colonel 

Joseph J. Reynolds, with six companies of the 2nd and 3rd Cavalry, attacked the only village they found, which 

was located east on the Powder River. The attack began at dawn on March 17, 1876. In the early morning battle, 

the troops captured the village and some 800 horses and burned all of the camp tepees, although most of the 

inhabitants were able to escape. The village retaliated by firing down into the army positions from a high bluff 

to the west, and the troops withdrew under heavy fire. Their hasty withdrawal, ordered by Reynolds, left four 

dead soldiers in the field. Later that night, the village recaptured their horse herd. General Crook, enraged by 

these events, ordered Reynolds court-martialed. Compounding the defeat, the village was not, in fact, Sitting 

Bull’s Sioux camp, as originally thought, but a Cheyenne camp on the way back to the reservation. This 

unprovoked attack on a peaceable camp turned the Cheyenne against the United States government, and they 

soon sided with the Sioux and participated in subsequent phases of the war. 

Sand Arroyo 

The geologic formations and associated fossils of the Sand Arroyo ACEC, located in McCone County, are a 

rare example of a continuous record of the end of the dinosaur age, the close of the Cretaceous Period, and the 

subsequent beginning of the age of the mammals at the start of the Tertiary Period (Map 45). This area 

preserves a quality record of this period and is globally rare. The focus of past field studies, the area has 

produced fossils for display and research because the necessary combination of bedrock exposure of the proper 

age and quality preservation of fossils provides research and collecting opportunities rare for this geological 

period. 

Seline 

The Seline ACEC, located in Dawson County, contains a 3,000-year-old site representing the trap method of 

bison killing (in which bison were herded up a narrowing or steep-ended draw before being killed with spears or 

arrows). The trap method served to slow and concentrate the bison, making them easier prey for the hunters 

(Map 88). 

Scenic view of the Finger Buttes Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Smoky Butte 

The Smoky Butte ACEC, located in Garfield County, a landmark feature that guided early travelers to the area, 

is legally inaccessible (Map 92). The rocks present at Smoky Butte contain rare minerals including armalcolite 

(a mineral found in samples of rock from the moon) and davanite, a recently described alkali titanosilicate 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-149

mineral also found in Siberia) and which was discovered in Smoky Butte lamproite by Wagner and Velde 

(1986). Matson (1958) noted that one of the most striking features of the intrusive rock complex is their high 

potassium and titanium content and similarity to rocks found at West Kimberly, Australia, and the Leucite Hills 

of Wyoming. 

The area was the subject of research by American, Canadian, and French scientists, and it was the location of a 

special field trip of the 28th International Geological Congress studying the Montana High Potassium Igneous 

Province in July 1989. Information from this area has been useful in drawing conclusions and advancing 

theories regarding the origin of the rocks as well as the composition and geotectonics of the earth’s mantle. 

BACK COUNTRY BYWAYS 

The BLM MCFO manages the 105-mile Big Sky Back Country Byway, which runs through Prairie, McCone, 

and Roosevelt counties (Map 48). The Back Country Byway was designated in 2000 to provide opportunity for 

local communities, provide economic relief, and link the two major rivers in the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 

the Yellowstone and the Missouri. This route also runs along a homesteader’s route called the RY-Trail, which 

linked Regina, Canada, with Yellowstone National Park. There are three kiosk locations along the Big Sky 

Back Country Byway in the rural towns of Terry, Circle, and Wolf Point. A fourth interpretive kiosk is located 

adjacent to State Highway 13, on the southeast side of the old historic bridge near Wolf Point. Historical and 

cultural resources, fishing opportunities, wildlife viewing, moss agate rock collecting, big game hunting, a 

world-class zone noted for paleontology, and rich history associated with the First Nations People are highlights 

of the byway. 

NATIONAL TRAILS 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 

The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail was designated in 1978 in recognition of the historic expedition by 

Lewis and Clark from 1804 to 1806. A portion of the Yellowstone River along the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail is the route traveled by William Clark in July of 1806, during the expedition’s return trip. This 

area contains approximately 16,000 acres of BLM-administered lands (Map 49). 

The nature and purpose of this national historic trail is to follow as closely as possible and practicable the 

original trails or routes of travel of national historic significance and have as their purpose the identification and 

protection of the historic route and its historic remnants and artifacts for public use and enjoyment (National 

Trails System Act of 1968 [16 U.S.C. 1241-1249]). The primary purpose, specific to the Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail (NPS 1982), is commemoration of the historic event that forms the Trail’s central theme. 

The identification and preservation of the historic and cultural resources related to the events are one aspect of 

commemoration. The other aspect is public use, which should take the form of interpretation of the historic 

events and approximate retracement of the historic route. The BLM will manage the portion of the Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trail within the planning area in a manner that is consistent with the purposes and 

provisions of the National Trails System Act (PL 90-543, 1968, as amended by PL 95-625, 1978). The NPS 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan (1982) outlines management 

objectives, practices, and responsibilities and emphasizes partnerships in trail administration. Scenic and 

cultural values will be protected on BLM-administered land along this historic trail. 

Four recreation sites are also located within the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail: Howrey Island 

Recreation Area, Matthews Recreation Site, Calypso SRMA, and the Powder River Depot SRMA. See the 

Recreation section for more information about the Lewis and Clark Trail. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-150

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

As required under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), rivers in the planning area were 

inventoried and studied for values that would contribute to their consideration as wild and scenic rivers. 

However, no rivers or river segments were found to contain one or more outstandingly remarkable values 

along their BLM-administered segments, which eliminated these areas from consideration for designation. 

See the Special Designation Areas Appendix for detailed information about the wild and scenic river 

evaluation process used in the planning area. 

WILDERNESS 

There are no designated wilderness areas within the planning area. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

Background 

The BLM’s 1995 Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review states: 

“Under FLPMA, wilderness preservation is part of BLM’s multiple-use mandate, and wilderness values 

are recognized as part of the spectrum of resource values considered in the land-use planning process. 

Section 603 of FLPMA specifically directed the BLM, for the first time, to carry out a wilderness review 

of the public lands.” 

It further states: 

“The wilderness review required by section 603 of FLPMA focused on roadless areas of 5,000 acres or 

more and on roadless islands. The BLM as a matter of policy used its general management authority 

under Sections 302 and 202 of FLPMA to include in the wilderness review certain other roadless areas. 

These included: (1) areas smaller than 5,000 acres that were not islands, (2) areas less than 5,000 acres 

that had wilderness characteristics in association with contiguous roadless lands managed by another 

agency, and (3) lands placed under BLM administration after the wilderness inventory was conducted in 

1978 – 80.” 

FLPMA mandated that, within 15 years, the BLM would inventory and study its lands for their wilderness 

suitability, and based on this review, the Secretary of the Interior would forward wilderness recommendations 

to the President. Recommendations for those areas within the MCFO were included in the Montana Statewide 

Wilderness Study Report released in September 1991 (BLM 1991b). Recommendations were signed by the 

Secretary of the Interior and by the President, and forwarded to Congress before the end of that year. Seven 

WSAs were identified by the inventory and study conducted on lands in the planning area. 

Section 603(c) of FLPMA states: 

“During the period of review of such areas and until Congress has determined otherwise, the Secretary shall 

continue to manage such lands according to his authority under this Act and other applicable law in a 

manner so as not to impair the suitability of such areas for preservation as wilderness...” (43 U.S.C. 1782). 

This language is intended to ensure that the option to either designate lands as wilderness or release them from 

further consideration as wilderness rests with Congress. It also makes it clear that BLM’s responsibility is to 

ensure that wilderness values on those lands are not degraded until Congress can make a final determination as 

to the suitability of those lands for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. BLM actions may 

not preempt the authority of Congress to make a final decision on lands that were studied, regardless of whether 

they were recommended by the BLM as suitable for wilderness designation or not. Even through the land use 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Special Designation Areas 

3-151

planning process, BLM may not assert any further authority over the designation, or release, of lands studied 

under Section 603 of FLPMA. 

Current Management 

The MCFO manages seven WSAs with a total of approximately 97,248 acres of BLM-administered lands 

(Table 3-37 and Map 88). Six of these WSAs were studied under the authority of Section 603, and one was 

studied under Section 202. The WSAs are managed as a limited area for OHV uses, which allow vehicle use 

only on the inventoried roads and ways that existed at the time of inventory. In accordance with BLM Manual 

6330, Management of Wilderness Study Areas, monitoring of WSAs is conducted on a monthly basis as 

staffing, funding, and weather permit. Alternative methods of monitoring will also be used (such as 

reconnaissance flights over WSAs that are not legally accessible because of private land ownership patterns). 

Per the Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report, Volume II, Wilderness Study Area Specific 

Recommendations, September 1991, the MCFO had an acquisition of three privately owned sections of land 

within the Terry Badlands WSA. These lands were inholdings at the time the WSA was studied for wilderness 

potential and changed the total area recommendations. This acquisition contained 1,960 acres with outstanding 

wilderness characteristics, per the report. 

TABLE 3-37. 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS MANAGED BY THE MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE

WSA Name WSA

Number

FLPMA 

Section

Total 

Acres

Acres 

Recommended for 

Wilderness

Acres 

Recommended for 

Non-wilderness

Billy Creek MT-024-633 202 3,450 0 3,450

Bridge Coulee MT-024-675 603 5,900 0 5,900

Buffalo Creek MT-027-702 603 5,650 0 5,650

Musselshell 

Breaks MT-024-677 603 8,650 0 8,650

Seven 

Blackfoot

MT-024-

657C 603 20,250 5,710 14,540

Terry 

Badlands MT-024-684 603 44,910 33,024 11,886

Zook Creek MT-027-701 603 8,438 0 8,438

Total 97,248

38,734

(40% of total WSA

acres)

58,514

(60% of total WSA

acres)

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

SOCIAL CONDITIONS 

This section discusses the social conditions in the planning area, which includes 17 counties in eastern Montana. 

The counties with the most amount of BLM-administered surface include Carter (503,615 acres), Garfield 

(502,191 acres), Prairie (449,183 acres), Custer (336,376), Powder River (258,865 acres), Rosebud (234,303 

acres), McCone (200,775), and Fallon (117,453 acres). All other counties have less than 100,000 acres of BLMadministered surface. All of these counties have at least 600,000 acres of BLM-administered mineral acres 

except Big Horn, Daniels, Fallon, Roosevelt, Treasure, Valley, and Wibaux counties. Some of these counties 

(such as Carter, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, and Sheridan) have more than 50 percent 

of their county acreage in BLM-administered minerals. Oil-related leasing and development occurs primarily in 

Dawson, Fallon, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, and Wibaux counties, and gas-related leasing and 

development occurs in Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Fallon, Richland, and Wibaux counties. Coal development 

occurs in Big Horn, Richland, and Rosebud counties. BLM-administered grazing and recreation lands are 

concentrated in the areas containing the majority of the public surface acres. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-152

Social Trends and Attitudes 

This section focuses on social trends and attitudes that affect BLM land management. This information is 

important to land management decision makers because the trends and attitudes can affect relationships between 

the agency and its constituents, the ability to successfully implement plans, and the potential impacts to 

communities (both communities in the geographical sense and communities of interest). 

 

Changes in the management of BLM-administered lands are just one aspect of a broader debate in

environmental and resource management occurring locally, nationally, and globally. Commodity, amenity, 

environmental quality, ecological recreation, and spiritual are all social land and natural resource values. While 

the emphasis on the commodity value of public lands has been prevalent in the past, a study examining public 

attitudes toward ecosystem management in the United States found “generally favorable attitudes toward 

ecosystem management [defined as maintaining and ensuring sustainability] among the general public 

(Bengston, Xu, and Fan 2001).” 

In the rural West, in places where land use has been relatively unrestricted, some individuals and groups have 

expressed concern regarding the control and management of BLM-administered lands. People with these 

concerns feel that government officials and environmental advocacy groups that do not have a true 

understanding of the lands or local residents who depend upon these lands for income and recreation drive 

change in BLM land management. Of particular concern is the loss of current land uses such as livestock 

grazing and OHV use. People with these concerns seek to balance what they consider environmental extremism 

with economic and human concerns, and they may feel that local elected officials are more closely in touch on a 

daily basis and better equipped to make decisions about BLM-administered lands than federal managers located 

elsewhere. 

The MCFO’s area of influence contains a significant amount of federal ownership. The counties in the planning 

area contain portions of the Custer National Forest, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and other 

small, federally managed areas. Because some members of the public do not readily differentiate between the 

various federal land management agencies, activities by other federal agencies may affect perceptions about the 

BLM. General attitudes towards the federal government, in some cases unrelated to specific BLM activities, 

may also influence attitudes towards the BLM. 

The major trends affecting BLM’s land management of the MCFO area are described below. 

 The increasing popularity of BLM-administered land for recreation. A comprehensive report on 

recreation by Cordell et al. (1999) indicate that demand in the Rocky Mountain West for recreation 

activities will increase substantially by the year 2020, with non-consumptive wildlife activities, 

sightseeing, and visiting historic places increasing the most. 

 Concern regarding access to BLM-administered land and the loss of public access to some private land 

is adding pressure to BLM-administered lands. These changes, linked to the pursuit of a quality 

recreation experience, occur for a variety of reasons, which include the purchase of lands for private 

use, leases to outfitters for exclusive use, and closure of private land and roads to avoid problems of 

safety, fire, fences, weed, litter, and open gates. 

 Aging population is another trend occurring in the nation and Montana; in 2010, 20 percent of the 

population in the planning area was 65 or older, compared to a statewide figure of 15 percent. For the 

state as a whole, the percentage of population 65 or older is expected to increase to 25 percent by 2025. 

The percentage of people 65 or older is actually increasing more rapidly in states like Montana because 

young people are more likely to leave for advanced education, military service, and employment 

opportunities unavailable locally. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-153

Planning Area Demographics and Quality of Life 

In 2010, the estimated population of the planning area was 87,085, which was less than one-tenth of the 

population of the entire state. County populations ranged from over 10,000 in Custer, Big Horn, and Roosevelt 

counties to less than 2,000 in Carter, Treasure, Wibaux, Prairie, Powder River, McCone, Daniels, and Garfield 

counties. The 2010 planning area population estimate represented a decline of 6 percent since 2000, with all 

counties losing population except Big Horn, Richland, and Fallon counties. Custer, the largest county in the 

planning area, neither lost nor gained population during the decade. Population losses among the other counties 

included population losses greater than 13 percent in Carter, Daniels, Sheridan, and Treasure counties. 

Migration patterns in the planning area indicated a net loss of over 7,000 people between 2000 and 2008. All 

counties lost population through migration, with the biggest losses occurring in Big Horn, Sheridan, and 

Roosevelt counties. 

Cattle grazing in 

front of an oil 

pump in the 

planning area 

The average 

population density 

(persons per square 

mile) was less than 

two people per 

square mile in the 

planning area, 

compared to a state figure of 6.8. Population density ranged from a low of 0.3 persons per square mile in 

Garfield and Carter counties to highs of 4.4 to 4.7 in Richland and Roosevelt counties. 

The largest community is Miles City in Custer County, located in the southern part of the planning area. Miles 

City, with a 2010 population of 8,123, was the only community in the entire planning area with a population 

greater than 5,000. Between 2000 and 2010, Miles City’s population declined 2.4 percent. Other communities in 

the planning area with 2010 populations greater than 1,000 include Sidney in Richland County (with a 

population of 4,843), Glendive in Dawson County (4,628), Hardin in Big Horn County (3,532), Glasgow in 

Valley County (2,870), Wolf Point in Roosevelt County (2,557), Colstrip in Rosebud County (2,377), Forsyth 

in Rosebud County (1,865), Plentywood in Sheridan County (1,638), and Baker in Fallon County (1,640). Some 

of the communities in the planning area, such as Sidney (Richland County) and Glendive (Dawson County), are 

currently experiencing an influx of population related to the oil and gas development in western North Dakota. 

While increases in business are bringing money into these communities, there are associated social problems, 

such as increased traffic and crime and increased competition for housing and public services. 

In 2010, 20 percent of the planning area residents were 65 years and older in comparison to a statewide figure 

of 15 percent (Table 3-38). Figures for the different counties ranged from 10 percent in Big Horn County to 26 

percent in Prairie County. Eighty-seven percent were White and 11 percent were American Indian in the 

planning area, in comparison to statewide figures of 89 percent and 6 percent. In 2008, 88 percent of persons 

over 25 were high school graduates, compared to a statewide figure of 90 percent. The planning area counties 

had poverty rates (percentage persons below poverty level in 2009) ranging from 9.1 percent in Fallon County 

to 30.7 percent in Roosevelt County. The planning area county average was 15.7 percent, compared to 15.0 

percent for the state as a whole. 

Two Indian reservations are located in the planning area: the Northern Cheyenne Reservation is located in Big 

Horn and Rosebud counties, and the Fort Peck Reservation is located primarily in Roosevelt County. The Crow 

Reservation is located in Big Horn County directly adjacent to the Northern Cheyenne Reservation and the 

western boundary of the planning area. In addition, the Turtle Mountain Reservation of North Dakota (home to 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-154

the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians), has scattered land in Sheridan and Roosevelt counties. Big 

Horn and Roosevelt counties are over 60 percent American Indian while Rosebud County is about 35 percent 

American Indian (Table 3-39). The population on the Fort Peck Reservation was 10,998 people in 2010, with 67 

percent American Indian. The population of the Crow Reservation was 6,863, with 78 percent American Indian. 

The population of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation was 4,789 in 2010, with 92 percent American Indian. 

Counties with Indian Reservations tend to contain younger populations and a higher percentage of persons 

living below the poverty level. 

TABLE 3-38.

POPULATION AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS IN THE PLANNING AREA

County Population 

2010

Percentage 

Change 

2000 to 

2010 (%) 

Net 

Migration

2000 to 

2008

Persons 

Per 

Square 

Mile, 

2010

Percentage 

Age 65 and 

Over, 2010 

(%)

Percentage 

High School 

Graduates, 25 

and Over

(2005 to 2009)

Big Horn 12,865 1.5 -1,077 2.8 10.0 82.4

Carter 1,160 -14.7 -93 0.3 23.2 91.5

Custer 11,699 0.0 -466 3.1 17.5 91.5

Daniels 1,751 -13.2 -201 1.2 24.8 94.7

Dawson 8.966 -1.0 -342 3.8 17.9 89.0

Fallon 2,890 1.9 -134 1.8 17.4 88.1

Garfield 1,206 -5.7 -141 0.3 20.6 90.9

McCone 1,734 -12.3 -324 0.7 22.0 91.6

Powder 

River 1,743 -6.2 -121 0.5 22.7 92.3

Prairie 1,179 -1.7 -10 0.7 26.0 85.8

Richland 9,746 0.8 -307 4.7 14.9 85.2

Roosevelt 10,425 -1.8 -1,189 4.4 10.8 88.7

Rosebud 9,233 -1.6 -1,004 1.8 11.5 88.5

Sheridan 3,384 -17.6 -511 2.0 23.1 84.9

Treasure 718 -16.6 -240 0.7 23.8 89.7

Valley 7,369 -4.0 -792 1.5 20.7 86.6

Wibaux 1,017 -4.8 -65 1.1 23.9 80.8

Planning 

Area 

Total

87,085 -5.7 7,017 1.8 19.5 88.4

State of 

Montana 989,415 9.7 42,980 6.8 14.8 90.4

Source: United States Bureau of the Census 2010a

In describing the planning area quality of life, there are many positive factors. The area’s remoteness and sparse 

population reduces or avoids many urban problems such as crime and overcrowding. Recreational opportunities 

are plentiful. Conversely, services such as health care and education are lacking in some communities. The 

percentage of persons living below the poverty level is higher in many planning area counties than for the state 

as a whole. However, this picture may currently be undergoing change in some areas as they experience the 

effects of oil and gas development. 

Information on social conditions for a large portion of the study area (based on discussions with 100 residents in 

the study area), indicated that most residents believed their lifestyle needs were being met (BLM 1995). Those 

who said that their needs were not being met indicated that the lack of cultural activities and tough economic 

times were the key challenges. Other important positive contributors to quality of life were proximity to the 

outdoors and wide-open spaces, good people, small town atmosphere, an active and supportive community, an 

ability to earn a living, and opportunity for outdoor recreation. The area was also considered a good place to 

raise children (BLM 2005g). 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-155

Affected Groups 

The following discussion of affected groups is intended to facilitate the assessment of social impacts. This 

simplified discussion of affected groups’ values and attitudes is based on previous studies, surveys, and scoping 

information collected for this project. Some people may fall into more than one affected group, and their values 

and attitudes may change over time. 

Livestock Permittees 

Ranching is an important part of the 

history, culture, and economy of the 

study area. In 2007, there were 7,346 

farms and ranches in the study area. This 

figure indicates 25 percent of the 

ranches and 42 percent of the lands in 

farms and ranches in Montana are 

located in the planning area. Many 

livestock operators in the planning area 

hold livestock grazing permits on public 

lands. Ranchers face many challenges 

today including changes in federal 

regulations, economic issues, and 

changing land use. Ranchers and 

permittees may face increasingly 

stressful social situations as they try to 

balance their traditional lifestyles with 

demands from government agencies and 

other public land users such as 

recreationists. 

Changes that are occurring in the 

planning area include an increase in land 

sales for recreation purposes, primarily 

hunting, which can result in ranches 

being divided into smaller units. Often 

the new owners lease the ranch 

(including BLM-administered lands) for 

grazing and use the land for recreation. 

In many cases, particularly in land with 

scenic values, the recreational value of 

property has become more important 

than the agricultural values. Some 

ranchers are diversifying their operations 

by guiding hunters or other 

recreationists or making land available to outfitters. These activities can cause problems with recreationists who 

have traditionally used private lands to access adjacent public lands. The tradition of ranching as a multigenerational livelihood is also changing with the selling of leasing of family ranches when an estate is settled 

instead of continued operated by the next generation. However, these changes are not occurring as quickly in 

eastern Montana as they are in other parts of Montana and the West. 

Concerns about livestock grazing received during scoping included potential conflicts between recreation users 

and grazing leaseholders, increasing or maintaining AUMs on grazing allotments, maintaining AUMs to 

accommodate other uses, prairie dog management, invasive weed species, the continued use of OHVs to 

monitor leases, and suggestions that the BLM manage with greater flexibility from year to year and place to 

TABLE 3-39. 

RACE AND POVERTY IN THE PLANNING AREA

County Percentage

White (%)

Percentage 

American 

Indian

(%)

Median 

Household 

Income, 

2009

Percentage 

Persons 

Below

Poverty 

Level, 

2009 (%)

Big Horn 31.4 64.3 $32,223 24.0

Carter 97.8 0.9 $31,800 21.1

Custer 95.5 1.7 $38,844 14.2

Daniels 95.7 2.1 $35,005 13.5

Dawson 95.7 1.7 $44,847 12.6

Fallon 97.4 1.4 $46,936 9.1

Garfield 98.6 0.4 $32,359 17.4

McCone 98.0 0.4 $38,049 17.2

Powder 

River 95.0 1.5 $35,138 13.0

Prairie 96.4 0.2 $33,228 15.3

Richland 95.0 1.7 $50,014 10.3

Roosevelt 35.8 60.4 $30,455 30.7

Rosebud 61.3 34.7 $45,146 17.2

Sheridan 95.4 1.7 $42,294 11.6

Treasure 93.9 0.8 $39,034 12.2

Valley 87.0 9.8 $38,274 14.3

Wibaux 97.6 0.4 $36,604 12.9

Planning 

Area 

Total

86.5 10.8 $38,254 15.7

State of 

Montana 89.4 6.3 $42,222 15.0

Source: United States Bureau of the Census 2010a
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-156

place. The importance of the use of federal land to graze livestock as an essential part of the local way of life 

and heritage was also emphasized and many commenters indicated that they felt that local comments should 

carry more weight than those from out of state. 

Recreationists 

Recreation is a component of most lifestyles in the study area. According to University of Montana research, 

Montanans take more leisure trips than the United States average (MFWP 2008). The substantial recreational 

opportunities for fishing, hunting, hiking, horseback riding, OHV use, and sightseeing are important elements of 

the overall quality of life for study area residents. The BLM manages recreation not for the activities but for 

beneficial outcomes produced in the social, economic, and environmental arenas (see the Recreation Appendix). 

This framework ensures sustainable production and realization of desired outcomes by visitors, communities 

and their residents, and the environment. 

Recreationists represent very diverse groups of people, and changes in recreation management can affect people 

who engage in the various activities differently based on need and preference. Recreationists tend to organize 

into interest groups; most recreational activities have at least one organization that advocates for their particular 

activity. In addition to recreation use by local residents, some destinations in the area attract visitors from other 

areas of the United States for fishing, hunting, and other recreational activities. 

The Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan outlined key issues based on statewide 

surveys and other research (MFWP 2008). The following are some of the key issues relevant to BLMadministered lands in the planning area: 

 a need for continued access to, and maintenance of, rural and backcountry trails and use areas for 

hiking, biking, skiing, and equine and motorized (OHV, snowmobile) recreation; 

 a need for increased miles and maintenance of urban and rural trails and access for water-based 

recreation; and 

 insufficient quality and quantity of recreation facilities for youth. 

Outfitters and guides use recreational opportunities in the study area for economic gain. Some outfitters and 

guides are ranchers or farmers who use recreation as a means to achieve economic diversification. Others 

operate full-time or seasonal outfitter businesses and employ some local residents as guides, while still others 

are permanent full-time independent guides who have their own clients, both local and non-local. 

Approximately 48 outfitters and guides are permitted by the MCFO. Most of the BLM permits are for hunting, 

campouts, and wagon trains, but outfitters and guides can request permits for a variety of other uses. A fee is 

assessed for commercial permits. Some residents do not want permits to be issued to outfitters and guides

because they believe that permitted outfitters have unfair and exclusive access to federal lands legally 

inaccessible to the public (BLM 2005g). 

Concerns from recreationists include conflicts between ranchers and recreationists, conflicts among 

recreationists (particularly motorized and non-motorized users), greater enforcement of OHV use, access to 

isolated parcels of BLM-administered land, and designation of areas for motorized and non-motorized use. 

Groups and Individuals Who Give a High Priority to Resource Protection 

Various individuals and groups at the local, regional, and national levels are interested in the ways BLM 

manages public lands. Many of these concerns regard wildlife, water quality, and visual quality. They value 

BLM-administered land for wildlife, recreation, education, scenic qualities, wilderness, and open space, among 

other reasons. Specific concerns received during scoping for this RMP included concern about energy 

development and the associated potential impacts, the proliferation of pipelines without consideration of 

planned corridors, sage-grouse and other bird species populations and habitat protection, black-footed ferret 

reintroduction, preservation of water quantity and quality, and unregulated OHV use. The use of conservation 

easements for resource protection was also supported. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-157

Groups and Individuals Who Give a High Priority to Resource Use 

Individuals and groups, including many local residents, are concerned about limitations on the availability of 

public lands for commercial uses, such as livestock grazing and mineral or energy development. They indicate 

that the public lands have to be managed to be as productive as possible and the survival of local economies and 

local communities depend upon these industries (BLM 2003l). Comments from oil and gas companies indicated 

concern for negative or excessive rules that would hinder development and lead to limited production and 

revenues, an interest in the use of adaptive management, and the assessment of mitigation measures during 

planning. 

Local Communities 

The planning area population is mainly rural, with many small towns and communities and strong ties to the 

land. Small rural communities can be tied to BLM-administered and public lands in a variety of ways. Local 

businesses and governments depend upon BLM employees to support businesses and public services, while use 

of public lands for recreation activities, livestock grazing, minerals or energy development, and other activities 

can provide economic and leisure-time opportunities. 

Information from discussions with area residents indicates that concern about local economic conditions was 

predominant among the participants (BLM 2003l). Area residents were concerned about young people and 

families leaving the area to seek employment elsewhere, declining farm populations, local business closings, 

and lack of funds for public services resulting from the declining tax base. Some participants thought BLM 

should consider economic impacts to local communities when making land use decisions and manage lands 

with high recreational potential more aggressively because communities could benefit economically. 

Some residents of rural communities may feel reluctance toward short-term developments (such as mineral or 

energy developments) that could alter their lifestyle (BLM 2003l). Many, especially those in ranching and 

irrigated agriculture, are concerned with water quality and quantity as well as soil quality. This sometimes leads 

to tension between the desire for new development to support the often-stagnant rural economies and the 

concern that such development could harm the environment and the traditional lifestyle qualities. Those who 

own land or would otherwise benefit from mineral and energy development projects tend to favor cautious and 

prudent development to realize the individual and community economic benefits such projects may bring (BLM 

2003l). Some who do not stand to benefit directly also favor responsible development and believe that the 

economic benefits are needed to support the local economy. 

Other individuals are concerned that the quality of life and the environment will be adversely affected, that local 

benefits will be minor, and that most of the benefits will accrue to outsiders. Areas where energy resources are 

developed often see an influx of people from other areas (BLM 2003l). Many of these people see their 

employment as temporary, expect to move on to other areas, and do not play an integral part in community 

affairs. Long-term local residents often resent these outsiders while at the same time realizing some economic 

benefits from the business and service demands of these newcomers. 

A small but growing population includes professionals, craftspeople, retirees, and others who have moved to 

small towns to enjoy various amenities and the slower pace of life and (BLM 2003l). While the forested areas of 

western Montana tend to attract more of this group than eastern Montana, these people are present in the 

planning area as well, and they may oppose development proposals that appear to jeopardize the quality of their 

new lifestyles (BLM 2005g). 

Local community concerns received during scoping included payment in lieu of taxes (PILT), management of 

invasive weed species and fires, continued use of OHVs, development to support local communities, and 

emphasis on local comments versus out-of-state comments. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-158

American Indians 

 

Three American Indian Reservations are located in or near the planning area. The Crow and Northern Cheyenne 

Reservations are adjacent to each other in the southeastern part of the planning area, in Big Horn and Rosebud 

counties. The Fort Peck Reservation, which is home to the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, is located in the 

northern part of the planning area. In addition, the Turtle Mountain Reservation of North Dakota has scattered 

land in Sheridan and Roosevelt counties. Other tribes have also shown an interest in the area (see Tribal 

Interests). According to Deaver (1986), the following types of traditional contemporary religious sites may be 

identifiable in the planning area: vision quest sites, rock art sites, burials, habitation sites, and dance grounds. 

Hunting and plant gathering (for religious or ceremonial purposes) also occur in the planning area. Concerns 

received from various tribes during tribal consultation included various methods of protection for cultural 

resources, oil and gas leasing, sage-grouse declines, overgrazing, erosion, and other resource issues. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994) requires each federal agency to identify and address the 

“...disproportionately high and adverse human or environmental effects of its program, policies, and activities 

on minority populations and low income populations.” 

American Indians represent nearly 11 of the population in the planning area and are concentrated in Big Horn, 

Rosebud, and Roosevelt counties, which also contain the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, and Fort Peck Reservation 

communities. Over 16,000 American Indians live on these reservations, and all of these reservations have high 

percentages of people living in poverty and very high unemployment rates in comparison to the rest of the 

planning area and the state as a whole (BLM 2005g).

In 2009, the percentage of persons below the poverty level for counties in the planning area was more than 15 

percent, which was similar to the statewide figure. Figures for individual counties ranged from a low of 9 

percent in Fallon County to more than 20 percent in Big Horn and Carter counties and over 30 percent in 

Roosevelt County. 

Tribal Interests

BLM coordination or consultation with American Indians, as it pertains to tribal interests, treaty rights and trust 

responsibilities, is conducted in accordance with the following direction: 

 BLM Manual Handbook H-8120-1, Guidelines for Conducting Tribal Consultation (transmitted December 

3, 2004); 

 Executive Order No. 13084 , Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (May 14, 

1998); 

 Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments (Memorandum signed by 

President Clinton on April 29, 1994); and 

 Order No. 3175, Departmental Responsibilities for Indian Trust Resources (Section 2 of Reorganization 

Plan No. 3 of 1950 – 64 Stat. 1262; November 8, 1993). 

Treaties are negotiated contracts made pursuant to the Constitution of the United States and are considered the 

“supreme law of the land.” They take precedence over any conflicting state laws because of the supremacy 

clause of the Constitution (United States Constitution, Art. VI, Clause 2). Treaty rights are not gifts or grants 

from the United States, but bargained-for concessions. These rights are grants-of-rights from the tribes, rather 

than to the tribes. The reciprocal obligations assumed by the federal government and American Indian Tribes 

constitute the chief source of present-day federal Indian law. 

The United States and represented agencies, including the BLM, have a special trust relationship with American 

Indian Tribes because of these treaties. As a federal land management agency, the BLM has the responsibility to 

identify and consider potential impacts of BLM plans, projects, programs, or activities on Indian trust resources. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-159

When planning any proposed project or action, the BLM must ensure that all anticipated effects to Indian trust 

resources are addressed in the planning, decision, and operational documents prepared for each project. The 

BLM also has the responsibility to ensure that meaningful consultation and coordination concerning tribal treaty 

rights and trust resources are conducted on a government-to-government basis with federally recognized tribes. 

American Indians inhabited eastern Montana, including the lands now managed by the MCFO, for thousands of 

years prior to European contact. They hunted, fished, gathered plant foods, buried their dead, and conducted 

religious ceremonies on lands within the planning area since ancient times. Native groups historically utilized 

numerous areas in the planning area for natural resource foraging, hunting subsistence, habitation, and spiritual 

and religious ceremonies. Practices that continue today include visiting these areas for plant and mineral 

gathering; rock art, traditional camp, and ceremonial sites; and burial areas. 

The lands managed by the MCFO are within the historical or traditional culture use area of the following tribes: 

 Fort Peck Tribes (Assiniboine and Sioux), 

 Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, 

 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, 

 Crow Tribe, 

 Northern Cheyenne Tribe, 

 Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, 

 Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of the Standing Rock Reservation, 

 Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 

 Northern Arapaho Tribe, 

 Eastern Shoshone Tribe, 

 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, 

 Blackfeet Tribe, 

 Gros Ventre and Assiniboine Tribes of the Fort Belknap Reservation, and 

 Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation. 

The MCFO maintains a government-to-government relationship with tribal governments in the use and 

protection of cultural and natural resources on public lands. It is also the responsibility of federal agencies to 

consult with federally recognized tribes and other interested parties to ensure that their policies and actions do 

not unduly violate the traditional values of American Indian groups. The traditional value of primary concern to 

land managers is a respect for the land and places in which American Indian ancestors once lived. 

ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 

Key Industries in the Planning Area 

Agriculture, mineral and energy development, and recreation and tourism are the industries in the planning area 

most affected by BLM management. More information on these industries follows. 

Many livestock operators in the area graze livestock on public lands. In 2005, there were 544,564 AUMs 

available for livestock use in the planning area. The planning area contained 1,699 grazing allotments that 

covered 12,465,374 acres, of which 2,737,086 were BLM-administered acres (Table 3-40). 

Agriculture is the second largest industry in the planning area (after the service industry) and provides 18 

percent of the jobs. Agriculture has traditionally been an important industry in the planning area, and it 

continues to be important today. There were 7,346 farms in the area in 2007, totaling 25,757,000 acres (NASS 

2007), which accounts for 25 percent of the farms and 42 percent of the land in farms in the state. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-160

Agriculture 

The total value of farm products sold in 2007 for the planning area was $964,974,000, 34 percent of the state 

total. The average value of farm products sold per farm in 2007 was $131,360. In 2007, 48 percent of the sales 

were from crops and 52 percent from poultry and livestock. This compares to a statewide average value of farm 

products sold per farm of $94,942 (45 percent crops and 55 percent livestock and poultry). 

There were 114,370 sheep 

and lambs and 939,800 

cattle and calves in the 

planning area in 2007, 

which represents 42 percent 

of the sheep and lambs and 

36 percent of the cattle and 

calves in Montana (Table 3-

41). 

Mineral and Energy 

Development 

At the planning area level, 

mining provides 3 percent 

of the jobs (United States 

Census Bureau 2000a). 

Many counties in the 

planning area that contain 

mineral resources have 

supported coal mining, 

conventional oil and gas, or 

CBNG development, 

including Big Horn, Carter, 

Dawson, Fallon, Powder 

River, Prairie, Richland, 

Rosebud, Treasure, Valley, 

and Wibaux counties (BLM 2003l). To analyze impacts from conventional oil and gas and CBNG development, 

BLM and the State of Montana prepared a joint EIS and RMP amendment. The planning area for that EIS and 

RMP amendment covered the entire state, with an emphasis on BLM’s Billings and Powder River Resource 

Management Areas. For analysis purposes, workers living in Wyoming would likely fill most of the CBNG jobs 

created. There is a high level of regional interest in CBNG production, with most concerns focused on waterrelated impacts. Wind power is another type of energy technology under development in the planning area.

Counties receive a share of the federal revenues from the production of minerals on federal lands, the amount of 

which is based on the wellhead price of oil and gas and the free-on-board mine price for coal. In fiscal year 

2010, the counties in the planning area received $10.3 million from coal, oil, and gas leasing and production, 

which was a 10 percent increase from fiscal year 2009, resulting from the rise in oil and gas prices in 2010 

(Table 3-42).

Recreation and Tourism 

Employment in recreation and tourism is reflected primarily in the services and retail trade sectors. Together, 

those industries account for 42 percent of the jobs in the planning area. 

TABLE 3-40.

GRAZING ALLOTMENTS IN THE PLANNING AREA

County Number of 

Allotments

Number 

of AUMs

Total 

Allotment 

Acreage

Acreage of Allotments 

on BLM-administered 

Lands

Big Horn 38 5,329 303,936 25,645

Carter 261 97,342 1,651,891 498,075

Custer 180 60,552 1,884,834 334,868

Daniels 1 20 1,572 38

Dawson 76 12,279 441,985 60,673

Fallon 154 26,556 631,043 113,227

Garfield 205 91,616 2,090,760 494,058

McCone 138 39,993 708,179 199,579

Powder 

River 220 52,773 1,302,400 253,976

Prairie 143 104,138 940,048 447,048

Richland 96 11,802 297,279 50,590

Roosevelt 13 1,262 33,502 3,624

Rosebud 139 35,045 1,960,745 227,906

Sheridan 3 50 2,587 140

Treasure 4 369 47,453 710

Wibaux 27 5,436 167,162 26,930

Total 1,699 544,564 12,465,374 2,737,086

Note: To prevent double counting (and to present values consistent with those in the 

grazing analysis), allotment and AUM numbers were treated proportionally. 

Source: BLM 2005g
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-161

Public lands provide many recreational opportunities for local residents and visitors. There are 14 BLMadministered recreation sites in the planning area: Moorhead Recreation Site, Howrey Island Wildlife Viewing 

Area, Matthews Recreation Area, Powder River Depot, Strawberry Hill Recreation Area, Terry OHV Area, 

Glendive Short Pine OHV Area, Calypso Trail SRMA, Hay Draw TMA, Knowlton TMA, Lewis and Clark 

Trail SRMA, Pumpkin Creek Ranch and Recreation Area, Big Sky Back Country Byway, and Dean S. 

Reservoir (BLM 2010m). Recreation activities that do not occur at the developed sites are referred to as 

dispersed use. Dispersed use accounts for approximately 88 percent of the visitors. 

Based on interviews of local residents involved in the 

real estate industry, the Billings Gazette reported that 

people are buying land in eastern Montana for its 

recreational value (Thackeray 2005c). These buyers 

often look for land close to public lands to extend their 

recreational range. The article explained that these 

landowners reside in other states and only come out a 

couple times a year to hunt or engage in other 

recreational activities. 

MFWP provides information on recreation in Montana 

and divides the state into seven regions. MFWP 

Region 7 includes most of the planning area, which is 

known for mule deer, antelope, upland game bird, and 

waterfowl hunting; fishing in ponds, reservoirs, and 

three major rivers; and wildlife viewing (MFWP 

2005a). The region has six state parks, four wildlife 

management areas, and numerous fishing access sites. 

Survey results reported in the Montana Statewide 

Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan stated that 

the primary outdoor recreation activities in MFWP’s 

Region 7 were walking (25 percent), other activity (13 

percent), none (10 percent), golf (9 percent), fishing (8 

percent), hunting (6 percent), and horseback riding (5 

percent) (MFWP 2008). 

The BLM collects recreation data by recreational 

activity for each field office (Table 3-43). The number 

of visitor days was documented for 33 recreational 

activities for fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2009. 

(The activities were categorized as General Recreation 

or Fish and Wildlife-related Recreation for impact 

analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.) 

Fish and wildlife-related activities, principally hunting and fishing, accounted for two-thirds of the visitor days. 

General recreation (mainly camping, driving for pleasure, OHV use, and picnicking) accounted for one-third of 

the total visitor days. 

Government Revenues and Contribution 

A source of local government revenue directly attributable to public lands in the counties is payment in lieu of 

taxes. The federal government makes these payments to compensate counties for lost property tax revenue 

resulting from the presence of public lands. There were 4.8 million acres of public lands in the planning area, of 

which 83 percent (3.66 million acres) were managed by BLM. The counties in the planning area received 

$2,776,506 in PILT payments in 2011 (Table 3-44). The payments are made based on population, receiptsharing payments, and the amount of federal land in each county. The PILT payment for the BLM-administered 

lands in the planning area was $2,307,000.

TABLE 3-41. 

PLANNING AREA LIVESTOCK 

INVENTORY IN 2007

County Sheep and 

Lambs

Cattle 

and 

Calves

Big Horn 640 93,200

Carter 37,000 65,800

Custer 5,800 99,500

Daniels 350 18,700

Dawson 5,200 46,600

Fallon 2,300 49,200

Garfield 23,400 68,400

McCone 6,800 38,800

Powder River 14,700 77,100

Prairie 2,400 39,300

Richland 5,000 82,600

Roosevelt 3,200 35,600

Rosebud 3,000 78,600

Sheridan 1,700 23,200

Treasure 80 33,200

Valley 2,200 71,100

Wibaux 600 18,900

Planning Area Total 114,370 939,800

Montana Total 272,000 2,590,000

Planning Area, 

Percentage of MT (%) 42 36

Notes: Data for Big Horn and Valley counties represent the 

entire counties, including areas of these counties that are 

outside of the planning area.

Numbers have been rounded. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-162

Employment in the BLM MCFO contributes directly to the planning area economy. These employees reside in 

the area and spend dollars at local businesses. In 2009, the MCFO employed 105 permanent full-time staff and 

56 other than permanent positions, including temporary and career seasonal employees. 

Eastern Montana Resource Advisory 

Council visit to Glendive Short Pine OHV area 

 Osprey nesting platform in the planning area 

TABLE 3-42.

FEDERAL MINERAL DISTRIBUTIONS TO COUNTIES IN THE PLANNING AREA

County Fiscal Year 2007 Fiscal Year 2008

Big Horn $2,995,904 $4,015,548

Carter $65,846 $98,689

Custer $22,722 $8,864

Daniels $1,342 $1,310

Dawson $294,625 $335,815

Fallon $1,962,177 $2,472,271

Garfield $5,664 $37,311

McCone $451 $498

Powder River $77,519 $165,664

Prairie $79,265 $111,652

Richland $238,399 $377,550

Roosevelt $34,324 $20,907

Rosebud $1,274,298 $1,345,430

Sheridan $13,247 $14,652

Treasure $139,853 $110,872

Valley $89,562 $94,085

Wibaux $332,773 $403,071

Planning Area Total $7,627,968 $9,614,189

Note: Data for Big Horn and Valley counties represent the entire counties, including the areas outside of the 

planning area. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-163

TABLE 3-43.

VISITOR DAYS IN THE PLANNING AREA BY ACTIVITY AND TYPE

Activity

Fiscal Years 2005 to 2009 Fiscal Year 2009

Visitor 

Days General Fish and Wildlife

Visitor 

Days General Fish and Wildlife

Archery 19,656 0 19,656 4,278 0 4,278

Bicycling, mountain 2,832 2,832 0 66 66 0

Camping 67,496 67,496 0 11,580 11,580 0

Driving for pleasure 19,629 19,629 0 4,650 4,650 0

Environmental education 323 323 0 107 107 0

Fishing, freshwater 12,314 0 12,314 2,165 0 2,165

Gathering, non-commercial 62 62 N/A

Hiking, walking, or running 6,424 6,424 0 1,962 1,962 0

Horseback riding 1,772 1,772 0 13 13 0

Hunting, big game 193,173 0 193,173 45,022 0 45,022

Hunting, small game 1,268 0 1,268 169 0 169

Hunting, upland bird 37,483 0 37,483 13,298 0 13,298

Hunting, waterfowl 1,723 0 1,723 1,094 0 1,094

Interpretive programs 2,359 2,359 0 181 181 0

Nature study 7,088 7,088 0 1,814 1,814 0

OHV, ATV 6,980 6,980 0 1,846 1,846 0

OHV, cars, trucks, or SUVs 2,877 2,877 0 516 516 0

OHV, motorcycle 7,651 7,651 0 1,233 1,233 0

Photography 101 101 0 31 31 0

Picnicking 8,124 8,124 0 2,111 2,111 0

Power boating 64 64 N/A

Racing, foot 33 33 0 33 33 0

Rockhounding or mineral 

collection 961 961 0 58 58 0

Row, float, or raft 1,690 1,690 0 84 84 0

Snowmobiling 749 749 0 62 62 0

Social gathering 364 364 N/A

Target practice 5,328 5,328 0 735 735 0

Trapping 624 624 157 0 157

Viewing, cultural 81 81 N/A

Viewing, other 2 2 N/A

Viewing, scenery 1,700 1,700 0 1,565 1,565 0

Viewing, wildlife (50% general 

and 50% fish and wildlife)

20,497 10,249 10,249 12,069 6,035 6,035

Viewing, interpretive exhibit 121 121 0 24 24 0

Total 431,549 155,060 276,490 106,923 34,706 72,218

Percent of Total (%) 35.9 64.1 32.5 67.5
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Social and Economic 

3-164

TABLE 3-44. 

PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

County Payment ($)

Percentage of 

Planning Area

(%)

Big Horn $13,659 0.5

Carter $191,464 6.9

Custer $781,125 28.1

Daniels $0 0.0

Dawson $21,085 0.8

Fallon $38,207 1.4

Garfield $186,092 6.7

McCone $269,036 9.7

Powder River $196,724 6.9

Prairie $141,582 5.1

Richland $17,869 0.6

Roosevelt $1,413 0.1

Rosebud $107,427 3.9

Sheridan $587 0.0

Treasure $247 0.0

Valley $801,090 28.9

Wibaux $8,899 0.3

Planning Area Total $2,776,506 100.0

Source: National Business Center 2011

Notes: Data for Big Horn and Valley counties represent the entire counties, including the areas 

outside of the planning area. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTE 

Hazardous materials represent a significant risk to public safety, human health, and the environment and are 

therefore important issues for BLM management (Table 3-45). Hazardous materials management also involves 

the prevention of illegal hazardous-material actions on BLM-administered lands; the regulation, authorization, 

and proper use of legal hazardous materials on BLM-administered lands; and timely, safe responses to 

hazardous materials incidents on BLM-administered lands. 

Some illicit dumping occurs on BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Much of the illicit activity is 

intentional, small-quantity waste dumping that may include hazardous substances, household waste, petroleum 

products, solid waste, and agricultural materials. Illicit dumping may occur anywhere on BLM-administered 

lands, but is generally concentrated around recreation areas and along roadways. These dumping incidents may 

not fit the specific category of hazardous waste dumping, but the dumped materials are usually screened for 

hazardous components before the materials are removed and disposed of properly. Instances of significant or 

hazardous dumping in the planning area are limited, which is attributed to the relatively low population density 

around the BLM-administered lands. 

The MCFO has responded to a number of vehicular accidents that involved the accidental release of hazardous 

materials or petroleum products from transport vehicles. The hazardous materials management program may 

become involved with a particular response action or cleanup when the release affects BLM-administered lands. 
CHAPTER 3 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Hazardous Materials 

3-165

TABLE 3-45. 

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS ACTIVITIES AND EXPOSURE RISKS

Potential Hazardous Activity Exposure Risk

Facilities on public land (under a ROW) Leaky underground storage tanks; asbestos

Historic and active mining operations

Acid rock drainage; hazardous chemicals 

associated with ore processing (e.g., 

cyanide); explosives (e.g., dynamite, 

ammonium nitrate, caps, and boosters); 

heavy metals; asbestos

Illegal activities Drug lab waste sites; wire burn sites

Illegal dumping of barrels or other 

containers containing hazardous substances Unauthorized landfills

Military operations Unexploded ordinance; aircraft wreckage

Oil and gas activities Hydrogen sulfide gas; oil spills

In recent years, the BLM has responded to a number of dumped methamphetamine lab or related drug wastes. 

Methamphetamine drug lab wastes frequently include highly toxic chemicals, flammable materials, and 

potentially explosive materials, which present a hazard to wildlife and a direct health and safety hazard to 

individuals who may inadvertently encounter these materials. Potential skin punctures and disease transmission 

caused by discarded drug paraphernalia are also a concern. 

Hazardous materials may be brought legitimately onto BLM-administered lands for invasive vegetation species 

(weed) control or resource development. The types of hazardous materials used for weed and insect control 

include pesticides (herbicides and insecticides). The 

general types of hazardous materials that may be used 

include petroleum products (fuels and lubricants), 

solvents, surfactants, paints, explosives, batteries, 

acids, gases, antifreeze, and mineral products (mine 

waste, cement, and drilling materials). Another source 

of hazardous materials is from actions involving 

ROWs, leases, and permits. Examples of these types 

of actions are on-site storage and use of fuels (oil and 

gas), telecommunication sites, and transportation 

facilities.

Greater short-horned lizard at the 

Glendive Short Pine OHV Area
This page intentionally left blank.