HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 241

Chapter 3

Affected Environment

Introduction

Chapter 3 contains a description of the physical, biological, cultural, economic and social conditions of the HiLine 

planning area. The Affected Environment serves as the baseline of existing conditions from which the impacts of the 

alternatives may be analyzed. In order to improve the readability of this document and to enable the reader to easily 

locate referenced tables/sections, the resource discussions are organized alphabetically. The resource sections are noted 

in the document footers, along with the chapter and page numbers.

Air Resources

Regional air resources are influenced by the interaction of several factors, including weather, climate, the magnitude and 

spatial distribution of local and regional air pollutant sources, and the chemical properties of emitted air pollutants. Air

resources include air quality and air quality related values (AQRVs), which include visibility and acid deposition to soils 

and lakes.

Regional Winds

Wind is a critical component of ambient air quality because it disperses pollutants and transports them away from the 

point of origin. The prevailing wind direction for Great Falls, Montana is out of the southwest, with the exception of 

May to July, when wind typically comes from the north, as shown in Table 3.1. Winter conditions may produce 

moderate winds with individual days generating strong winds.

Table 3.1

Prevailing Wind Directions and Average Speeds (mph) for Great Falls

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual

SW SW SW SW N N N SW SW SW SW SW SW

13.3 12.3 11.8 11.2 11.3 10.2 9.6 9.2 10.4 11.9 13.2 13.8 11.5

Source: WRCC 2011a.

Wind varies considerably from one location to another. A wind rose for the Bluff Creek Remote Automated Weather 

Station (RAWS) in the northern portion of Valley County (northwest of Fort Peck Indian Reservation) indicates more 

northerly winds at this location. The 16 arms in Figure 3.1 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.

Bitter Creek Area, Valley County Photo by Kathy Tribby
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

242 Air Resources

Figure 3.1

Wind Rose for Bluff Creek, Montana (2009)

Source: WRCC 2011b.

Criteria Air Pollutants

Criteria air pollutants are substances for which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established national 

health-based concentration standards under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) program. Criteria air 

pollutants include carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter with a 

diameter greater than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter greater than or equal to 2.5 

micrometers (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Criteria air pollutant concentrations are compared to NAAQS and 

Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS). The NAAQS include both primary and secondary standards, as 

shown in Table 3.2. Primary standards protect public health, including the health of sensitive populations such as 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 243

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

infrastructure, and vegetation.

Table 3.2

Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant

Federal NAAQS1State MAAQS2

Averaging Time Level Standard Type Level

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO)

8-hour 9 ppm 3Primary 9 ppm 12

1-hour 35 ppm 3Primary 23 ppm 12

Fluoride in Forage

Monthly N/A N/A 50 μg/g

Grazing Season N/A N/A 35 μg/g

Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour N/A N/A 0.05 ppm 12

Lead (Pb)

3-month (rolling) 0.15 μg/m3 4Primary, Secondary N/A

90-day N/A N/A 1.5 μg/g 4

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2)

Annual 0.053 ppm 4Primary, Secondary 0.05 ppm 13

1-hour 0.100 ppm 5Primary 0.30 ppm 12

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

Annual 15.0 μg/m3 6,7 Primary, Secondary N/A

24 hour 35 μg/m3 5 Primary,

Secondary 8 N/A

Particulate Matter 

(PM10)

Annual N/A N/A 50 μg/m3 14

24-hour 150 μg/m3 9Primary, Secondary 150 μg/m3

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

Ozone (O3)

8-hour 0.075 ppm 10Primary, Secondary N/A

1-hour N/A N/A 0.10 ppm 12

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Annual 0.030 ppm 4Primary 0.02 ppm 13

24-hour 0.14 ppm 3Primary 0.10 ppm 12

3-hour 0.5 ppm 3Secondary N/A

1-hour 0.075 ppm 11Primary 0.50 ppm 15

Visibility Annual N/A N/A 3 x 10-5/m 16

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

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

(ARM).

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

4 Not to be exceeded.

5 Based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the daily maximum concentrations. 

6 Based on a 3-year average of the weighted annual mean from one or more community monitors.

7 EPA proposed to revise the annual primary PM2.5 standard to within a range of 12–13 μg/m3

. 

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

miles] standard visual range).

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

10 Based on the 3-year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations per calendar year.

11 Based on a 3-year average of the 99th percentile of the daily maximum concentrations.

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

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

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

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

16 This standard applies only in certain Class I areas (Table 3.5).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

244 Air Resources

Areas that do not meet federal standards are designated as nonattainment areas. Air quality within the planning area is 

good and all areas are designated as attainment areas that meet the NAAQS or as unclassifiable areas that are presumed 

to meet the NAAQS. 

Air Quality Monitoring

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) performs regulatory monitoring of CO, NO2, ozone, SO2, 

PM10, and PM2.5 in order to determine compliance with NAAQS and MAAQS. 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 DEQ operates the SLAMS network to determine compliance with regulatory concentration 

standards. CASTNet stations are located in remote areas and measure concentrations of compounds that are of interest 

to ecosystem health. Air pollutant concentrations are usually reported on a volume basis as parts per million (ppm) or 

parts per billion (ppb) for gaseous substances and on a mass basis as micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) for solid 

substances such as PM10 and PM2.5.

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

Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. A list of monitoring stations near the 

planning area is provided in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3

Air Quality Monitoring Stations In or Near the Planning Area

Monitoring 

System Station Identifier

Pollutant or

AQRV Location Latitude Longitude

SLAMS

30-013-0001 CO Great Falls 47.4942 -111.3028

30-029-8001 O3 Glacier National Park 48.5103 -113.9956

30-083-0001 NO, NO2, NOx, 

PM10, PM2.5, SO2

Sidney 47.8034 -104.4856

CASTNET

THR422

O3, SO2, 

Deposition

Theodore Roosevelt 

National Park (North 

Dakota)

46.8947 -103.3778

GLR468 O3, SO2, 

Deposition Glacier National Park 48.5103 -113.9956

NADP

MT98 Wet Deposition Havre 48.5007 -109.798

MT96 Wet Deposition Poplar River 48.3149 -105.144

MT05 Wet Deposition Glacier National Park 48.5102 -113.997

IMPROVE

FOPE1 Visibility Fort Peck Indian 

Reservation

48.308 -105.102

MELA1 Visibility Medicine Lakes 

Wilderness 48.487 -104.476

ULBE1 Visibility UL Bend 47.5823 -108.72

GLAC1 Visibility Glacier National Park 48.511 -113.997

The sources and effects of each criteria pollutant are explained below. Recent ambient air quality monitoring data are 

shown as the percentage of the monitored concentration compared to the NAAQS in Figure 3.2. Values shown in Figure 

3.2 are based on the format of the NAAQS. For example, when a NAAQS allows one exceedance of a standard per year, 

the second highest monitored value is reported for comparison to the NAAQS. In many cases, the NAAQS format 

requires multiyear averages for some criteria pollutants. When the nearest monitor has fewer years of data than required 

by the NAAQS format, the years included in the multiyear average are specified. Due to the geographic distribution of 

Montana monitors, some of the monitoring sites considered to be representative of the planning area are located outside 

the planning area.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 245

Figure 3.2

Ambient Air Quality Concentrations in the HiLine Planning Area (2011)

Source: EPA 2012.

CO Based on second maximum values (2011). PM2.5 24-hour: 3-year average of 98th percentile (2009-2011)

Annual: 3 year average weighted mean (2009-2010)

NO2 1-hour: 3-year average of 98th percentile (2009-2011)

Annual: arithmetic mean (2011) PM10 24-hour: 3-year average of 2nd maximum (2009-2011)

O3 3-year average of 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour 

average (2009-2011)

SO2 1-hour: 3-year average of the 99th percentile of 1-hour 

daily maximum concentrations (2011)

3-hour and 24-hour: Second maximum (2011)

Annual: arithmetic mean (2011)

Carbon Monoxide

CO 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 CO concentrations can 

include slight headaches, nausea, or death. 

Motor vehicles and other internal combustion engines are the dominant source of CO emissions in most areas. High CO 

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 result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. 

CO is also created during refuse, agricultural, and wood-stove burning and through some industrial processes.

In 2011, the second highest 1-hour CO concentration in Great Falls (Cascade County) was 1.6 ppm, approximately 5% 

of the corresponding primary NAAQS. This concentration was 7% of the more stringent 1-hour CO MAAQS. The 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

246 Air Resources

second highest 8-hour CO concentration was 0.9 ppm during the same year in Great Falls and is approximately 10% of 

the corresponding primary NAAQS and MAAQS. 

Lead

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

diesel fuel. However, since lead in fuels has decreased substantially, 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. Due to 

the lack of large lead emission sources, lead levels in the planning area are expected to be well below the NAAQS and 

MAAQS. 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

Nitrogen oxides (NOx), including nitric oxide (NO) and NO2, 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, NO2 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, NO2

contributes to visibility impacts and may be visible as reddish-brown haze. NO2 and other forms of NOx form nitric acid 

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

Hourly NO2 concentrations from the rural Sidney monitor within Richland County are provided in Figure 3.2. This

monitor is located in an oil and gas activity area and is east of the planning area. Monitored 1-hour concentrations were 

11% of the NAAQS during 2009-2011, while annual average concentrations were 3% of the NAAQS. 

Ozone

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

pollutants, including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx. These precursors are emitted by mobile sources, 

stationary combustion equipment, and other industrial sources. Ozone is produced year-round, but due to greater 

sunlight and air temperatures, urban ozone concentrations are generally greatest during the summer. Elevated ozone 

concentrations may also occur during winter in snow-covered rural areas, particularly in areas with deep valleys. 

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 3-year average of the fourth highest 8-hour ozone concentration was 0.056 ppm at the Sidney monitor during 2009-

2011. This measured concentration is 75% of the 8-hour 2008 primary and secondary NAAQS of 0.075 ppm..

Particulate Matter

Particulate matter includes PM10 and PM2.5. 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. 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 PM10 include smoke from wildland fire, residential wood burning, street sand, physically 

disturbed soils, and dust from unpaved roads. 

PM2.5 poses greater health concerns than PM10 because it can pass through the nose and throat and be trapped deep in the 

lungs. Fine particulate also contributes to reduced visibility in nationally important areas such as national parks. PM2.5
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 247

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 second highest 24-hour PM10 concentration in the planning area was 102 μg/m3or 68% of the corresponding 

primary and secondary NAAQS in Sidney (Richland County) in 2011. The 3-year average 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5

concentration at the same location from 2009-2011 was 14.1 μg/m3, which was 40% of the corresponding primary and 

secondary NAAQS. The 3-year average weighted mean PM2.5 annual concentrations at the same location and year was 

7.5 μg/m3, or approximately 50% of the corresponding primary and secondary NAAQS. 

Sulfur Dioxide

SO2 is a colorless gas with a pungent odor. Prolonged exposure to high levels of SO2 can lead to respiratory failure, and 

SO2 plays an important role in the aggravation of chronic respiratory illnesses such as asthma. SO2 is emitted primarily 

from stationary sources that burn fossil fuels (i.e., coal and oil) containing trace amounts of elemental sulfur. Other 

human-caused sources of SO2 include metal smelters and petroleum refineries. In the atmosphere, SO2 converts to 

sulfuric acid, a component of atmospheric deposition (acid rain), and forms secondary aerosols, subsequently 

contributing to visibility impacts in nationally important areas. 

The 3-year average 99th percentile 1-hour SO2 concentration was 6.5 ppb at the Sidney monitor from 2009-2011. This 

concentration was 9% of the corresponding primary 75 ppb NAAQS. The second highest 3-hour (secondary standard) 

and 24-hour (primary standard) SO2 values measured at the same site during 2011 were 0.0060 ppm (1%) and 0.0001 

ppm (<1%) of the NAAQS, respectively. The arithmetic mean annual SO2 concentration for the same location and year 

was 0.0006 ppm, approximately 2% of the primary and secondary NAAQS.

The 1-hour SO2 NAAQS is a relatively new standard. Due to differences between the format of historic monitoring data 

and the 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, these concentrations cannot be compared directly to the NAAQS and do not illustrate the 

data that EPA will use for determining attainment/nonattainment designations for the new standard.

VOCs

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

consistently higher indoors than outdoors. VOCs are emitted from equipment such as organic liquid storage tanks, 

leaking equipment, and from engines and other combustion equipment. In addition, thousands of products emit VOCs, 

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

VOCs are not subject to a NAAQS. However, since they react with NOx to form ground-level ozone, VOCs are a 

precursor to ozone and VOC emissions are regulated by EPA.

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

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

problems, which include chronic respiratory disease, reproductive disorders, or birth defects. Of the 187 regulated 

HAPs, several are commonly emitted from planning area engines and other sources. Engine-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 whose emissions are largely associated with large coal-burning facilities, such as electric utilities. 

Ambient concentrations of mercury are not monitored within the planning area. During 2010, the average mercury 

concentration was 5.9 nanograms per liter (ng/L) in Glacier National Park. Total mercury deposition was approximately 

91 ng per square meter (NADP 2011a). Mercury concentrations and total deposition at Glacier National Park are low 

compared to deposition in most other areas of the nation.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

248 Air Resources

Other Pollutants

Other air pollutants of interest include nitrogen and sulfur compounds because they contribute to acid deposition and 

regional haze. Nitrogen compounds include particulate nitrate (NO3

–

), nitric acid, and ammonium (NH4

+

), while sulfur 

compounds include particulate sulfate (SO4

–2

) and SO2. Concentrations of HNO3, SO2, NH4

+

, NO3

–

, and SO4

–2 within the 

planning area are low relative to concentrations across the United States (NADP 2011b).

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 planning area based on a compilation of available emission inventory sources by EPA as 

part of the 2008 National Emission Inventory (NEI). This inventory does not capture all emissions in the eight counties 

included in the planning area, but it is a good estimate. Emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are not included in 

Table 3.4 because these emissions were not reported to EPA and the Montana DEQ for calendar year 2008. Due to 

recent implementation of a new federal air quality rule, many facilities within the planning area will begin reporting 

GHG emissions to EPA.

Table 3.4

HiLine Planning Area Criteria Pollutant Emissions by County

County

Emissions (tons/year)

CO NOX PM10 PM2.5 VOC SO2

Blaine 2,922 2,722 3,696 460 456 23

Chouteau 2,831 1,189 2,985 404 413 27

Glacier 3,281 1,840 4,787 583 583 24

Hill 4,045 2,060 4,151 552 637 31

Liberty 1,404 987 1,277 188 269 16

Phillips 2,104 1,271 2,783 347 443 18

Toole 3,593 1,831 1,319 217 544 23

Valley 3,286 2,018 2,712 385 612 31

Total 23,466 13,918 23,710 3,136 3,957 193

Source: EPA 2011a.

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 US Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service 

(NPS), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 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 summarizes Class I and potential sensitive Class II areas in or near the planning area. Portions of Glacier 

National Park and the UL Bend Wilderness are located within the planning area. The Fort Peck Indian Reservation is 

adjacent to the eastern boundary of the planning area, while the Medicine Lake Wilderness is approximately 100 km east 

of the planning area and the Great Bear Wilderness is near the southwest corner of the planning area. Sensitive Class II 

areas include two Indian Reservations within the planning area. Potential sensitive Class II areas include the Bear Paw 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 249

Battlefield and several National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs). Sensitive Class II areas will be identified in the final 

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

Table 3.5

Class I and Potential Sensitive Class II Areas In or Near the HiLine Planning Area

Area Name Jurisdictional Agency

Class I Areas

Glacier National Park NPS

U.L. Bend Wilderness USFWS

Great Bear Wilderness USFS

Fort Peck Indian Reservation Tribal

Medicine Lake Wilderness USFWS

Sensitive Class II Areas

Bear Paw Battlefield 1 NPS

Bowdoin NWR 1 USFWS

Charles M. Russell NWR 1 USFWS

Creedman Coulee NWR 1 USFWS

Fort Belknap Indian Reservation Tribal

Lake Thibadeau NWR 1 USFWS

Medicine Lake NWR 1 USFWS

Rocky Boys Indian Reservation Tribal

U.L. Bend NWR 1 USFWS

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge

1 These areas may be determined to be sensitive Class II areas pending

determinations made by the NPS and USFWS.

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 5.0–5.6 (Seinfeld 1986). At the Havre Agricultural Research Station, 2010 

annual average precipitation pH was approximately 5.49 (NADP 2011a). The planning area has low nitrate wet 

deposition (2 kg/ha kilograms per hectare [kg/ha]) and ammonium wet deposition (0.9 kg/ha) compared to the rest of the 

United States, which has nitrate deposition values from 1–12 kg/ha and ammonium deposition values of 0.2–7.1 kg/ha 

(NADP 2011b).

Total nitrogen deposition at the Glacier National Park station was 1.67 kg/ha-yr in 2009 (CASTNet 2011). The planning 

area has low nitrate and ammonium deposition compared to the rest of the United States (NADP 2011b). With regard to 

total sulfur deposition, approximately 0.8 kg/ha-yr of sulfate was deposited at Glacier National Park during 2009 

(CASTNet 2011). High elevation ecosystems in the park are particularly sensitive to nitrogen deposition because high 

elevation areas receive greater amounts of snow and rain and short growing seasons and shallow soils limit the capacity 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

250 Air Resources

of soils and plants to absorb nitrogen. Nitrogen deposition can also contribute to nitrogen enrichment, which can 

potentially change the species composition of sensitive terrestrial and aquatic communities.

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, lakes with acid neutralizing 

capacity values of between 10 to 25 μeq/L are considered to be very sensitive, and lakes with acid neutralizing capacity

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 approximately a 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% of days with the clearest visibility (20% clearest), and the 20% of days with the worst 

visibility (20% haziest). Visibility can also be defined by standard visual range (SVR), which is the farthest distance at 

which an observer can see a black object viewed against the sky above the horizon; the larger the SVR, the cleaner the 

air. Since 1980, the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network has measured 

visibility in national parks and wilderness areas.

The average standard visible range at the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation IMPROVE monitor was 58 miles 

during the average haziest 20% of days and 171 miles during the clearest 20% of days. Similar standard visual range 

data are 76 and 182 miles at Yellowstone National Park, 57 and 168 miles at the UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, and 

36 and 107 miles at Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

Visibility trends at Class I areas in or near the planning area are shown in Figure 3.3. On the 20% worst visibility days, 

visibility improved significantly at Glacier National Park, improved slightly at UL Bend Wilderness, and degraded 

slightly at Medicine Lakes Wilderness. When the 20% best visibility days are considered, visibility improved slightly to 

moderately at all three sites.

Sand Creek Area, Blaine and Chouteau Counties Photo by Kathy Tribby
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 251

Figure 3.3

Visibility Trends on Haziest and Clearest Visibility Days (2005-2009)

Source: IMPROVE 2011.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

252 Air Resources

Smoke Management

Smoke contains large quantities of CO and particulate matter. 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 located in Airsheds 9 and 10. 

Climate

The topography of the state plays an important role in Montana’s climate and creates a variable climate in the planning 

area. The Continental Divide exerts a marked influence on the climate of adjacent areas. West of the Divide the climate 

might be termed a modified northern Pacific coast type, while to the east, climatic characteristics are decidedly 

continental and much of the planning area is in the rain shadow of the Rocky Mountains. The continental climate of 

north-central and northeastern Montana is characterized by light precipitation totals, abundant sunshine, low relative 

humidity, and a relatively large annual and diurnal temperature range. A climate summary for Havre, Montana is 

presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6

Monthly Climate Summary for Havre, Montana

Period of Record: 2/1/1961 to 12/31/2008

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Max. 

Temperature (F) 25.6 33 43.3 57.2 67.9 76.5 85.3 84.1 71.5 59.1 41.5 29.9 56.2

Average Min. 

Temperature (F) 4.2 10.7 19.8 30.7 41 49.2 53.8 52.2 41.8 31 18.4 7.9 30.1

Average Total 

Precipitation 

(in.) 

0.45 0.33 0.56 0.92 1.67 2.14 1.48 1.12 1.06 0.56 0.4 0.45 11.14

Average Total 

Snow Fall (in.) 8.5 5.9 6.8 5.3 1.1 0 0 0 0.3 1.7 4.8 7.3 41.7

Average Snow 

Depth (in.) 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

Source: Western Regional Climate Center 2010. 

Temperature

January is also the coldest month, with average daytime high temperatures in the mid to low 20s, and average night time 

low temperatures near zero. Overnight lows below zero are common during winter, and record low temperatures for all 

six of the cooler season months from October through March are below 0F.

During the summer, hot weather occurs fairly often in northern Montana. July and August are the warmest months with 

average daytime highs in the mid-80s. This midsummer warmth is fairly steady, seldom severe, and is tempered by 

normal night time temperatures in the 50s. Generally, adequate moisture permits rapid plant and crop development 

during most growing seasons. Figure 3.4 shows statewide average daily maximum temperature.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 253

Figure 3.4

Montana Average Daily Maximum Temperature

Source: NRIS 2011.

Precipitation

Precipitation varies widely and seasonally, and over the mountainous areas depends largely on topographic influences. 

Areas on the windward side of mountain ranges are generally the wettest. In the planning area, May and June are the 

two rainiest months. Most annual precipitation comes as rain, and daily total precipitation seldom exceeds one inch. 

During the spring, precipitation events are associated with larger scale weather systems that bring widespread snow and 

rain to the eastern plains. Summer rains fall almost entirely during brief, but frequently intense thunderstorms. Figure 

3.5 depicts the statewide average annual precipitation.

Annual snowfall is approximately 25 inches in Malta and Glasgow and 42 inches in Havre. Most snow falls during 

November through April. The greatest volume of flow of Montana’s rivers occurs during the spring and early summer 

months with the winter snowpack melt. Heavy rains falling during the spring thaw can constitute a serious flood threat. 

Ice jams may occur during the spring breakup, usually in March, and cause backwater flooding. Flash floods, although 

restricted in scope, are probably the most numerous and result from locally heavy rainstorms in the spring and summer. 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

254 Air Resources

Figure 3.5

Montana Average Annual Precipitation

Source: NRIS 2011.

Other Climatic Features

Severe storms of various types occur in northern Montana; however the most troublesome are hailstorms that cause crop 

and property damage. Tornadoes develop infrequently (approximately two per year) and occur more frequently in the 

eastern part of the planning area. Local but severe windstorms can occur from a few to several times a year. Drought in 

its most severe form is not common, but dry years do occur. All parts of the state rarely suffer from dryness at the same 

time. 

In spite of figures that indicate cold winters, growing seasons (freeze-free periods) are four months or more in much of 

the agricultural area. In lower elevation areas of the planning area, the freeze-free period is 115-140 days, allowing time 

for growing many crops (MSU 2011). 

Climate Change

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 longterm trends indicating a noticeable shift in climate.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 255

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

humidity, precipitation amounts and timing, annual snow pack levels, stream flow volume and timing, and solar 

radiation.

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

“most of the observed increase in globally average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the 

observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Chapter 9 of Working Group I of the 2007 IPCC 

Report (IPCC 2007) addressed the causes of climate change. Some of the conclusions included: 1) human-induced 

warming of the climate system is widespread, 2) “it is likely” that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution 

to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century, and 3) 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 document trends (EPA 2008).

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, 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 GHG emissions 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. This warming is associated with climatic 

variability that exceeds the historic norm and 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 (BLM 2010b), IPCC Fourth Assessment (IPCC 2007), Climate Change 

Indicators in the United States (EPA 2011b), and Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (USGCRP 2009).

Annual GHG emissions for Montana, the United States, and the world are summarized in Table 3.7. Annual emissions 

of GHGs are usually quantified in units of metric tons (mt). A metric ton 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 (GWP) number that takes into 

account each gas’ atmospheric longevity and its heat-trapping capability. The GWP of CO2 is set at 1. EPA determined 

other GHGs’ relative climate change potentials over a 100-year time period. In EPA regulations, GWPs for methane and 

N2O are 21 and 310, respectively. Other organizations, such as the IPCC, have set slightly different GWPs.

Table 3.7

Estimated Annual GHG Emissions 1

Entity Data Year CO2e Emissions (106 mt)

Montana22007 50.4

United States32009 6,633

Global42004 49,000

1 Emissions exclude GHG emissions and sequestration due to land use and land use changes.

2 World Resources Institute Climate Analysis Tool (WRI 2011).

3

Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2009 (EPA 2011b).

4 Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (IPCC 2007).

GHG emission sources within the planning area 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 off-highway vehicles), livestock grazing, facilities development, and other equipment exhaust and fugitive 

emissions. 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 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

256 Air Resources

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

emissions.

Global atmospheric concentrations of GHGs are determined by the quantity of GHGs emitted to and removed from the 

atmosphere. Global concentrations of CO2, methane, and N2O in 2009 were 387 parts per million (ppm), 1,744 parts per 

billion (ppb), and 323 ppb, respectively (EPA 2011c). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 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 CO2 (e.g., prescribed burns) or it can provide a sink of CO2 through vegetation 

growth. The net storage or loss of carbon on rangelands and grasslands in northern Montana is generally small and 

difficult to estimate or measure. Most soils within the northern Montana contain relatively little organic matter 

compared to forest soils and forests and woodlands make up approximately 7% of the total acres on public lands in the 

planning area.

Climate Change 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 emissions 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 (EPA 2010b). In addition, the long 

lifetimes of many GHGs contribute to committed climate change. For example, CO2 typically remains in the atmosphere 

for 50–200 years, depending on how long it takes CO2 molecules to be absorbed by plants, land, or the ocean. N2O 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 (EPA 2010b). Additional types of GHGs also contribute to 

climate change, but their impact is substantially less due to 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 northern Montana, data from 1941 through 

2005 indicate a long-term temperature increase between 0.40–1.20 °F per decade since 1976, as shown in Figure 3.6. 

With regard to precipitation, data from 1931 through 2005 indicate little change or up to a 0.3” inch increase in total 

annual precipitation in northern Montana since 1976. 

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

Montana may increase 2–3°F by 2010–2029, as shown in Figure 3.7. Along with generally increasing temperatures, 

more days are predicted to have maximum temperatures greater than 100°F (USGCRP 2009). 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 is 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.

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. Due to warming 

temperatures melting glaciers and thermal expansion within the seawater, ocean levels are expected to rise. These 

changes will affect a broad array of ecosystems and affect food supplies and human health.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 257

Figure 3.6

Long-Term Historical Temperature and Precipitation Trends

Source: NOAA 2011.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

258 Air Resources

Figure 3.7

Near-Term Predicted Temperature Increases

Source: USGCRP 2009.

Climate Change Effects on Resources

Climate change affects nearly all resources at local, regional, and global levels. The effects of climate change are so 

widespread that they cannot all be described in this RMP. To illustrate the effects of global temperature change, 

Figure 3.8 provides broad examples of climate change impacts. As global temperatures increase, effects on 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 would be degraded if dry periods cause increased particulate emissions. 

Ground-level ozone may also be affected. High temperatures are a contributing factor in ground-level ozone formation, 

which is also highly dependent on NOx and VOC concentrations.

Climate change will affect water quality in northern Montana. Increasing temperatures 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 more stress to water 

resources in the region (IPCC 2007). Northern Montana depends on temperature-sensitive springtime snowpack to meet 

demand for water from municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational uses and BLM-authorized activities. The USGS 

notes that mountain ecosystems in the western United States are particularly sensitive to climate change. Higher 

elevations, where much of the snowpack occurs, have experienced three times the global average temperature increase 

over the past century (USGS 2010). 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 (USGCRP 2009). Rapid spring snowmelt 

due to sudden and unseasonal temperature increases can also lead to greater erosive events and unstable soil conditions.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Air Resources 259

Figure 3.8

Examples of Resource Impacts Due to Climate Change

Source: IPCC 2007, Summary for Policy Makers

Increases in average summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt in northern Montana are expected to increase the 

risk of wildfires by increasing summer moisture deficits (USGCRP 2009). Studies have shown that earlier snowmelts 

can lead to a longer dry season, which increases the incidence of catastrophic fire (Westerling, et al. 2006). 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°C (1.8°F) increase in global average temperature, a 393% increase in 

acreage burned in wildfires is predicted in northern Montana (NRC 2011). Air quality, ecosystem, and economic 

impacts from wildfires are extensive. Wildfires also release large quantities of CO2 that would increase atmospheric 

GHG concentrations.

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

temperatures are leading to earlier timing of spring events such as leaf unfolding, bird migration, and egg-laying (IPCC 

2007). The range of many plant and animal species has shifted poleward and to higher elevation, as the climate of these 

species’ traditional habitat changes. As future changes in climate are predicted to be even greater than past changes, 

there will likely be even larger range shifts in the coming decades (Lawler, et al. 2009). Warming temperatures are also 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

260 Air Resources

linked to earlier vegetation growth in the spring and longer thermal growing seasons (IPCC 2007). In aquatic habitats, 

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). Climate change is likely to combine with other 

human-induced stress 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 the greater sage-grouse, which are already 

stressed by declining habitat, increased development, and other factors, could experience additional pressures due to 

climate change.

More frequent 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 lead to discoveries of new 

cultural and paleontological localities.

Climate change also poses challenges for many resource uses on BLM-administered land. 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 due to 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.

Actions to Reduce GHGs

U.S. GHG emissions are expected to decline due to EPA’s listing of GHGs as a regulated air pollutant and 

implementation of several recent GHG regulatory programs. Facilities with large emissions of GHGs must report these 

emissions to EPA and new facilities with large expected GHG emissions must obtain air quality permits and potentially 

limit GHG emissions.

Within the U.S. 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 also 

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 (USDI 2010). The North Central Climate Science Center, 

which includes the planning area, was established in 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 are formed and directed by land, 

water, wildlife and cultural resource managers and interested public and private organizations, 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 that are 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 impacted 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 areas, species, and ecological features and services that are sensitive to ecosystem 

instability and changes in climatic conditions. One of the objectives of the BLM rapid ecoregional assessments is to 

provide guidance for adaptation and mitigation planning in response to climate change.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Cultural Resources 261

In addition to efforts being undertaken 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 in 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 USDI’s efforts to respond to climate change is 

available from http://www.doi.gov/whatwedo/climate/cop15/index.cfmC:\tmp\HiLine RMP\Preliminary Draft 

RMP\HiLine RMP by Chapter\Chapter 3\www.doi.gov\archive\climatechange\.

Cultural Resources

Cultural and archaeological resources in the planning area consist of artifacts, features, spiritual and ceremonial areas,

and sites representing occupation of the area by Native Americans and early Euro-Americans.

Introduction and Overview

As of July 2007, a total of 9,827 cultural sites were recorded in the planning area; of those sites, 7,689 were prehistoric 

sites and 2,138 were historic sites (Walker-Kuntz and Walker-Kuntz 2007, 47). Evidence indicates that occupation of 

the area began with Ice Age hunters approximately 12,000 years ago, but most of the prehistoric aboriginal remains date 

from the last 3,000 years. Tipi rings, cairns (stone piles), lithics (stone tools), buffalo jumps, and other features related to 

subsistence or religious activities are typical prehistoric remains. Among these recorded sites are the locations that tribes 

consider to be Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). TCP sites are significant both culturally and historically to a 

community. The sites are considered important to contemporary Indian religious beliefs and several are located within 

the planning area. Other sensitive locations are burial sites and historic trails (e.g., the Nez Perce Trail).

The historic period begins with early 19th century explorers and fur trappers who explored along the Missouri and 

Marias Rivers. Several fur trade posts were built along the Missouri River and steamboats operated on the river 

somewhat later. During the 1800s, development was influenced by a variety of occupations (e.g., gold seekers, fur 

traders, settlers, and businessmen). The area was also influenced by several historically important events such as the 

Indian conflicts, construction of a railroad, and the discovery of oil. In the late 1880s, the construction of the Great

Northern Railway from Minot, North Dakota, to Helena, Montana, changed the entire character of the study area. Many 

new communities sprang up along the railroad line. The railroad also paved the way for the homestead boom. Most of 

the historic remains originate from the homesteading period of 1910-1925.

Prehistoric Overview

Based on archaeological evidence from the surrounding Northwestern Plains, it is believed that Ice Age hunters arrived 

in the region approximately 12,000 years ago in search of big game such as mammoth and giant bison. The hunter’s 

chief weapon was a thrusting spear tipped with a large stone point. Approximately 4,000 years later (8,000 years ago) 

the hunting technology had changed and their descendants were using an atlatl, a lever device and a short spear tipped 

with a smaller stone point. Big game animals were still hunted, but the species were modern in appearance by then. 

Wild plant foods such as roots and berries were also harvested. Approximately 1,500 years ago, the hunting technology 

changed again and the inhabitants of the region were using bows and arrows in their hunting practices.

Most groups were organized into small bands of hunters and gatherers who were heavily dependent upon the naturally 

occurring resources in their environment. Subsistence was based on resource availability and campsites were generally 

located near important, exploitable resources. For the Plains tribes, the most important resource was the bison. The 

subsistence practices and settlement patterns of these tribes tended to reflect the nomadic nature of the bison.

Horses were acquired by the native inhabitants of the region around A.D. 1700-1750. The acquisition of the horse 

radically changed the life ways of the region's inhabitants. No longer was survival dependent on the immediate territory 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

262 Cultural Resources

in which they lived; the horse allowed them the mobility to efficiently exploit new territories. Thus, even the hunting 

and gathering cultures evolved into specialized bison hunters by A.D. 1800.

When the first Europeans arrived in the study area, they encountered a variety of indigenous communities that shared 

many cultural characteristics, including a subsistence based primarily on bison hunting, nomadic settlement patterns, 

tribal organization, and a standardized sign language. The native groups inhabiting the region during the 19th century 

include the Piegan (Blackfeet), Atsina (Gros Ventre), River Crow, Sioux, and Assiniboine. Frequent visitors to the study 

area were the Mountain Crow, Shoshoni, Flathead, and Nez Perce; most of the visits were for hunting. From the late 

1700s until the early 1880s, the Metis culture regularly crossed the Canadian border along a corridor between the present 

day towns of Malta and Chinook on their annual southward trek in pursuit of buffalo.

Prehistoric Site Types

The prehistoric sites in the planning area are classified into four functional types – habitation, procurement, industrial,

and ritual – as determined from features, artifacts, and other cultural remains present.

Habitation sites consist of features/materials which indicate everyday domestic activities including, but not limited to,

clothing construction and food preparation. Examples of such sites are debris scatters (middens or trash scatters), 

hearths, cairns (stone piles), and tipi rings.

Procurement sites consist of features representing specific subsistence activities such as hunting bison, deer, or 

pronghorn, and gathering wild plants. Buffalo jumps, traps, and impoundments (with associated processing areas) are 

the most common procurement sites in the resource area. Such sites are characterized by large deposits of bones at the 

base of bluffs and cliffs or in steep coulees.

Industrial sites are generally represented by scatters of stone waste debris (debitage), hammer stones, rough or damaged 

tools, and chunks of fine-grained stone and quartzite. The best source material can be found in Valley and Phillips 

Counties.

Ritual or ceremonial sites include rock art panels, burials, medicine wheels, intaglios, cairns, and rock or wooden vision 

quest structures.

Archaeological Site Density and Distribution

The average site density for prehistoric sites in the study area has been calculated at one site per 66 acres (Walker-Kuntz 

and Walker-Kuntz 2007, 49). This site density figure is misleading because the sites are not randomly distributed across 

the landscape, but are more numerous in some areas than in others. Furthermore, the term “site” is ambiguous in the 

glaciated prairie region because it does not specify site size or the number of features in an average site. This 

complicates distributional analyses because the sites in certain areas (along the Milk River and in glacial moraine or 

pothole areas) can be exceedingly large and complex, and thus difficult to define boundaries. The practice of either 

lumping several small sites over a rather wide area to create one large site, or splitting up features that are relatively close 

to accommodate a project within a given area, further complicates distributional analyses. The splitting of features into 

two or more sites is very apparent in the existing inventory records.

The archaeological site distribution pattern of the glaciated prairie in Phillips and Valley Counties is considered quasirandom in nature; that is, sites are distributed randomly across large portions of the landscape, without regard to general 

landform types or environmental zones, but there are also certain areas where sites are concentrated. The random 

distribution pattern occurs in the undifferentiated uplands of the glaciated prairie or rolling hinterlands; the sites found 

here are invariably small habitation and industrial types (tipi rings, cairns, and lithic scatters).

The concentrated pattern occurs along the principal drainages or in moraine areas; these areas contain large numbers of 

small and large habitation sites, as well as most procurement and ritual/ceremonial sites. Also, site densities appear to 

vary with respect to ecological zones (sagebrush/grass plains, river breaks, forested escarpments and plains, and forested 

mountains and foothills), and sites tend to be concentrated on major topographical features (ridges, buttes, escarpments,

stream terraces, toe slopes, etc.)
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Cultural Resources 263

Historic Overview

Recorded history in the study area begins with the written records of early 19th century Euro-American explorers. The 

Lewis and Clark Expedition camped at numerous locations along the Missouri River in 1805 and 1806. Part of the 

expedition’s mission was to identify the plants and animals found along their journey and expedition members were 

responsible for naming many of the landforms and features in the area. 

Fur Trade

In the early 1800s, organized fur trade enterprises such as the Rocky Mountain Fur Company, American Fur Company, 

and smaller companies followed the Lewis and Clark Expedition into the Missouri River country. The Hudson’s Bay 

Company undoubtedly had operated in the study area prior to this time, but there are no known records of its exploits. 

After 1829, the year the American Fur Company established Fort Union at the mouth of the Yellowstone River, several 

trading posts or "forts" were built in or near the study area, including Fort Piegan and Fort McKenzie near the mouth of 

the Marias River, and Fort Campbell and Fort Lewis near the present city of Fort Benton. Competition and Indian 

conflicts often required the posts to be relocated to more favorable locations.

By the 1850s, the heyday of the fur trade was beginning to wane due to changes in international textile markets and near 

extirpation of many fur-bearing animals in western North America. Buffalo hides, whiskey, and Indian annuities soon 

replaced beaver skins as the main items of trade on the Upper Missouri. In addition to the American Fur Company, 

several other trading companies began operating out of Fort Benton during this time.

In 1865, the firm of Smith, Hubbell, and Hawley bought the American Fur Company from Pierre Chouteau, Jr. Through 

its western affiliate, Durfee and Peck, the new company established a number of small trading posts in the region soon 

afterward. These included Fort Peck near the mouth of the Milk River, Fort Hawley near the mouth of the Musselshell 

River, Fort Turnay (Janeaux's Post) on upper Frenchman Creek, and Fort Browning on the Milk River near Dodson. 

Several smaller companies had trading posts along the Milk River in Valley County (e.g., Hammell's houses near 

Vandalia and Tom Campbell's houses near Hinsdale).

Military Posts and the Indian Conflict

With the influx of fur traders, hide hunters, gold seekers, businessmen, and settlers into the region, conflicts arose with 

the native tribes. During the mid-1800s, Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, and Sioux war parties raided outlying settlements and 

wagon trains with considerable frequency. In order to quell the white settlers' fears about Indian attacks, military posts 

were established throughout Montana. In 1879, Fort Assiniboine, located near Havre, was the largest fort in the area. 

Army garrisons were also occasionally stationed at Indian agencies, trading posts, and steamboat landings.

In 1876, the Sioux and Cheyenne tribes that participated in the Battle of the Little Bighorn crossed the Missouri River 

near Fort Peck on their way to Canada. In September-October 1877, the Nez Perce under Chief Joseph were defeated by 

troops under the command of Colonel Nelson Miles at the Battle of the Bear Paw Mountains, near present-day Chinook, 

ending their epic 1,500 mile attempted retreat to Canada. In 1879, a party of Sitting Bull's Sioux followers left their 

temporary home in Canada and engaged a cavalry unit near the Milk River and present-day Saco. The conflict continued 

between Native Americans and the Euro-American settlers in northern Montana until 1882, when army troops concluded 

a campaign to remove Canadian Indians and Metis from U.S. soil.

Northern Montana held the last of America’s large buffalo herds. After reducing the buffalo populations in Texas and 

other southern states/territories, market hunters turned their attention to the northern herd during the years 1876 to 1883. 

After the decimation of the buffalo, trade with the Indians abruptly ceased. The trading companies then shifted their 

focus to supplying military posts, mining camps, and ranching communities both in and adjacent to the region. 

Native American Treaties and Tribal Lands

Beginning in the middle of the 19th century, the U.S. Government initiated the first of several treaties with the Plains 

Indians, first to facilitate exploration and trading by delineating tribal territories and discouraging intertribal warfare, and 

later to open up former tribal lands to settlement for purposes of farming, ranching, and mining. The Fort Laramie Treaty of 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

264 Cultural Resources

1851 gathered all the Plains tribes together and “mapped out the domain of each tribe and obligated each tribe to respect the

lands of its neighbors” (Malone and Roeder 1976). The Blackfeet and Gros Ventre were recognized as the occupants of the 

northcentral region of Montana, east of the continental divide. The Fort Laramie treaty served as the first in a series of 

negotiations which included the 1855 Blackfeet Treaty Council. The 1855 Council included representatives from Piegan, 

Blood, Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Flathead (Salish), Upper Pend d’ Oreille, Kootenai, Nez Perce, and Cree Tribes. During the 

negotiations intertribal warfare was declared illegal and the Blackfeet and Gros Ventre were restricted to the north central 

region of Montana. The remaining tribes were granted access to the common bison hunting grounds east of the Rocky 

Mountain front (Walter 1982). As a direct result of the efforts of then Superintendent of Indian Affairs Isaac I. Stevens a 

vast Indian reserve was created.

In 1887, the Northwest Commissioners negotiated the formation of separate Blackfeet, Fort Belknap, and Fort Peck 

Reservations for the region's Indian inhabitants. This was in large part based upon Agent W. L. Lincoln's perception that 

the Indian Reserve established in 1855 was too large for its Indian proprietors, and pressure from white miners, ranchers, 

and businessmen to open the northern part of the Reserve to white settlement. The Gros Ventre and Assiniboine insisted 

that the Little Rocky Mountains remain within their boundaries.

BLM lands within the HiLine District are aboriginal lands that have been ceded back to the Government by the tribal 

groups in the area through various treaties. These treaties reserved rights to the tribes. These rights consist of the use of 

the ceded lands to hunt, fish, gather plants and for religious/ceremonial use. Areas specifically used for religious 

purposes are the Sweet Grass Hills and the Little Rocky Mountains. The BLM will continue to consult with tribal 

groups to identify areas of importance and access to them.

Transportation Industry

Steamboats, which had been in use on the Lower Missouri River for 28 years, were finally able to reach Fort Benton in 

1859, due to the development of shallow draft vessels. Although not actually in the planning area, the establishment of a 

port at Fort Benton was one of the most important historic events for central and northern Montana because almost all 

immigration, commerce, and communication to and from the outside world came through there (Malone, Roeder, and 

Lang 1991). The last steamboat traffic between Bismarck, North Dakota and Fort Benton occurred in 1891.

In 1887, the construction of James J. Hill's St. Paul, Minneapolis, and Manitoba Railroad across the HiLine changed the 

entire character of the region. With the railroad came new settlements like Malta, Glasgow, Saco, Hinsdale, and 

Vandalia, as well as cheaper and more efficient transportation of products and supplies. The completion of the Montana 

Central Railroad and its subsequent merger with Hill's company to form the Great Northern Railway in 1889 virtually 

eliminated steamboat traffic on the Missouri River. Subsequently, the towns along the river like Carroll, Rocky Point, 

and Kerchival were abandoned. A branch line of the Great Northern Railway was completed from Saco to Whitewater, 

Loring, Chapman, Turner, and Hogeland in 1928.

Farming and Ranching 

Although the northern portion of the study area was officially Indian reservation land, a number of adjoining ranches 

grazed sheep and cattle there during the late 1870s and early 1880s. The big cattle outfits trailing their cattle through the 

Milk River country at this time were the Neidringhaus Brothers from Canada; the Davis, Hauser, and Stuart Ranch 

(DHS) from the Judith Basin; Harry Rutter from Hinsdale; and Conrad Kohrs from the Sun River country.

The practice of grazing very large cattle herds on the open range worked well enough during a period of abundant 

rainfall and relatively mild winters. The “Hard Winter” of 1886-1887 proved disastrous to the open range cattle industry 

and alternative methods of raising cattle had to be developed. Since extended grazing was not legal on the reservation, 

the cattlemen sent T.C. Power and Joseph K. Toole to Washington to lobby Congress to open the reservation lands to 

settlement. The 1888 Act of Congress created three smaller reservations (Blackfeet, Fort Belknap, and Fort Peck) for the 

region’s Indian inhabitants and ceded 17.5 million acres back to the U.S. Government. Shortly afterward, ranchers 

moved into the more productive areas like the Milk River bottoms.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Cultural Resources 265

A number of developments followed the completion of the railroad and ushered in the Homestead Boom of 1910-1918. 

These developments included the availability of larger homestead tracts, the development of new dryland farming 

techniques, the production of new mechanized farm equipment, and the creation of the Milk River Irrigation Project. 

Homesteaders came by the thousands and the region was quickly settled by Germans and Scandinavians from the 

Midwest, as well as by eastern European immigrants. Times were good during the boom period because the climate was 

abnormally favorable and the war in Europe kept the demand and prices for farm products high. By the end of World 

War I, a severe drought had begun and food prices had fallen drastically. These conditions lasted for several years. By 

1925, one out of every two homesteaders had lost or abandoned his farm and half the banks in the region had failed. 

Many of the homestead lands in the study area fell into disuse and disrepair.

Energy Development

The search for oil and gas began shortly after Euro-Americans moved into Montana. Some of the earliest energy 

development activity began between the late 1880s and early 1900s in the Flathead-Glacier Park area (Passmann 1992). 

Oil was noted in the Kevin Rim area in 1912, when oil was found during water well drilling on the Miller Ranch 

(Passmann 1992). Drilling began in 1921, but did not result in a producing well until June 1922. The Kevin-Sunburst 

oil field created opportunities for locals and non-locals alike, and at one point, the towns of Kevin and Sunburst were 

relatively bustling. However, the decline began in the 1930s due to new conservation measures that were implemented 

by the federal government. These conservation measures made it more difficult for the oilmen to get their product to 

market (Passmann 1992). The oil field itself has become an historic property, as some of the equipment and 

infrastructure are still standing.

Oil and gas development occurred similarly in the eastern part of the planning area. The Bowdoin Gas Field near Malta 

was producing gas for Saco by 1916, and upon completion of a pipeline, for Malta and Glasgow by 1929.

The Great Depression and Federal Relief Programs

During the Great Depression, the federal government implemented work relief programs all over the country. The 

Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation Corps, Resettlement Administration, and a variety of other 

programs provided relief to people/families who had been hit hardest by the Great Depression. These programs provided 

a stipend of food, clothing, shelter, and medical care in exchange for hard work. The stipend was typically divided so 

that some went home to the worker’s family and the worker retained a small percentage, thus allowing the worker to 

support his family. Many of the national parks, forests, and rangelands have these federal works programs to thank for 

their infrastructure and administrative sites.

In 1936, the Works Progress Administration began constructing the Fort Peck Dam. At the same time, the Resettlement 

Administration initiated the Malta Plan to move destitute upland farmers to irrigated lands in the Milk River Valley. The 

lands acquired by the Resettlement Administration would eventually be managed for grazing.

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 was the first federal effort to regulate grazing on federal public lands. It establishes 

grazing districts and a permitting system to manage livestock grazing in the districts to improve rangeland conditions and 

regulate their use. In 1937, Congress passed the Bankhead-Jones Act, which authorized the government to buy 

homesteaded lands and rehabilitate them for grazing use; these are now called land utilization or “LU” lands and are 

managed by the BLM.

Historic Site Types and Distribution

Historic sites in the study area consist primarily of structural remains from the homesteading period from 1910 to 1925. 

Historic sites are classified into homesteads or farmsteads, town sites, railroad sidings, rural schools, and rural churches. 

Other related features are refuse dumps, fences, field clearings, corrals, wells, and graffiti. Historic sites may contain 

stone, wood, and concrete buildings in various states of preservation; rectangular stone, concrete, and earthen 

foundations; cellars, outhouses, cisterns, and well depressions; and other manufactured materials. Standing structures are 

rare on LU lands since one of the provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Act required all improvements to be removed prior 

to government acquisition.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

266 Cultural Resources

The area also contains historic sites from the early 

1800s, but most are located on private lands or other 

federal and state lands. These include Lewis and Clark 

campsites, trading posts, military posts, steamboat 

landings and woodhawk cabins, U.S. Army and Indian 

battle sites, old and new Indian agencies, gold mines 

and associated features, mining town sites, and early 

ranching sites.

Historic trails once passed through the area, including 

the Carroll Trail, the North Overland Road, and the 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail. Most of the historic 

sites and trails are noted mainly in the historical 

literature; few have ever been documented and 

evaluated on the ground. Other historic sites likely to 

be found on BLM lands in the planning area are those 

related to gold mining, notably in the Little Rocky 

Mountains. These sites consist of the remnants of 

mines, adits, tramways, kilns, cabins, dumps, and

equipment. The larger sites, such as mills and mining towns (Zortman and Landusky) are located on private land.

A total of 284 historic sites (13.3% of the currently recorded sites) are located in the Glasgow Field Office area, 611 

historic sites (28.6%) in the Malta Field Office area, and 1,243 historic sites (58.1%) in the Havre Field Office area 

(Walker-Kuntz and Walker-Kuntz 2007, 47). The variation in the number of 

sites primarily reflects the amount of inventory conducted in the field office

management areas.

The distribution of historic sites on BLM lands coincides primarily with the 

distribution of LU lands in the planning area. Since the LU lands are 

formerly homestead lands, the overwhelming majority of historic sites on LU 

lands are homestead-related. Homestead sites are also located on public 

domain lands, due to the failure of some homesteaders to “prove up,” but they 

are few in number.

As mentioned previously, the homestead sites consist mainly of foundations 

and depressions which are the remnants of land restoration practices related to 

the Bankhead-Jones Act. Because of their poor condition, most of these sites 

are not considered significant. The Malta and Glasgow Field Office areas 

have considerable quantities of LU lands; however, most of those in the 

Glasgow Field Office management area are located north of the Milk River.

Gold mining in the Little Rocky Mountains began in 1884, when Pike 

Landusky developed the first placer mines and founded the town of 

Landusky. He and others patented the richest mine, the August, in 1893. 

With other patents, mining in the Little Rocky Mountains expanded. By 

1903, the town of Zortman was established with a cyanide mill in Alder 

Gulch. Mining in the Little Rocky Mountains continued on and off over the 

decades until 1979, when a modern surface mining operation opened. The 

Zortman/Landusky Mine continued to operate until the late 1990s and is now 

being reclaimed.

Mining also occurred in the Sweet Grass Hills in the past, but was sporadic 

and not as intensive as in the Little Rocky Mountains.

LU/Public Domain Lands

LU Lands (also referred to as 

Acquired Lands or Bankhead-Jones 

Lands): Under Title III of the 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 

July 22, 1937, the Department of 

Agriculture was authorized to purchase 

submarginal farm lands in the Great 

Plains region for purposes of 

reclamation, conservation, etc. 

Approximately two million acres were 

acquired and are termed “BankheadJones Lands.” These lands are now 

under the administration of the BLM, 

are in the class of federal lands called 

“acquired lands” and are not subject to 

entry or disposal under the general 

public land laws.

Public Domain Lands: Vacant, 

unappropriated, and unreserved public 

lands, or public lands withdrawn by 

Executive Order 6910 of November 26, 

1934, as amended, or Executive Order 

6964 of February 5, 1935, as amended, 

and not otherwise withdrawn or 

reserved, or public lands within grazing 

districts established under Section 1 of 

the Act of June 28, 1934 (45 Stat. 

1269), as amended, and not otherwise 

withdrawn or reserved.

Sweet Grass Hills Photo by Kathy Tribby
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Cultural Resources 267

Cultural Resources of Special Importance or Concern

Four locations in the planning area are important due to either the density and significance of their archaeological sites or 

their traditional cultural and religious significance to the tribes. These locations are the Big Bend of the Milk River Area 

of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC), Sweet Grass Hills ACEC, Lonesome Lake, and the Kevin Rim ACEC.

The Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC contains an abundance of archaeological sites with unique characteristics and 

scientific values which warrant special attention. The ACEC consists of two large sites adjacent to the Milk River and 

includes the Henry Smith and Beaucoup site complexes, both of which contain bison kills and ceremonial and habitation 

sites. Both complexes are characterized by unique stone surface features and multiple occupation episodes. Other 

important, but lesser known sites nearby are unnamed bison kills, drive lines, meat processing sites, petroglyph boulders,

and tipi ring concentrations.

The Sweet Grass Hills ACEC is located in the northwestern portion of the study area. The Sweet Grass Hills were 

accorded ACEC status because of their unique cultural resources and their cultural/historical significance to the tribes. 

The ACEC is part of a larger study area which has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

as a Traditional Cultural Property (Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2), based on “significance derived from the role the property 

plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.”

Lonesome Lake contains over 1,000 stone circles along with other stone features and prehistoric sites. Based on this and 

other inventory information, the Lonesome Lake Complex has been evaluated as an Archaeological District, eligible for 

entry on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Kevin Rim ACEC has recently undergone a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory. Seventy-one new sites were 

recorded in the ACEC; and five sites and one historic district were previously recorded. These sites reflect an extensive 

representation of stone feature sites as well as a historic oil drilling district.

Other important cultural sites on BLM lands include the Beaver Creek bison kill sites (24PH1206 and 1324, 24PH8), and 

the Indian Lake Medicine Rock (24PH1005). These sites have been recorded, but have not been thoroughly researched. 

Each site may provide further information about past life ways.

Tipi Ring on Kevin Rim Photo by Josh Chase
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

268 Economics

Traditional Cultural Properties

The Little Rocky Mountains and the Sweet Grass Hills have been determined eligible for the National Register of 

Historic Places because each location is associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its 

origins, cultural history, and the nature of the world; a location where Native American religious practitioners have 

historically gone and are known to go today to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules 

of practice; and a location where an identifiable community has carried out economic, artistic, and other cultural 

practices important in maintaining its historical identity.

The Little Rocky Mountains were designated a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) in 1994 through a Memorandum of 

Understanding with the BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Fort Belknap Community Council. The TCP was 

designated to protect cultural resources and values located in the Little Rocky Mountains and is shown on Figure 2.1 in 

Chapter 2.

The Sweet Grass Hills were designated a TCP in 1995 by the BLM in consultation with the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office, and the Assiniboine, Blackfeet, Chippewa-Cree, and Gros Ventre Tribes and the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation. The TCP was designated to protect cultural resources and values 

located in the Sweet Grass Hills and is shown on Figure 2.1 in Chapter 2.

Current Demand and Use of Cultural Resources

The demand for cultural resources derives from two sources: The public is interested in protecting and interpreting 

cultural resources as reminders of its heritage; and scientists, teachers, and/or academic institutions utilize cultural 

resources for research and educational purposes. Currently, the BLM has the resources to adequately meet the demand 

from both sources.

At the present time, very little active use of cultural resources is occurring in the planning area. Occasionally, BLM 

personnel will provide educational field trips to selected sites for school children or professional societies. Some historic 

sites, such as old schoolhouses, are being used for rural community meetings and as museums. For example, the BLM 

provided land for the Snake Creek schoolhouse some years ago, and Congress appropriated the Landusky School to the 

town of Landusky.

Tribal Consultation

Previous consultation with tribes indicated that they use certain areas for religious and cultural purposes. Certain types 

of archaeological sites have cultural and religious significance. These include vision quest sites, monumental/

anthropomorphic/zoomorphic rock features, rock art sites, burials, habitation sites with special purpose ceremonial 

structures, and ceremonial and/or dance grounds. These areas include the Sweet Grass Hills and the Little Rocky 

Mountains, which are designated Traditional Cultural Properties.

Economics

The planning area consists of approximately 2.4 million surface acres of BLM land distributed across eight contiguous 

counties: Glacier, Toole, Liberty, Hill, Chouteau (north of the Missouri River), Blaine, Phillips, and Valley. The 

majority of these BLM surface lands are located in Phillips County (31%), Valley County (32%), and Blaine County 

(11%). BLM lands account for approximately 14% of the total land area and BLM mineral estate accounts for 28% of 

the mineral estate in the eight counties (see Table 3.25, BLM Surface and Subsurface Acres, in the Lands and Realty 

section). Much of the economic activity is confined to these eight counties because the area is remote and no major 

population or business centers exist near the boundaries to the east, north, or west. Major business centers to the south 

include Great Falls (approximately 90 miles south of Shelby and 110 miles southwest of Havre); Lewistown 

(approximately 100 miles southeast of Fort Benton); and Billings (approximately 200 miles south of Malta). Economic 

activity is further restricted by the following factors:
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Economics 269

 Of the eight border crossings along the 300 mile border with Canada, only one (Port of Sweetgrass) is open 24 

hours per day.

 Only one major highway (Highway 2) goes to the west over the Rocky Mountains to Kalispell (approximately 

156 miles west of Shelby (population 3,417)).

 Only one major highway (Highway 2) goes to the east (approximately 145 miles from Glasgow to Williston, 

ND (population 12,512) and 229 miles to Bismarck, ND (population 55,532)).

 Only four highways cross the Missouri River along the 270 mile southern border.

During the last century, ranching, farming, mining, natural gas development, the railroad, construction of Fort Peck Dam 

in the late 1930s, the establishment and subsequent closure of Glasgow Air Force Base in the late 1970s, and the 

Zortman/Landusky Mines (closed in the late 1990s) have all been important factors in the social and economic history of 

the area. More recently, outdoor recreation, tourism, and the growing presence of the U.S. Border Patrol have been 

contributors to the local economies. Long-term economic trends are also characterized by gradual population loss.

Agriculture played a dominant role in the region’s initial post-European settlement and economic expansion. The 

development of the railroad across northern Montana in the late 1880s and the subsequent opening of the area to 

homesteading in the early 20th century ushered in an era of accelerated European settlement. Agriculture and other 

natural resource production helped spur the development of additional transportation infrastructure and the emergence of 

Havre, Malta, and Glasgow as regional trade and service centers for northcentral Montana. In more recent times, the 

establishment and subsequent closure of Glasgow Air Force Base, and federal water and wildlife management projects 

and programs have played pivotal roles in the region’s economic development. Mineral and energy resource 

development, primarily in the form of mining and natural gas, have also shaped the area’s economic history. Mining and 

oil and gas industries have also been important contributors to the regional economic base through their fiscal support for 

local government and education.

Certain defining features of every area heavily influence and shape the nature of local economic activity. Principal 

among these are the size of the area’s population, the presence of or proximity to large cities or regional population 

centers, types of longstanding industries such as oil and gas development and agriculture, and predominant land and 

water features and unique area amenities.

Demographic and Economic Characteristics and Trends 

The following summary of demographic and economic trend information for the planning area is followed by a 

description of the key land uses in the planning area that could be affected by BLM management actions. These are: (1) 

oil and gas exploration, development, and production; (2) travel, tourism and recreation; (3) livestock grazing and 

production; (4) government; (5) ecosystem restoration; and (6) other mineral exploration, mining, and reclamation. 

BLM lands provide areas for hunting and fishing, hiking, camping, and general sightseeing, as well as providing 

important habitat for area fish and wildlife that spend time both on and off BLM lands.

Potential economic effects associated with this proposed RMP include changes in employment, income, public revenues, 

economic dependency, economic stability, and quality of life. The information contained in this section is presented to 

help clarify economic issues, describe relevant economic trends, and provide context for potential changes to economic 

indicators that may be predicted in the environmental analysis in Chapter 4.

The 8-county planning area had an estimated total population of about 59,000 people in 2008, with county populations 

ranging from less than 2,000 in Liberty County to over 16,400 in Hill County (Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2010). 

Havre (population 9,618) is the largest city and the largest business center in the planning area. Other, smaller business 

centers include Glasgow (population 2,922), Shelby (population 3,417), Cut Bank (population 3,125), and Malta 

(population 1,820) (Montana Department of Commerce 2009).

Montana is one of the least densely populated states in the country, with an average population density of 6 persons per 

square mile compared to a national average of about 80 persons per square mile. The 8-county planning area had an 

average population density of 2 persons per square mile, with county population densities ranging from just 1 person per 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

270 Economics

square mile in Phillips County to 6 per square mile in Hill County where Havre is the center of local economic activity 

(IMPLAN 2009).

From 1990 to 2008, the population in the planning area shrank from 62,640 to 59,041 (Figure 3.9), a 5.7% decrease (EPS 

2011). The population increased in only one county (Chouteau, 9.9%) while it decreased the most in Phillips County 

(24.1%), Liberty County (23.8%), and Valley County (15.7%).

Figure 3.9

Population Trends 1990-2008

See Tables 3.8 and 3.9 for selected demographic and economic statistics and performance comparisons to the median 

county in the United States. Data provided by the Economic Profile System (EPS 2008) indicates:

• The median family can afford the median house. The majority of recent job growth has been in wage and salary 

employment (people who work for someone else); however, job growth in the planning area has been slower 

than those of both the state and national averages. Income growth in the planning area has also been slower 

than the state and national averages.

• The planning area makes up about 19% of the state land area; but only about 6% of the state’s population, 6% 

of the state’s employment, and 6% of the state’s total personal income. The planning area economy includes 

only 45% of the industries found in the state’s economy.

Table 3.8

Selected Economic and Demographic Statistics

County/Area Population Employment Households

Area

(Sq. Miles)

Population 

Density

(people/ 

square mile)

Number of 

Industries/

Sectors

Average 

Income per 

Household

Total Personal 

Income

($ Millions)

Montana 974,989 628,638 389,327 145,556 6.70 337 85,156 33,154

8-County

Aggregate 59,448 36,158 22,165 27,492 2.16 151 90,780 2,012

Blaine 6,485 3,311 2,350 4,226 1.53 90 73,828 173

Chouteau 5,167 3,824 1,946 3,973 1.30 82 109,502 213

Glacier 13,550 6,395 4,427 2,995 4.52 101 82,100 363

Hill 16,632 10,214 6,464 2,896 5.74 120 94,452 610

Liberty 1,748 1,433 674 1,430 1.22 69 100,913 68

Phillips 3,944 2,884 1,586 5,140 0.77 93 93,691 148

Toole 5,151 3,496 1,934 1,911 2.70 94 90,936 176

Valley 6,771 4,602 2,783 4,921 1.38 108 93,061 259

Source: IMPLAN (2009)

56,000

57,000

58,000

59,000

60,000

61,000

62,000

63,000

64,000

65,000

1990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Population Trends, HiLine RMP
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Economics 271

Table 3.9

Demographic and Economic Statistics of HiLine Planning Area Counties/Comparison to Median County in U.S.

Benchmark = Median of All U.S. Counties***

Compared to Benchmark,

the Counties Have: 

Less

Than

More

Than

8-County 

Aggregate

U.S.

Median

Population Growth 

(annualized rate, 1970-2005)

-0.3% 0.6%

Employment Growth 

(annualized rate, 1970-2005)

0.5% 1.4%

Personal Income Growth

(adjusted for inflation, annualized rate, 1970-

2005)

0.5% 2.2%

Non-labor Income Share of Total in 2005 42.6% 37.1%

Median Age* 36.6 37.3

Per Capita Income (2005) $ 26,317 $ 26,371 

Average Earnings Per Job (2005) $ 29,784 $ 30,269 

Education Rate*

(% of population 25 and over who have a college 

degree)

17.9% 14.5%

Education Rate*

(% of population 25 and over who have less than 

a high school diploma)

17.3% 21.0%

Employment Specialization* 429 155 

Rich-Poor Ratio*

(for each household that made over $100K, how 

many households made less than $30K)

13.1 8.7 

Housing Affordability (100 or above means that 

the median family can afford the median house)*

192 186 

Change in Housing Affordability*(% change in 

index from 1990 to 2000) Positive means the 

area is getting more affordable.

6.2% 10.3%

Government Share of Total Employment 23% 15%

Unemployment Rate in 2006** 3.8% 4.7%

All data are from REIS except * are from 2000 U.S. Census and ** is from Bureau of Labor 

Statistics.

***Median is the middle value of a list of numbers. This is different from mean (average), 

which is the sum of all the numbers in a list divided by the number of numbers in the list.

 (2.00) (1.00) - 1.00 2.00

# of Standard Deviations from the 

Median
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

272 Economics

BLM Land and Mineral Uses that Affect the Local Economy

The effect of the BLM on local economic activity and conditions is related to BLM land use decisions and associated 

land uses. Surface and mineral estate and major BLM land/mineral uses by county are displayed in Table 3.10. This is 

followed by a narrative description of those major BLM land and mineral uses within the planning area.

Table 3.10

Surface and Mineral Estate and Major BLM Land/Mineral Uses by County

County Total Acres

BLM 

Surface 

Acres

BLM % of 

Total 

Surface 

Acres

BLM 

Administered 

Mineral 

Estate 

(Acres)

BLM % of 

Total Mineral 

Estate

Population Centers, BLM 

office locations, and

BLM Land/Mineral Uses

Montana 93,155,840 7,967,376 9 37,789,542 41 Oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use, 

rights-of-way 

8-County

Aggregate 17,595,739 2,437,474 14 4,239,655 24

Blaine 2,705,755 299,201 11 615,688 23

Oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use

Chouteau 2,542,874 45,025 2 174,281 7

Oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use

Glacier 1,916,621 1,040 <1 6,184 <1

Oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, limited recreation 

use

Hill 1,853,670 14,448 1 156,967 8

BLM Havre Field Office, oil 

and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use

Liberty 915,046 7,543 1 66,990 7

Oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, limited recreation 

use

Phillips 3,289,325 1,029,362 31 1,744,612 53

BLM Malta Field Office, oil 

and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use

Toole 1,223,008 27,646 2 123,203 10

Oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use

Valley 3,149,440 1,013,209 32 1,351,730 43

BLM Glasgow Field Office, 

oil and gas leasing and 

production, livestock 

grazing, recreation use

Livestock Grazing and Production

Ranching is an important part of the history, culture, and economy of the planning area. Grazing is allowed on BLM 

lands under the Taylor Grazing Act and FLPMA for the purpose of fostering economic development for private ranchers 

and ranching communities by providing ranchers access to additional forage (GAO, Sept. 2005). The major contribution 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Economics 273

of BLM to the area’s livestock industry is largely through providing grazing lands. Livestock grazing on BLM lands is 

authorized on an annual basis. The established preference limit for grazing on public lands within the planning area is 

410,814 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). This preference is the maximum number of AUMs that ordinarily could be 

offered under ideal forage conditions. However, actual (authorized) use of AUMs varies from year to year due to factors 

such as drought, wildland fire, transfer of grazing permits, financial limitations on operators, and implementation of 

grazing management to improve range conditions. Between 1999 and 2009, actual (authorized) BLM grazing use 

averaged 329,644 AUMs annually (Table 3.11). The BLM provides less than one-tenth of the forage needed to support 

the livestock produced within the planning area. However, the percentage of total forage needs that comes from BLM 

lands ranged from less than 1% in Glacier and Hill Counties to 16% in Phillips County. Data on the number of farms 

and livestock inventories by county are presented in Table 3.12.

Table 3.11

Average Annual Authorized Livestock Grazing Use (AUMs)

Billing Years 1999-2009

Section 3* Section 15** Total Cattle Horses Sheep/Goats

11-Year 

Average 314,156 15,488 329,644 328,905 541 198

Source: Range Administration System, 1999-2009

* Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns grazing permits issued on public lands within the grazing districts established 

under the Act.

** Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns issuing grazing leases on public lands outside the original grazing district 

boundaries.

Table 3.12

Livestock Operations by County

County/Area

Number of 

Farms

Cattle and 

Calves 

Inventory

Sheep and 

Lambs 

Inventory

Total Annual 

AUMs of Feed 

Needed***

BLM

 AUMs****

BLM AUMs/

Total AUMs 

8-County 

Planning Area 5,046 382,186 24,140* 4,644,168 360,801 .08

Blaine 665 79,261 7,311 968,678 49,507 .05

Chouteau 849 43,770 787 527,129 11,904 .02

Glacier 625 54,803 788 659,527 261 <.01

Hill 854 23,592 664 284,698 1,545 <.01

Liberty 299 13,787 D** 165,497 2,801 .02

Phillips 556 80,791 10,511 994,718 158,692 .16

Toole 428 15,055 1,873 185,155 4,275 .02

Valley 770 71,127 2,184 858,766 131,816 .15

Source: 2007 Census of Agriculture, Dec. 31 inventory

* Assumes 2002 inventory level for Liberty County

** D Number not displayed in 2007 Census of Agriculture because of potential disclosure issue

*** Total Annual AUMs of Feed Needed = ([cattle and calves inventory] + [sheep and lamb inventory/5] x 12 months). 

Assumes typical livestock operation where all calves would be weaned by December 31 and next calf crop would be born in 

late winter-spring.

**** 2006 authorized use level. 

About 550 operators have livestock grazing permits or leases on BLM lands. It is common for an individual/ operation 

to hold more than one permit or lease. About 10% of the farms/ranches in the planning area hold BLM grazing 

permits/leases.

Cattle are the most prevalent class of livestock, although bison, sheep, and horses also graze some BLM land in the 

planning area. Livestock operations are primarily cow/calf operations. Most calves are born in late winter through 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

274 Economics

spring on private lands. Cattle are turned out to graze as cow/calf pairs. Calves have historically been weaned in the fall 

and most leave the region to be grown out and/or fed in other parts of the U.S. About 68% of the cattle and 90% of the 

sheep are marketed (2007 Census of Agriculture). At weaning, most cows are taken to winter pasture where they remain 

until they calve the following year. 

Roughly 39% of the 5,036 farms/ranches raise livestock and the BLM provides an estimated 7% of the total forage 

requirements for the livestock inventory within the planning area. By assuming a direct relationship between the percent 

of farms that produce livestock and the percent of farm-related employment that is associated with livestock production, 

it is estimated that BLM livestock grazing contributes about 170 direct and about 300 total jobs to the local economy. 

This assumes that livestock grazing is the primary economic activity for all of the direct jobs. This estimate does not 

include the contribution of family labor which may be as much as 38% of the total direct labor contribution to livestock 

operations (David Taylor, University of Wyoming, 2010). It is estimated that about $2.1 million in total wage and 

proprietor’s income is related to BLM livestock grazing within the planning area (IMPLAN 2009).

The amount of BLM grazing land and the dependency of local livestock operators varies among the counties. Phillips 

and Valley Counties offer the most grazing land and the highest dependency on BLM land for livestock grazing. 

Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, and Toole Counties offer the least amount of BLM grazing as well as the smallest 

dependency on the BLM for livestock forage needs. Livestock grazing on BLM land involves livestock operators who

have Section 3 grazing permits (grazing on public lands within grazing districts, BLM Manual 1373.12) and Section 15 

grazing leases (grazing on public lands outside of grazing districts). On public domain lands, 50% of revenues from 

Section 15 grazing fees on public domain lands are distributed to the state and counties; 12.5% of grazing fees from 

Section 3 leases are distributed to the state and counties. On lands acquired under the Bankhead-Jones Land Utilization 

Act, 25% of revenues from both Section 3 and Section 15 lands are distributed to the counties. Within the planning area, 

65% of the BLM surface land base is public domain land and 35% is LU acquired land. Average annual revenues 

collected from grazing receipts (1999-2009) by the federal government were $445,000; of this, approximately $80,000

was distributed to counties.

The grazing fee the BLM and Forest Service charge is established by formula and is generally lower than fees charged 

by other federal agencies, states, and private ranchers who set fees to obtain the market value of forage. The BLM 

grazing fee does not recover the agency’s administrative expenditures or capture the fair market value of forage. 

Livestock operations in the planning area often involve large areas of land, and ranchers depend on a mix of private and 

federal lands to graze cattle seasonally. None of the livestock operations are wholly dependent on forage coming from 

public lands. To qualify for a grazing permit/lease on public land an operator must have land and the capability to 

accommodate their livestock for a specified period of time on private land owned or controlled (base property) apart 

from the BLM land (43 CFR 4110). The common qualification standard for the region is that the operator needs to 

accommodate livestock for four months on their base property to qualify to graze the same amount of livestock for eight 

months on public lands. Therefore, an individual operator cannot be dependent on more than 68% of their forage need 

coming from BLM land. Within the planning area, it is rare for dependence on BLM land forage to exceed 50% and 

many operations depend on BLM land forage for less than 20% of their total forage needs. However, many of the BLM 

livestock operations depend heavily on forage from BLM lands during a specific season; i.e., many operators graze BLM

land in the spring through fall for five to seven months and winter their livestock on base property.

Although BLM forage comprises a relatively small share of the total AUMs in the planning area, this forage may be 

particularly valuable to livestock producers because the grazing fees are very favorable and it is often available during a 

critical period of the year when forage on private hay fields and meadows is being grown to provide forage for the 

winter. The BLM grazing fees ($1.35/AUM in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010) are considerably lower than the statewide 

average of $18.40 per AUM (Montana Agricultural Statistics, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2011). If the 

BLM were to charge a market-based fee, the price would likely not equal private or state fees because of factors such as 

range productivity services provided by the landowner and access to the land (GAO, September 2005).

Access to BLM grazing is important to area livestock producers even though additional management costs are usually 

incurred to use these lands. According to a 2005 GAO report on livestock grazing, “fees charged by private ranchers and 

state land agencies are higher than the BLM and Forest Service fees because, generally, ranchers and state agencies seek 

to generate grazing revenues by charging a price that represents market value for that land and/or the services provided.”
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Economics 275

Mineral Development and Production

Mining sector activities include gold mining, oil production, natural gas production, and bentonite mining. Gold mining 

occurred in the Little Rocky Mountains for more than 100 years and once provided a major economic stimulus to the 

region and employed hundreds of people. However, since the closure of the Zortman/Landusky Mine in 1998, the few 

remaining jobs related to gold mining have been associated with reclamation and water management and treatment. The 

combined site maintenance and water treatment costs will run an estimated $2.5 million per year. A few people were 

employed in bentonite mining south of Malta until the 1980s when that mine closed.

Currently, jobs in oil and natural gas development and production account for nearly all of the direct employment 

reported in the mining sector today. Local oil and gas production also supports jobs in the natural gas pipeline 

transmission industry. Local contractors, as well as regional firms primarily from the Williston Basin in North Dakota 

provide contract services to local oil and gas fields.

Nature of the Oil and Gas Industry in the Planning Area

In the ten year period between 2000 and 2009, oil and gas drilling and production occurred in all eight counties. During 

this period, an annual average of 10.7 oil wells, 206 gas wells, and 36 dry holes were drilled within the planning area

(MT DNRC, Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2011). In FY 2010, about 69,300 barrels of oil and 15,151,500

MCF of natural gas were produced from federal minerals. Statewide average wellhead prices in 2008 were $89.96 per 

barrel for crude oil and $7.50 per MCF for natural gas (IPAA 2011). The 2008 statewide average cost of drilling and 

equipping each well was $5,360,703 for oil wells, $808,477 for gas wells, and $2,799,436 for dry holes (IPAA 2011). 

Oil and Gas Leases

In February 2011, more than 939,700 acres of federal minerals were leased for oil and gas within the planning area. 

Annual lease rental is paid on 413,977 acres that are not held by production. Total lease and rental revenues to the 

federal government in FY 2010 were $791,041. Lease rents were not paid on 525,731 acres that were held by

production. Instead, royalties are paid on oil and gas production from these leases. As of February 10, 2011, an 

additional 450,287 acres had been nominated for leasing, but deferred pending completion of the RMP.

Competitive federal oil and gas leases generate a one-time lease “bonus” bid as well as annual rents. The minimum lease 

bonus bid is $2.00 per acre. If no bonus bids are received, the parcels are later made available as noncompetitive leases 

where no bonus bids are collected. Over the past 10 years, bonus bids for all acres leased in the planning area averaged 

$3.76 per acre. Lease rental is $1.50 per acre per year for the first five years and $2.00 per acre per year thereafter. 

Typically, oil and gas leases expire after 10 years unless held by production. Annual lease rentals continue until one or 

more wells are drilled that result in production and associated royalties. A portion of the revenues collected by the 

federal government is distributed to the state and counties. The amount that is distributed is determined by the federal 

authority under which the federal minerals are being managed. Table 3.13 shows the number of acres managed under 

various authorities in August 2010, and summarizes the revenue distribution for each authority. The leased acres 

changes daily as leases expire and other parcels are leased. Generally, within the planning area, public domain federal 

minerals account for about three-fourths of the acres leased; Bankhead-Jones lands account for about one-fourth of the 

acres leased; and the other authorities for acquired minerals account for less than 1% of federal leased acres.

Forty-nine percent of these federal leasing revenues from public domain minerals are distributed to the state and the state 

distributes 25% back to the counties (Title 17-3-240, Montana Code Annotated). Twenty-five percent of the federal 

leasing revenues are distributed to the counties on federal minerals administered under the Bankhead-Jones Act. FY

2010 federal bonus, rents, and other lease revenues were $791,041 (ONRR 2011). Of this, an estimated $292,000 was

disbursed to the state and counties.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

276 Economics

Table 3.13

Acres of Mineral Lease by County and Authority

Acquired

(BHJ)1

Acquired

(FFMC)2 PD3

Acquired

(Intl Bdy)4

Acquired

(BOR)5 Total

Blaine 80,692 2,144 162,846 0 0 245,682

Chouteau 0 800 63,691 0 0 64,491

Glacier 0 0 17,329 0 0 17,329

Hill 0 320 41,768 14 1,286 43,388

Liberty 0 0 15,106 0 0 15,106

Phillips 111,015 640 337,601 0 1,634 450,890

Toole 0 0 55,300 0 0 55,300

Valley 74,474 240 66,088 0 0 140,802

Total 266,181 4,144 759,730 14 2,920 1,032,988

Source: LR 2000, Ad hoc query generated by Treasury fund symbol, 8/4/2010.

1BHJ Bankhead-Jones Act (100% to BLM; BLM distributes 25% to the County, 75% to Miscellaneous Receipts).

2

FFMC Federal Farm Mortgage Act (100% to Miscellaneous Receipts).

3

PD Public Domain (MMS distributes 49% to the State, MT distributes 25% of funds received to the County).

4

Intl Bdy International Boundary.

5BOR Bureau of Reclamation (Public Domain: governed by Mineral Leasing Act and the same as public domain above; 

Acquired: 100% to the Reclamation Fund).

Production

The amounts of federal minerals and the contributions of that production to local economies vary among the counties. 

Blaine and Toole Counties produce the most oil, and Phillips and Blaine Counties produces the most natural gas from 

federal minerals. Across the 8-county planning area, federal minerals account for less than 1% of total oil production. 

Phillips County produces the most natural gas and the most natural gas from federal minerals. An estimated 60% of the 

natural gas produced in the 8-county area comes from federal minerals.

Federal oil and gas production in Montana is subject to production taxes or royalties. These federal oil and gas royalties 

generally equal 12.5% of the value of production (43 CFR 3103.3.1). Forty-nine percent of these royalties from minerals 

produced from public domain lands are distributed to the state. In Montana, 25% of the royalty revenues that the state 

receives are redistributed to the counties of production (Title 17-3-240, MCA). Twenty-five percent of royalties 

associated with mineral production from Bankhead-Jones lands are distributed to counties of production. In FY 2010, 

federal royalty revenues within the planning area were $7.4 million (ONRR 2011), of which an estimated $3.2 million 

were distributed to the state and counties.

Local Economic Contribution

Aggregated mining sectors (industry sectors 20-30) supported approximately 930 total jobs and $52.9 million in labor 

income within the planning area in 2009 (IMPLAN 2009). Almost all of the jobs and labor income are associated with 

oil and gas production. Most of the oil and gas service companies associated with oil and gas operations in the planning 

area are located within the planning area. The amounts of federal minerals and the dependency of local economies on 

that production vary among the counties. 

Counties and school districts receive revenues from oil and natural gas leasing and production taxes and ad valorem 

property taxes on certain field and pipeline facilities. Detailed breakdowns of taxable values associated with the oil and 

natural gas industry for analysis of property tax assessments are not available. However, revenues associated with 

mineral exploration, development, and production of federal minerals allow higher levels of government and/or school 

district services than would be available without these revenues. In other cases these revenues reduce the tax burden on 

residential, commercial and industrial property taxpayers within the county. These benefits can be offset by higher 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Economics 277

service demand associated with oil and gas activities; however, road maintenance appears to be the major function that 

requires a higher level of service as a result of oil and gas activities. 

Drilling is usually done by a contractor who transports a rig and crew into the area and drills several wells. Drilling 

occurs continuously until a well is completed. The rig then moves to its next assignment. Drilling within an area has 

been done by only one or two companies at a time. The temporary workforce typically includes about 15 drilling-related 

workers, about 4 workers to cement the well, and a three-person logging crew. A second crew of about 14 will complete 

the wells drilled during one season. A third crew of 10-15 workers installs gathering lines for all wells drilled within a 

field during one drilling season. Drilling, completion, gathering system/field infrastructure construction crews are 

generally non-local and stay in nearby towns on a temporary basis. Some crews hire a few local workers, but non-locals 

require temporary lodging in motels or recreational vehicles for the duration of their stay. Additional jobs are generated 

in the lodging, food service, entertainment, and automotive services sectors of the local economies. Field operations are 

typically performed by a few local employees and local contractors in the oil and gas service and construction industries.

The proximity of oil and gas wells and related facilities can influence nearby residential property sales, especially those 

on split estate land. Landowners who do not own mineral rights may be subject to federal mineral development on their 

land. Usually, these landowners enter into a surface use agreement and receive compensation, i.e. income, for the use of 

their land. Estimates of how individual properties are affected by nearby oil and gas development vary from case to case 

depending on specific location and the exact character and features of a property. Based on research in Colorado, BBC 

Research and Consulting reported in “Measuring the Impact of Coalbed Methane Wells on Property Values” (2001) that 

surface property owners perceive coalbed methane (CBM) activity “as having an adverse, if localized, effect on property 

values within view or earshot of CBM facilities.” In the study, interviewees said they “believe a property is most 

affected in the event that a well is located directly on it, although the intensity of effect may vary with the size of the 

property and the opportunities available to maintain separation between the well and the residence or other 

improvement.” BBC Research conducted Hedonic Pricing Analysis that included 754 properties and concluded that the 

location of a well on a property at the time of a residential sale reduced the net value of the residential property by 22%. 

However, the study found that the impact of a well within 550 feet of a property (but not on the property) may be 

positive if one takes into account spacing orders and setback requirements. The study concluded that this positive effect 

“is likely attributable to a belief that the property in question would not be drilled because a well had already been drilled 

in close proximity.” GIS analysis indicates there are about 500 residential structures within the planning area on lands 

with federal minerals that have high or moderate potential for oil and gas development.

Other economic activity related to mining includes sand, gravel, and stone mining and quarrying, and support activities 

for these other mining activities. The only other mineral production within the planning area is sand and gravel 

production, with 37 mineral material sites (sand and gravel) spread across the planning area. Total average annual 

production is about 26,000 cubic yards of dry gravel (38,480 short tons). Royalty rates along the HiLine average about 

$1.00 per cubic yard. Annual mineral material royalties from sales of federal mineral materials average about $26,000. 

None of these royalties go to state or local governments. However, the BLM does make sand and gravel available to 

county and local governments through free use permits. The commodity price for sand and gravel sold for commercial 

purposes averaged $8.18 per short ton in 2008 (USGS Minerals Yearbook, Sand and Gravel 2008).

Recreation Use

The economic influence of recreation use on BLM lands is related to local expenditures for goods and services such as 

gasoline, lodging, meals, and supplies. To understand the local economic influence of recreation use, it is important to 

understand that local expenditures vary depending on the type of activity, whether the recreation use is from local 

residents or non-local residents, and whether the activity involves overnight stays. Local expenditures related to 

recreation use support local employment and labor income (standard economic indicators). Generally, employment 

related to recreation and tourism tends to be seasonal and relatively low paid, with a high portion of the labor force selfemployed. The recreation opportunities available in the planning area play an important role in the quality of life of 

many local residents, and also attract visitors from elsewhere in the state and region. The BLM lands in the planning 

area received an estimated 113,000 recreation visits in FY 2010 (BLM, RMIS 2011). Major recreation activities on 

BLM lands are hunting (33%), fishing (12%), off-highway vehicle use (11%), wildlife viewing (8%), and picnicking 

(8%). Recreation and tourism is not classified or measured as a standard industrial category. Components of recreation 

and tourism activities are instead captured in other industrial sectors, primarily the retail sales and services sectors.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

278 Economics

It is assumed that day use and overnight use in the planning area would be similar to that found in the Dakota Prairie 

National Grasslands, where an estimated 61% is day use; the vast majority of which is local day use. Average spending 

for day and overnight use on the Dakota Prairie Grasslands is assumed to be representative of daily recreation 

expenditures on BLM lands within the planning area where average spending per recreation visit for day trips was $31 

and average spending per overnight visit was $123 (Stynes and White 2005). Using these data as a proxy of 

expenditures per recreation visit on BLM lands in the planning area, it is estimated that average daily expenditures 

adjusted for inflation are $91.45 and annual total expenditures are $3.3 million. These expenditures would be split 

among the following economic sectors: lodging, restaurants, groceries, gas/oil, other transportation, activities, 

admissions/fees, and souvenirs. 

Government revenues received from the recreation program are associated with recreation use permits issued. In 

FY 2010, $8,155 was collected in campground fees and Special Recreation Use Permits. None of these revenues from 

the HiLine District are distributed to the state or counties. The BLM’s recreation fee guidance (IM 2005-063) identifies 

the goal of using fee revenues at sites of collection or within the field office of collection.

Timber Management

The actual timber harvest within the planning area is relatively small, with the 10-year average harvest only about 67 

thousand board feet (67 MBF or 152 CCF) per year. Christmas trees are also sold. The annual average number of 

Christmas trees sold over a 10-year period was 76. About 5% of the sawtimber that is harvested comes from salvage 

sales. Annual timber revenues average $1,190 for all products and $553 for salvage sales. Four percent of the revenue 

from timber sales on public domain goes to the state, 76% to the Bureau of Reclamation, and 20% to the U.S. Treasury. 

Distribution of revenue from salvage sales is different, i.e., 4% of revenue from timber sales on public domain goes to 

the state, and 96% goes to the BLM.

Lands and Realty Actions

In FY 2010, the BLM issued or renewed 67 rights-of-way for infrastructure in support of economic activities within the 

planning area. FY 2010 is representative of the annual BLM rental revenues received for federal rights-of-way. These 

rights-of-way covered 42,500 acres and the BLM received almost $77,000 in rental income. Types of rights-of-way and 

amount of rental income by type are presented in Table 3.14.

Table 3.14

FY 2010 Federal Rights-of-Way Revenues by Type

Type Rental Income

Number of

Rights-of-Way Total Acres

Powerlines $2,623 13 38

Telecommunication Lines $2,506 4 7,371

Roads/Highways $27,548 15 11

Communication Sites $2,183 1 287

Oil and Gas Pipelines $101 1 111

Oil and Gas Roads $43,971 28 211

Material Sites $600 2 34,511

Water Facilities $75 3 9

Total $76,983 67 42,549

Source: Lands and Realty Database (LR2000), January 27, 2011

If the right-of-way is issued under FLPMA authority, none of the rents are shared with the state or local governments. If 

the right-of-way is issued under the Mineral Leasing Act Authority, 50% of rents are shared with the state, which 

distributes 25% of the revenue it receives to the appropriate counties. If rights-of-way rents are collected from Bankhead 

Jones (LU) lands, 25% if the revenue is paid to the county. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Economics 279

Currently, no rights-of-way exist for wind energy on BLM lands in the planning area. However, it is anticipated that 

some development will occur on public lands over the life of the plan. Analysis of anticipated impacts is included in 

Chapter 4.

Direct BLM Contributions to Area Economic Activity

BLM Labor and Operations

BLM operations and management in the area make a direct contribution to area economic activity by employing people 

who reside in the area and by expending dollars on other non-personnel needs. Management of BLM lands and 

resources is carried out by professional and administrative employees who are stationed in BLM offices in Havre, Malta, 

and Glasgow. In December 2010, the three offices combined had positions for 47 permanent employees and 3 other than 

permanent. The BLM also has additional employees located in the Great Falls Field Office (Great Falls), Lewistown 

Field Office (Lewistown), and the Montana State Office (Billings) who worked on minerals and resource management in 

the HiLine District. In FY 2010 BLM spent $4.164 million for labor and $5.302 million on operations within the 

planning area. The three communities that have the largest BLM labor income are Malta, Havre, and Glasgow. BLM 

operations expenditures include administrative costs as well as contracts for various forms of ecosystem restoration to 

protect or restore the lands managed by the BLM.

Ecosystem Restoration

Some land uses/activities such as weed treatments and hazardous fuels treatments are paid for by the BLM and are 

grouped together as ecosystem restoration. Major activities associated with ecosystem restoration include treatment of 

invasive species and pest management, wildland fire suppression, hazardous fuels treatments, and mine reclamation. 

Annual ecosystem restoration includes one major mine reclamation and water treatment project ($2.479 million/year), 

mechanical treatment/pre-commercial thinning of 237 acres of forest/woodlands, prescribed burning of about 43 acres of 

forested areas, mechanical treatments and prescribed burning of 355 acres of grass/shrubs and treating 1,280 acres of 

invasive species. Mine reclamation, water treatment, 90% of pre-commercial thinning, and 63% of invasive species 

treatments are contracted out or paid for through cooperative agreements. Annual timber harvest paid for by the BLM 

but performed by private businesses for hazardous fuels treatments and timber sales would continue to produce about 

875 CCF of sawtimber. Ecosystem restoration supports less than 10 total jobs and $380,000 in total labor and 

proprietor’s income in the local economy.

Invasive species: Economic effects of invasive species and their treatments are related to their influence on range 

productivity, wildfire risk, and attractiveness for recreation, and ultimately, on how these impacts affect local 

employment, income, and government revenues. Direct and indirect impacts from treatments of invasive species vary 

based on the species being treated and the type of treatment used. Table 3.15 identifies the average BLM per-acre cost 

of weed treatments and Table 3.16 identifies the projected annual average BLM acres treated. About one-third of the 

treatments are done by the BLM and two-thirds are done through agreements or contracts.

Table 3.15

Invasive Species Treatment Average Cost per Acre*

Glasgow Field 

Office

Malta

Field Office

Havre

Field Office Planning Area Total

Biological – Non-Classical NA NA $23 $23

Biological – Classical* $50 NA $20 $30

Chemical – Ground $195 $20 $221 $201

Chemical – Air $200 $187 $204 $202

Other Treatments NA NA $525 $531

Average All Treatments $148 $248 $199 $198

* Weighted average by acre.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

280 Economics

Table 3.16

Average Annual Invasive Species Treatment

(Acres)

Glasgow Field 

Office

Malta

Field Office

Havre

Field Office Planning Area Total

Biological – Non Classical 0 0 110 110

Biological – Classical* 50 20 20 90

Chemical – Ground 85 356 254 695

Chemical – Air 285 0 90 375

Other Treatments 0 4 5 9

Total 420 380 479 1,279

* Classical Biological Controls represents only releases made in any given year.

Fire suppression and fuels treatments: The cost of wildland fire suppression within the planning area depends on the 

number and size of fires. Most wildland fires are controlled in the initial attack, when they are relatively small. 

However, weather conditions, terrain, vegetation, and proximity to populated areas all contribute to the cost of fire 

suppression. Restoration/fuel reduction efforts in Montana reduce fire hazard, improve ecological conditions of forested 

areas, and result in economic benefits that exceed the costs of reducing hazardous fuels (Keegan, et al. 2002). Between 

2001 and 2008, BLM fuel treatment costs within the planning area averaged $182 per acre for pre-commercial thinning 

of forested areas, $43 per acre for prescribed burning of forested areas, and $355 acre for mechanical treatments and 

prescribed burning of grass and shrublands.

Total BLM Economic Contribution

Revenue disbursement: BLM land management activities and land/mineral uses that generated revenue to counties are 

displayed in Table 3.17. A large source of these payments was payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) and mineral payments. 

PILT payments are made to counties to compensate for federal lands that are exempt from local property taxes. Payment 

amounts are based on a complex formula that considers, among other things, revenue sharing from the previous year, 

county population, and acreage of a county in federal ownership. Another large source of revenue to counties within the 

planning area is oil and gas lease bonus, rents, and royalty payments. These revenues are influenced by leasing bonus 

bids, the well head price paid for oil and natural gas, and levels of production from federal minerals.

Table 3.17

Payments to Counties from BLM-Related Land/Mineral Uses

County/Area

BLM Portion of 2010

PILT Payments1 Grazing Fees2

2010 Oil and Gas Leasing 

Bonus, Rents,

Royalty Payments3

8-County Planning Area $2,043,130 $80,194 $1,271,413

Sources: 

1 USDI FY 2010 Payments In Lieu of Taxes.

2 Based on Average annual authorized Use 1999-2009 from BLM Rangeland Administration System (RAS).

3 Estimated from 2010 Office of Natural Resource Revenue payments to the State of Montana.

Employment and Income: BLM-related employment and income by major program area are displayed in Table 3.18.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fire Management and Ecology 281

Table 3.18

BLM Resource-Related Employment and Income by Major Program Area

Resource/Program Area Resource-Related Jobs Resource-Related Income ($1,000)

Grazing 303 2,705

Minerals 1,048 56,036

Recreation Use 84 2,165

BLM Expenditures 113 9,032

Payments to States/Counties 64 1,974

Total Resource Management 1,612 71,912

BLM as a Percent of Total Planning 

Area Economy 4.5% 6.1%

Source: IMPLAN 2009

Activities occurring on or associated with BLM land and mineral resource uses supported an estimated average annual 

1,612 jobs and $71.9 million in labor income within the planning area (FEAST/IMPLAN 2009). BLM land/minerals 

use-related jobs and income amounted to 4.5% and 6.1% of area totals, respectively. The resource uses generating most 

of the employment and income are related to minerals (mostly oil and gas) development.

Fire Management and Ecology

Most, if not all of the ecological systems in the planning area have adapted to fire and other disturbances and are 

maintained by those disturbances. Vegetation management and land uses in the past century have altered many plant 

communities and fuel loadings. Because of these altered conditions, there is potential for future fires to become larger 

and/or higher severity, especially in conifer fuel types. Nationally, acres burned per year have doubled since 1980 

(NIFC Wildland fire statistics [http://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/fireInfo_statistics.html] 1/5/08). In addition, the 

introduction of non-native invasive plant species has increased the potential for negative impacts after fire, especially 

where annual grasses such as cheatgrass have invaded. Alternatively, the potential for abnormally low fire behavior has 

been created in areas where coverage of clubmoss or bare ground has increased; consequently, the plant community will 

tend to persist in the altered condition.

In the past decade, and especially after the 2000 fire season when the National Fire Plan was developed, the BLM and 

other agencies increased vegetation treatments such as thinning and prescribed burning to reduce hazardous fuels in 

developed areas and change plant community composition and structure for improved health and resiliency after fire.

Fire Management

The BLM fire and fuels organization is a centralized zone operation that includes the HiLine District and the Central 

Montana District Offices, and the Lewistown Interagency Fire Dispatch Office. The BLM works in an interagency 

environment with rural fire departments, tribes and other federal and state fire agencies. The closest available fire 

suppression resources respond to a fire for initial attack regardless of land ownership. The BLM has entered into 

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties, and an agreement with Hill County

which outline initial attack responsibilities.

Fires in the planning area that occur within the rural intermix or Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) are always fully 

suppressed because of the high values associated with mixed ownership which may include croplands, rangelands, and 

structures. Fire management has included the full range of suppression options from full suppression to managing fire 

for beneficial effects.

The Fire Management Plan (FMP) divides the landscape into Fire Management Units (FMU), where objectives and 

constraints of the RMP can be described, as well as vegetation, fuel types, wildland urban interface areas, and other 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

282 Fire Management and Ecology

characteristics. The planning area includes seven FMUs: Sweet Grass Hills, Havre Prairie Potholes, Malta Prairie 

Potholes, Bears Paw, Little Rockies, Malta Breaks, and Sun Prairie.

The Montana/Dakotas Fire/Fuels Plan (BLM 2004a) amended the Judith-Valley-Phillips and West HiLine RMPs to 

adopt standard fire management categories. These categories are assigned to FMUs and range from Category A where 

fire (including prescribed fire) is not desired at all, to Category D where fire is desired and there are no constraints on its 

use. Most of the planning area is Category B, where fire is a useful management tool, but unplanned ignitions are likely 

to cause negative impacts because of intermixed private lands and rural structures. The Missouri Breaks area is Category 

C, where fire is desired but fuels buildup and intermixed private lands create constraints to the use of wildfire for 

resource benefit. The planning area has no lands assigned to Categories A or D. Appendix D has more information 

about fire management categories, and Map 2.1 in Chapter 2 (Alternative A) shows the FMUs and areas covered by 

Categories B and C.

Prescribed Fire Treatments

The BLM has used prescribed fire on 2,229 acres within the planning area from 2001 through May of 2008. Of those 

acres, 1,799 were in grassland/shrubland areas, and 255 acres were in forested areas. Fire treatments in forested areas 

have mostly been used to burn slash residues in hazardous fuels reduction projects near the towns of Zortman and 

Landusky. More recent projects are focusing on forest and upland health, and restoration of fire regimes; understanding 

that healthy forests have appropriate stand densities and fuel loadings. Mechanical treatments are addressed in the 

Forests and Woodlands section under Forest Treatments.

Prescribed fire in forested settings is most commonly implemented during the late winter and early spring months when 

soil, duff, and dead wood fuel moistures are at their highest of the year. This allows low to moderate severity fire effects 

with minimal mortality in the forest canopy. This is especially important in high value areas such as mechanically 

treated sites. The cost of implementation in late winter or early spring is usually lower than other times of year because 

adjacent fuels are less receptive to ignition or high rates of fire spread, so fewer holding resources (e.g., engines, fire 

personnel) may be necessary as compared to fall burning. No matter the time of year, pre-burn preparations in forested 

settings usually include surface-disturbing activities such as hand lines, but in late winter or early spring control lines can 

be narrower or unnecessary where natural barriers like game trails are adequate.

In grassland settings as compared to forested settings, prescribed fire can be implemented more reasonably during

summer and fall because fuels are lighter and burn quickly, and flame lengths are generally shorter than in forested 

settings. In some years, summer and fall fire restrictions and non-availability of prescribed fire personnel can constrain 

summer and fall prescribed fire implementation.

Wildfire Occurrence

Fire occurrence in the planning area generally extends from March or April through October, with the summer fire 

season occurring from mid-June through early September. Many spring or fall wildfires are human caused from 

equipment or debris burning, whereas most summer-season fires are started from lightning strikes that occur during 

thunderstorms in the summer months. Most fires remain small because of initial attack suppression efforts, or because of 

precipitation or vegetation greenness. Fires that grow large usually result from a combination of dry lightning, high 

winds, cured vegetation, and/or fuel buildup. Drought conditions can exacerbate these conditions or contribute to early 

or extended fire seasons. Although uncertainty remains about the effects of climate change on fire occurrence, size and 

severity, it seems accurate to assume warmer and dryer conditions in the planning area would likely create longer fire 

seasons.

Table 3.19 shows BLM-reported fires in the planning area between 1980 and 2006. Data are summarized from fires 

reported to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) database. Reported fires include those where BLM provides 

assistance to other agencies or rural fire departments as well as fires on BLM lands where BLM receives assistance from 

other agencies or rural fire departments. About 77% of the fires were naturally ignited from lightning, and about 23% 

were human-caused by equipment, vehicles, powerlines, or unknown sources. This fire history data generally does not 

include tribal, state, private, or other federal agency fires, unless the BLM assisted with those fires. Rural volunteer fire 

departments successfully and independently suppress a very large, but unknown number of fires every year. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fire Management and Ecology 283

Table 3.19

BLM-Reported Fires (1980-2006)

Total reporting years 27

Reported fires 288

Total action fires 284 (minus false alarms)

Maximum fires in a year 27 in 2006

Average fires / year 10

Total acres 105,363 acres

Average acres / year 4,052 acres

Maximum fire size 13,466 acres in October 2005

Average fire size 366 acres

Median size 8 acres

Maximum yearly acres 21,185 acres in 2006

Source: NIFC database.

Figure 3.10 shows the BLM-reported monthly fire occurrence in the planning area between 1980 and 2006.

Figure 3.10

BLM Reported Fires 1980-2006

Source: NIFC database.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

284 Fire Management and Ecology

Historic and Pre-Settlement Human Fire

Diaries and oral histories from early explorers, Native Americans, and trappers have documented the deliberate and 

multipurpose use of fire by Native Americans, but the information is usually lacking in spatial and temporal scales 

(Baker 2002). The frequency and extent of fire use is argued to have shaped North America’s plant communities (Pyne 

1982, Williams 2000, 2004); however, it has also been suggested that this idea is over-emphasized (Barrett, Swetnam, 

and Baker, 2005). The use of fire is documented for prairies to the east of the planning area (Lewis and Clark Journals) 

and in the forests to the west (Barrett 1980, Barrett and Arno 1982), but little or no local information exists for the 

planning area, and therefore, little opportunity to use the information to establish reference conditions.

Fire Danger and Behavior

In early spring, fire occurrence on BLM lands is predominately in the grass/shrub fuel type and tends to occur between 

snowmelt and green-up, when fine fuels have dried and will carry fire. The average burning index is usually at its 

highest during this time of year (NWCG Pocket Card, CMZ BLM 2011), which can indicate higher flame lengths and 

associated difficulties in control efforts. The burning index is often used as a fire danger indicator in areas where fine 

fuels such as grass are the main carrier of fire. Spring precipitation and green-up reduce the burning index to the lowest 

values of the year as reflected in Figure 3.10, where acres burned in June are relatively low considering the number of 

fires. As herbaceous vegetation matures and fuels dry in summer, the burning index values steadily increase, and 

associated fire danger increases until early September. The data suggest the possibility to manage wildfires for resource 

benefit immediately before and during green-up.

Energy release component (ERC) is a cumulative measure for the fire season which provides a reflection of drought 

conditions, and is used as a fire danger indicator in forested settings. ERC represents the release of heat per unit area in a 

flame zone, and indicates potential fire intensity. Typically, maximum ERC values are reached in late August or early 

September (NWCG Pocket Card, CMZ BLM 2011), and decline only after significant precipitation events.

From mid-June through August, thunderstorms can occur almost daily and may or may not have precipitation associated 

with them. Under dry conditions, these storms can produce multiple fires per day with increased potential for escape 

from initial attack suppression efforts.

Fire Ecology

Plant species in the planning area can be fire adapted in several ways, or by a combination of the following 

characteristics: physical attributes that resist burn damage; post-fire sprouting capabilities of roots and stems; or seedling 

establishment (Miller 1994).

Structurally, a tree such as ponderosa pine is fire resistant because it has thick bark (insulation) and few ladder fuels 

which could cause fire to move into the crown. Ponderosa pine is adapted to frequent fire that burns surface fuels and 

maintains an open understory. When fire is eliminated from this type of plant community, ladder fuels will increase 

(such as thickets of pine and Douglas-fir seedlings) and will contribute to stand replacing crown fire and canopy 

mortality.

Plants with rhizomatous root systems, such as chokecherry, needle-leaf sedge, and western wheatgrass will re-sprout 

vigorously after fire, even after fairly severe burns. The depth of the root system ranges from shallow to deep, so some 

roots and buds are protected from all but the most severe burns. Plants with root crowns or basal buds, such as birch, 

serviceberry and currant will re-sprout after fire, but the roots can be more susceptible to heat damage than are 

rhizomatous roots. Many deciduous shrubs and herbaceous species are intolerant of partial or full shade and will become 

suppressed and decline in forest understories if fire is eliminated from the plant community.

Some species such as lodgepole pine are adapted to fire by creating post-fire conditions which enhance seedling 

establishment. Lodgepole pine cones are often serotinous, which means they must be heated to open and release the 

seeds. In addition, the seedlings require a sunny, mineral seedbed to germinate and grow successfully. In general, 

lodgepole pine forests are adapted to infrequent, stand-replacing fire, which creates ideal conditions for seed germination 

and seedling establishment. In the higher elevations of the island mountain ranges, lodgepole pine generally 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fire Management and Ecology 285

reestablishes in dense “dog-hair” stands, and can expand into Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine stands (Pfister, et al. 1977) that 

have been killed by crown fire. Casual observations in the Little Rocky Mountains suggest that lodgepole pine has 

replaced ponderosa pine in many areas, particularly after the 1936 fire. Because lodgepole pine forests are adapted to 

stand-replacing fire, they can contribute to large fire size.

Wyoming big sagebrush is usually killed by fire, and must reestablish by seed. In all but the most extreme conditions, 

fires burn in a mosaic pattern, or a narrow, wind-driven pattern. The patterns leave remnant patches near or within the 

burn area, and those plants supply seed for reestablishment (Howard 1999). Conifers such as juniper, pine, and Douglasfir can encroach into sagebrush/grasslands and create conditions that may contribute to large fire size and higher severity 

burns. Likewise, encroachment of annual grasses can contribute to large, stand-replacement fire in sagebrush 

communities.

Fire Regimes

As general examples, some plant communities require frequent low severity fire, while others require infrequent standreplacing fire. Most plant communities require fire frequencies and burn severities somewhere between these two 

descriptions. Plant community or ecosystem adaptations to fire, with respect to frequency and severity, are referred to as 

fire regimes.

When an ecological system or plant community does not burn at adapted intervals or severities, changes occur to the 

system which can affect species composition, vegetation characteristics, and fuel loading. These changes can further 

affect fire interval and burn severity, which further contribute to uncharacteristic changes in the plant community. These 

altered conditions within a plant community or system can be measured and classified according to the departure of that 

community relative to its natural or historic fire regime.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) has been developed as an interagency, standardized process to assess and monitor 

fire regimes and the condition of vegetation communities relative to their fire regime. The FRCC includes five fire 

regime groups (Hann, et al. 2008) as shown in Table 3.20. Three condition classes measure the departure of a plant 

community from its historic fire regime. Condition Class 1 is within the natural range, Condition Class 2 is moderately 

altered from the natural range, and Condition Class 3 is significantly altered from the natural range. Table 3.21 provides 

definitions of these classes (Hann, et al. 2008).

Table 3.20

Fire Regime Groups and Descriptions

Fire Regime 

Group Frequency Severity Severity description

I 0-35 years Low / mixed Generally low-severity fires replacing less than 25% of the 

dominant overstory vegetation; can include mixed-severity 

fires that replace up to 75% of the overstory.

II 0-35 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the dominant 

overstory vegetation.

III 35-200 years Mixed / low Generally mixed-severity; can also include low-severity fires

IV 35-200 years Replacement High-severity fires replacing greater than 75% of the dominant 

overstory vegetation.

V 200+ years Replacement / any 

severity

Generally replacement-severity; can include any severity type 

in this frequency range.

Source: Hann, et al. 2008

Within the planning area, condition classes and fire regimes have been analyzed at the project level and at a coarse-scale 

national level, but have not been assessed at the landscape level. In conjunction with other standard vegetation health 

assessments, FRCC assessments help establish reference conditions, identify current conditions, and perhaps direct 

attention to priority areas that would benefit from vegetation treatments such as fire. A national project called 

LANDFIRE has produced a mid-scale, spatial FRCC dataset for the nation. The data are currently available and will be 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

286 Fish

used to provide a foundation within the planning area for assessing baseline conditions, and for monitoring vegetation 

treatment efforts. FRCC assessments will continue to be developed and monitored at the project level.

Table 3.21

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) Characteristics

Condition

Class Description

1 Less than 33% departure from the central tendency of the historical range of variation: Fire regimes are 

within the natural or historical range and risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation 

attributes (composition and structure) are well intact and functioning.

2 33% to 66% departure: Fire regimes have been moderately altered. Risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is moderate. Fire frequencies may have departed by one or more return intervals (either 

increased or decreased). This departure may result in moderate changes in fire and vegetation attributes.

3 Greater than 66% departure: Fire regimes have been substantially altered. Risk of losing key ecosystem 

components is high. Fire frequencies may have departed by multiple return intervals. This may result in 

dramatic changes in fire size, fire intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes 

have been substantially altered.

Source: Hann, et al. 2008

Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation is conducted on a case-by-case basis and may be necessary following fire suppression, wildland fire, and 

prescribed burns to address the following:

 Emergency stabilization and rehabilitation. Actions such as seeding, fencing, and temporary closures could be taken 

to stabilize or rehabilitate burned areas.

 Invasive Nonnative Plant Species (INPS). Burned areas and areas subject to fire suppression activities are 

susceptible to the establishment or expansion of INPS. Pre- and post-fire management is crucial for controlling 

nonnative plant species.

Appendix D provides more information about Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation.

Fish

The BLM is responsible for managing fisheries habitat on BLM lands. Managing fish populations is the responsibility of 

state (MFWP) and federal wildlife management agencies. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provides 

regulatory oversight for all species that are listed, proposed for listing, or are candidates for listing under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). For more information, see the Special Status Species section later in this chapter.

Fish Species

The variety of fish species present in the planning area is high, with 76% of the total fish species common to Montana 

found in the planning area. A complete list of the 73 fish species (species, hybrids, and special populations) occurring in 

the planning area is located in Appendix N, Table N.1.

The aquatic resources in the planning area include fish, aquatic macro-invertebrates, and their habitats. These habitats 

consist of rivers and streams, springs, seeps, and lakes or reservoirs that provide year-round (perennial) or seasonal 

(intermittent) habitat for a variety of fish species or life stages, aquatic macro-invertebrates, and aquatic plant 

communities. Water quality is a key indicator of environmental conditions for fish and aquatic habitats. Other elements 

critical to aquatic habitat and suitable fish habitat, including riparian habitat, are sufficient water volume, suitable water 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fish 287

temperature, and a limited presence of nonnative competitors. The BLM uses its surveys and those done by DEQ and 

MFWP to assess the abundance, distribution, and health of fish populations and aquatic habitat within the planning area.

Riparian vegetation is also an important factor in maintaining aquatic resource conditions, particularly in smaller rivers 

and streams. Riparian vegetation provides in-stream habitat for fish, adds structure to the banks, reduces erosion, 

moderates water temperatures, and is a source of organic nutrients for the system. Riparian vegetation also moderates 

flows by reducing runoff into streams and stores water for later release. As riparian habitats degrade, erosion and 

sedimentation increase, and streams widen and become shallower. Temperature fluctuations increase and oxygen 

content can reach critically low levels. These factors collectively reduce or degrade available fish habitat. A more 

thorough discussion of riparian vegetation can be found in the Vegetation – Riparian and Wetlands section.

Land use practices can directly or indirectly affect aquatic habitat and resource conditions. For example, logging and 

grazing activities may result in the direct loss or modification of riparian vegetation. These activities may also increase 

sediment delivery to the streams, which would affect water quality and substrate characteristics. 

The linear characteristics of aquatic habitat and the wide dispersal and scattered parcel distribution of BLM lands in the 

planning area result in aquatic habitat for specific streams and rivers crossing land owned by different entities, making it 

difficult to describe specific habitat conditions relative to single land ownership. 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.

Of the 73 different species of fish found in the planning area (Appendix N, Table N.1), 46 are native, and 27 have been 

introduced new to the system over the years. Fisheries habitat on/in the Missouri River within the planning area has 

changed dramatically over the past 50-100 years with the advent of dams and subsequent flood control and the gradual 

reduction of cottonwoods and other deciduous trees. This is reflected in the high number of threatened and endangered 

and special status fish species (7 species) in the relatively short section of river. The planning area has a total of 3,231 

miles of fish-bearing streams (MTNRIS 2007). A complete list of the fish-bearing streams is shown in Appendix N, 

Table N.2. Approximately 8% (243 miles) of these streams cross BLM lands.

Habitat conditions throughout the planning area vary both among and within water bodies. For example, the upper 

reaches of small streams may be intermittent, while the lower reaches may receive perennial flows, resulting in distinctly 

different habitat conditions even within the same stream. 

Extensive information on aquatic habitat and fisheries resources is contained in the Montana Fisheries Information 

System (MFISH) at the MFWP website at http://fwp.mt.gov/fishing/mFish/default.html. MFISH is a database 

containing information on fish species distribution, supporting data for distribution, and stream level information for 

lakes and streams in Montana. The database is managed and maintained by the Information Management Bureau of the 

Information Services Division of MFWP and is annually updated through interviews with MFWP, U.S. Forest Service, 

USFWS, BLM and tribal fisheries biologists, and supplemented with information provided in technical documents and 

reports.

The MFISH system ranks river and stream reaches according to their overall fisheries resource value. The resource 

value is determined by a complex point system, where the most points are assigned for important habitat for fishes of 

special concern (particularly important spawning habitat) and the least points are assigned for the occurrence of 

nonnative fish species. Additional consideration is given for social and economic values, such as higher points for a 

stream in an area with few streams. The rankings range from 1 to 5, representing respectively outstanding, high, 

substantial, moderate, and limited resource values. Within the planning area, the rankings generally correspond to the 

size of the river or stream, or the stream classification (see Appendix N, Table N.2). The only rivers in the planning area

with a resource value of 1 (outstanding) are the Missouri and Marias rivers. Most of the other major drainages have 

resource values of 2 and 3, particularly in their lower reaches where perennial flows occur. 

Lakes and Reservoirs

The MFISH database lists 97 lakes, ponds, and reservoirs in the planning area, although numerous smaller lakes and 

ponds also occur in the area (Appendix N, Table N.3). An additional 69 fishing lakes, ponds, and reservoirs (for a total 

of 166) exist in the planning area. Of the 166 water bodies identified, 40 (24%) are managed for warm/cool water 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

288 Fish

species, 74 (44%) for trout, 21 (13%) for trout and warm/cool water species, and 31 (19%) were winterkilled at the time 

of this writing. Many of these water bodies were constructed (man-made). Sixty-one of the above water bodies are 

managed by the BLM. Twenty-six of the BLM-managed reservoirs, however, have winter-kill problems caused by a 

lack of depth and/or siltation. The remaining 35 reservoirs provide a vital fishery for the planning area. Fish stocking is 

coordinated with MFWP. Habitat improvement on some of these reservoirs has occurred to improve winter survival 

(windmill aeration) and water quality (exclosure construction).

The largest lakes or reservoirs in the planning area are Fort Peck Lake, Tiber Reservoir, Fresno Reservoir, and Nelson 

Reservoir. Fort Peck Lake (249,349 acre surface area) is immediately adjacent to the planning area and is an important 

fishery to the planning area. These water bodies are primarily managed for warm or cool water fish species.

A greater variety of fish species is generally found in the more downstream reaches of larger drainages, with 

comparatively fewer species present in upstream reaches throughout the planning area. This variation is related 

primarily to water quantity, as many of the smaller streams and the upper reaches of larger streams are ephemeral 

(seasonal). In addition, MFWP has identified chronic (most years) or periodic (drought years) dewatering concerns for 

certain reaches of the planning area (MTNRIS 2005). 

The greatest fish diversity (57 species) occurs in the Missouri River (due to Fort Peck Reservoir), including 28 native 

species (MTNRIS 2005). Of the other large rivers in the planning area, the Marias River has 26 native species (38 total), 

and the Milk River has 22 native species (32 total species). The other major rivers and streams in the area typically 

support 16 to 23 total species and 12 to 17 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, smallmouth bass, northern pike, 

sauger, and walleye (MTNRIS 2007). Less abundant game species include species of the family Salmonidae (various 

trout species, salmon, whitefish, cisco, and chars), largemouth bass, mountain whitefish, black crappie, white crappie, 

paddlefish, shovelnose sturgeon, pallid sturgeon, burbot, and yellow perch. See Appendix N, Table N.4 for a complete 

list of game fish in the planning area.

The most dominant non-game species in the planning area are goldeye, common carp, sand shiner, fathead minnow, 

flathead chub, longnose dace, white sucker, and shorthead redhorse.

Cold water game fish in the planning area are dominated by four introduced species (rainbow, brown, brook, and lake 

trout [lake trout are primarily not native, except in the Waterton and Saint Mary Lakes]), although these fisheries are 

limited in this portion of the state. Cold water fisheries are maintained through hatchery planting programs primarily in 

the area's reservoirs, ponds, and lakes. Mountain streams in the Sweet Grass Hills and Little Rocky Mountains, and 

other prairie streams typically rely on natural fish reproduction.

Several unique warm water fish species also occur in the planning area, including paddlefish, burbot, and two species of 

sturgeon, although these species are found primarily in the mainstem river reaches with perennial flows.

The abundance and distribution of the various fish species in the area is influenced by the available habitat, their ability 

to adapt to changing habitat conditions, and the degree of fishing pressure. Many of the game fish are also supported to 

some degree by hatchery planting operations. 

Fort Peck Lake, which runs along the southern border of the planning area but is outside the HiLine District, has the 

most diverse fish species (57 species); most are native to the Missouri River system. Sixteen species, mostly game fish, 

have been introduced to develop sportfishing opportunities, including two species of salmon (Chinook and kokanee). 

The reservoir's walleye fishery has been of particular interest to resident anglers, and in recent years has begun to attract 

nonresidents as well. The difference in species diversity reflects the size of the reservoir (habitat variability) and its 

depth. Deeper water bodies provide habitat during the winter, while shallow water bodies tend to freeze in winter. As a 

result, many of the small reservoirs in the planning area support limited numbers of species and smaller populations of 

fish. 

Numerous other aquatic resources are also present in the area's water bodies. These resources often are important in the 

diets of various fish species, or they comprise part of the food web upon which fish ultimately depend. Such aquatic 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fish 289

resources include macro- and micro-invertebrates, zooplankton, phytoplankton, periphyton (attached algae), snails, 

clams, and worms. Numerous taxa of aquatic insects whose distribution and abundance vary with geographic location, 

habitat type, and habitat condition, occur in planning area drainages. Immature and adult forms of stoneflies 

(Plecoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), caddisflies (Trichoptera), and true flies (Diptera) are particularly important in 

the diets of juvenile and adult trout, whitefish, and other native and nonnative fish species. Aquatic vascular plants 

include ferns and flowering plants that grow submersed in water, float on the water surface, or have basal portions 

inundated with foliage and upper parts immersed. As with the fish resources, these other aquatic resources depend 

primarily on water quality and quantity conditions.

Factors Affecting Aquatic Habitats

The principle natural factors that limit or affect aquatic resources in the planning area include drought, naturally erosive 

soils, dissolved oxygen levels in winter and summer, and water temperature.

The principal anthropogenic factors limiting or affecting aquatic resources in the planning area include excess siltation, 

stream dewatering, loss or degradation of riparian habitat, habitat fragmentation, roads, road drainage structures, 

livestock use, and past mining practices. Eleven stream diversions or diversion ditch rights-of-way are located on BLM 

surface. Most of these diversions are not screened to prevent fish mortality when the ditches are dewatered.

The introduction of nonnative species is also of primary concern, due to the effects of hybridization, predation, and 

competition. An additional factor affecting salmonids (particularly rainbow trout) includes the potential spread of 

whirling disease. Whirling disease is caused by the parasite Myxobolus cerebralis, and it has the potential to severely 

impact wild trout fisheries in Montana, resulting in serious loss of recreational activity and its associated economic 

benefits. 

Current management actions in the planning area focus on maintaining or improving aquatic habitats for fisheries and 

providing fishing opportunities on selected BLM reservoirs and ponds. Management actions for fisheries habitats are 

often conducted through large-scale water and riparian management actions (see the Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland, 

and Water sections), and water quality in the planning area is expected to improve as effects of surface-disturbing 

activities on vegetation cover are reduced through implementation of best management practices in riparian areas. 

Spatial protective stipulations for surface-disturbing activities are currently applied to both riparian and aquatic habitats 

as well as to reservoirs and ponds to afford a level of protection from human disturbance and development activities. 

The introduction of invasive, nonnative species is one of the leading threats to the ecological integrity of forests, 

grasslands, and waterways. Introduced intentionally or after escaping from cultivation, nonindigenous plants can 

colonize aquatic communities where they compete with and often displace native species. No nonindigenous invasive 

aquatic plants are currently known from the planning area, but a number of species could potentially affect aquatic 

resources in the planning area (see the Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species section).

Management challenges for fish and other aquatic species include minimizing impacts to aquatic habitats through the 

control of plant and animal invasive and non-native species, and protecting and improving habitats by minimizing 

activities that affect water quality and the hydrologic regime. Impacts specific to aquatic habitats in the planning area

include increased road building (often associated with other surface-disturbing activities such as oil and gas exploration 

and extraction), reservoir construction, intentional and accidental introduction of non-native species, and from activities 

in the surrounding landscapes that result in increased sediment loads in aquatic habitats.

Potential aquatic habitat restoration/enhancement projects have been identified for streams in the Little Rocky 

Mountains, fisheries reservoirs, and prairie streams. These projects may include: 

 large woody debris placement

 riparian planting

 exclosure fencing

 riparian pastures

 windmill aeration

 water quality restoration projects
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

290 Fish

 road drainage restoration

 fish screens on diversion ditches

 signing

 erosion control

 fishing reservoir construction

 Off-highway vehicle trail rehabilitation

Special Status Fish Species

Special status species are plants and animals that require particular management attention due to population or habitat 

concerns and are either:

• federally listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitats;

• federally proposed species and proposed critical habitats;

• federal candidate species;

• state listed threatened or endangered; or

• Montana BLM sensitive species.

The BLM accomplishes its threatened and endangered species management through coordination 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 (MOA) and subsequent implementation guidance for Section 7 consultations are utilized to 

provide collaborative opportunities in the consultation process. The BLM has entered into an MOA with the USFWS to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of RMP-level Section 7 consultation processes under the ESA. Through this 

MOA, the BLM agrees to promote the conservation of candidate, proposed, and listed species and to informally and 

formally consult 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 can have critical habitat identified as crucial to species viability. For those species that are listed 

and have not had critical habitat designations identified for them, the BLM cooperates with the USFWS to determine and 

manage habitats of importance. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided in accordance with the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Other fish and wildlife resources are considered under 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934).

Special status species indicators reflect population levels, distribution, and quantity and quality of preferred and suitable 

habitat and the prey needed to support them. This includes critical breeding habitat, wintering grounds, and corridors 

needed to support migrations and a healthy genetic pool needed for adaptability to future circumstances and conditions. 

Indicators are detected through allotment evaluations, stream and vegetation monitoring, population surveys, the Natural 

Heritage Program database, field observations, and USFWS data.

Threatened and Endangered Fish

Two fish species which are listed as threatened and endangered (T&E) under the Endangered Species Act (Table 3.22) 

are presently known to occur in the planning area but not on BLM lands or are only marginally affected by BLM 

management.

Table 3.22

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish Species

In the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank State Rank Species Status

Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus G1 S1 Listed Endangered

Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus G3 S2 Listed Threatened
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fish 291

Pallid Sturgeon

The pallid sturgeon was listed by the USFWS as an endangered species in 1990. 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 of the pallid sturgeon in Montana includes the Missouri River between the 

mouth of the Marias River and Fort Peck Reservoir, the Milk River from the mouth to Vandalia Dam, between Fort Peck 

Dam and the North Dakota border, and in the 112 kilometers of the Yellowstone River below the mouth of the Powder 

River. The areas of highest occurrence appear to be in Montana, in the Yellowstone River below the Intake Diversion 

Dam, and in North Dakota, in the Missouri River from its confluence with the Yellowstone River downstream to the 

headwaters of Lake Sakakawea. Populations in Montana are comprised entirely of old, large fish, as there is no evidence 

of successful reproduction in at least 25 years. The Upper Missouri River population is thought to be comprised of only 

50 adult fish, and a small number of young hatchery-reared individuals. Five radioed pallid sturgeon that migrated up 

the Milk River in Valley County in 2011 and stayed for an extended time included a female that had a high probability of 

being in spawning condition (Fuller, et al. 2012).

Bull Trout

The native bull trout has been determined to be a separate species from the coastal Dolly Varden. Bull trout in the 

planning area are only found in the Upper Saint Mary and Belly River drainages of Glacier National Park and the 

Blackfeet Indian Reservation. They are not found in BLM-managed habitat. Their declining trend has led to their 

designation as a threatened species. Bull trout do not tolerate high sediment levels in their spawning streams. Sediment 

can suffocate the developing embryos before they hatch. 

Montana BLM Sensitive Fish Species

Montana BLM sensitive species occurring in the planning area include nine fish species. Table 3.23 shows the species 

and their general habitat association.

Table 3.23

Montana BLM Sensitive Fish Species

In the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name

State of MT Species of 

Concern/MFWP Tier Level* General Habitat

Northern Redbelly X 

Finescale Dace

Phoxinus eos x phoxinus

neogaeus

2 River/Stream

Paddlefish Polyodon spathula 1 River/Stream

Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita 1 River/Stream

Sauger Sander canadensis 1 River/Stream

Sturgeon Chub Macrhybopsis gelida 1 River/Stream

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii 

lewisi 1 River/Stream

For most special status species, comprehensive data on population numbers and distribution within the planning area are 

not available. Occurrence data from the Montana Natural Heritage Program and BLM records identify the presence and 

location for some special status wildlife species in the planning area; however, these data reflect observations from 

opportunistic or project-specific surveys, rather than a complete inventory of the planning area.

Species added to the Montana BLM sensitive species list will have management actions developed to conserve, enhance 

and protect the species in accordance with applicable BLM guidance.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

292 Fish

Montana BLM sensitive species are those species designated by the BLM State Director, usually in cooperation with the 

state agency responsible for managing the species, and State Natural Heritage Programs. BLM sensitive species are 

those species that: 

• could become endangered in or extirpated from a state, or within a significant portion of its distribution; 

• are under status review by the USFWS; 

• are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution; 

• are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density such that federal 

listed, proposed, candidate, or state listed status may become necessary;

• typically have small and widely dispersed populations;

• inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats; or

• are state listed, but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive species status.

Sensitive species fish found in the planning area include the paddlefish, shortnose gar, westslope cutthroat trout, northern 

redbelly dace x finescale dace hybrid, sturgeon chub, sicklefin chub, pearl dace, blue sucker, and sauger. Most of these 

species occur primarily in the Missouri River along the southern border of the planning area and in the Milk River 

system with little or no direct impact from management of BLM lands (exceptions are the pearl dace and the northern 

redbelly x finescale dace hybrid). The blue sucker has only been found in the Milk River below Vandalia Dam. The 

westslope cutthroat trout is only found on the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, which is outside of BLM management.

Northern Redbelly x Finescale Dace Hybrid (Phoxinus eos x P. neogaeus)

The northern redbelly x finescale dace hybrid (Phoxinus eos x P. neogaeus) is a Montana Fish Species of Special 

Concern, Class C, as well as a BLM sensitive species. It was placed on the list due to its rarity and unusual form of 

genetic reproduction (gynogenesis). Montana appears to be the only state that designates a special status for this hybrid 

fish. Further inventory is needed to better delineate Phoxinus spp. distribution in Montana. Due to the difficulties of 

field differentiation, it is likely that some waters thought to contain only the northern redbelly dace may also have the 

hybrid. The finescale dace may also be present in very small numbers, but no verified specimens exist for Montana. It 

must have been present at some point after the last period of glaciations in order for the original hybridization to occur. 

Although its presence would no longer be necessary for gynogenesis to occur, a BLM survey in June 1979 found a few 

(less than ten) dace in one pool in Whitewater Creek in Phillips County near the Canadian border that keyed-out in the 

field as finescale dace. This was near locations for several vouchered records from Saskatchewan. Two Whitewater 

Creek specimens were sent to Montana State University in Bozeman for lab identification, but no conclusive results were 

obtained. The prevalence of drought periods since 1979 has probably reduced any chance of finding a remnant 

population.

Northern redbelly dace habitat and populations should be treated the same as those of the northern redbelly x finescale 

dace hybrid in those streams that have not had records for the hybrid. Phoxinus spp. are not extremely common in 

Montana. Few prairie streams in Montana have the clear pool-type habitat preferred by Phoxinus spp. Due to the 

limited distribution and knowledge of either species, it is important to reduce impacts to their known habitats.

The northern redbelly dace and /or the hybrid are found in 22 streams which cross BLM surface ownership (see 

Appendix N, Table N.5).

Changes in stream temperature, sedimentation, streamflow, and water quality could impact pearl dace and northern 

redbelly x finescale dace hybrid species. Management actions should encourage healthy riparian areas, ample 

streamflow, screened diversion ditches, stable stream channels and banks, reduced erosion, and functional floodplains. 

Management actions within the Water, Vegetation – Riparian and Wetlands, and Fish sections of this RMP are designed 

to conserve, enhance and protect habitats for these species.

Pearl Dace

The pearl dace is a native of both the eastern and northern drainages within the glaciated plains ecoregion of Montana, 

and is an indicator species of the coolwater northern redbelly dace assemblage. Pearl dace are not abundant at the 

relatively few sites in cool, small streams and ponds that they are known to inhabit, so they are designated a Montana 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fluid Minerals 293

Fish of Special Concern. The pearl dace is found within nine streams that are located within BLM surface ownership 

(see Appendix N, Table N.5).

Other Species

The spoonhead sculpin and trout-perch are State of Montana species of special concern found in the planning area, but

these fish are not BLM sensitive species because they are not found in areas managed by the BLM. The other species 

are generally found in large rivers outside the jurisdiction of the BLM.

Fluid Minerals

Oil and Gas

Between 1998 and 2012, approximately 270 federal leases consisting of approximately 254,176 acres were nominated 

and offered for lease in the planning area. As of December 2012, 1,199 existing federal oil and gas leases covered 

804,873 acres, or approximately 19% of the federal oil and gas mineral estate in the planning area. Phillips County had 

the greatest number of federal oil and gas leases (589) and the most acreage leased (473,025 acres). Conversely, Glacier 

County had the least number of federal leases (27) while Liberty County had the least amount of federal acreage leased 

(14,225 acres). In the same time period between 1998 and 2012, 1,238 federal leases representing approximately 

1,205,638 acres were terminated. A federal lease will terminate if paying production is not established on the leasehold 

within the specified primary term, or if established production on a lease ceases. A leased parcel that contains at least 

one well that is capable of production in paying quantities will not expire.

Drilling and Completion Activity

Extraction and production of oil or natural gas from the various hydrocarbon-bearing formations in the planning area

follow similar processes. These processes include drilling the production hole, extracting the oil and gas resource, 

separating any water produced with the hydrocarbon, and in the case of natural gas, separating any liquid hydrocarbon 

and trucking or piping the product to a sales point and the produced water to a disposal facility.

All extraction processes involve above-ground facilities such as tank batteries, separators, treaters, dehydrators, and 

storage tanks. The size of the facilities can vary substantially depending on the production rate of the well and other 

components produced with the hydrocarbon. For example, a low gas/low water-producing well may have only one small 

dehydration/separation/treater unit. However, a well that produces hydrogen sulfide in conjunction with the hydrocarbon 

may flow to a centralized plant or plants to remove the water, sulfur, and other waste byproducts.

Appendix E.1, Oil and Gas Operations, contains a complete overview of the exploration, leasing, production and 

regulation of fluid minerals on BLM surface lands and federal subsurface minerals on split estate lands.

The following description of current and historical drilling is a brief summary of information included in the Reasonable 

Foreseeable Development (RFD) summary. The complete RFD is available on the internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd. 

While a lot of the information is dated back a few years, the purpose of presenting it here is to provide some background 

information that was used to project future activity levels in the planning area.

Early exploration in Montana emphasized finding crude oil reserves. Erdmann (1963) reported that “gas was an 

incidental, unwanted byproduct with little or no market that seldom brought a price of more than 3 cents per thousand 

cubic feet at the casing head, if it could be sold at all.” Erdmann (1963) indicated that even into the 1960s interest in 

exploring for gas was less than that for oil due to the tradition of low field prices for this commodity. In more recent 

years, increases in the value of natural gas have made it a sought after commodity. In 2005, Montana ranked 16th out of 

the 50 states in the nation in natural gas production (Energy Information Administration 2007).

Historically, a total of 20,170 wells have been drilled in the planning area through March 28, 2007 (IHS Energy Group 

2007). About 16% of these wells were drilled on federal minerals. According to the Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation (MBOGC) (2007), a total of approximately 8,088 wells within the planning area are still active or 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

294 Fluid Minerals

producible with 62% of that total classified as gas wells and the remaining 38% classified as oil wells. When all well 

types are considered (including injection wells, disposal wells, gas storage wells, etc.), 44% of all the wells drilled in the 

planning area are still in an active status (8,882 wells) while the remaining 56% have been abandoned or are in the 

process of being abandoned (IHS Energy Group 2007 and MBOGC 2007).

Natural gas production activity over the last land use plan cycle of 1990 through 2006 (BLM 1988, 1994a) showed this 

area to be an important natural gas producing area for Montana. Between 1990 and 2006:

 3,631 wells were drilled; of which 2,767 were gas completions, 204 were oil completions and 660 were dry 

holes. About 93% of the successfully completed wells were natural gas completions.

 Annual overall gas production rates increased, while oil production rates decreased.

- In 2006, the planning area produced a total of 56.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas, or 61% of Montana’s

total natural gas production.

- Total natural gas production in 2006 was about 41% greater than the production recorded for 1990.

- The highest total production, almost 56.8 million cubic feet of natural gas, was reported in 2001.

- Blaine, Hill and Phillips Counties accounted for 81% of the natural gas production in 2006, with Phillips 

County leading the way.

 Gas production has remained fairly constant since 2001, after increasing in 1999 and 2000.

 In 2005, the planning area accounted for 21 of Montana’s top 25 gas producing fields (MBOGC 2006). Of 

these, the Bowdoin Field is the second largest producing gas field in Montana contributing 14% of the state’s

total natural gas production.

Oil producing fields in the planning area presently make a smaller contribution to the state’s oil production. Following is 

a summary of oil production within the planning area:

 In 2005, only four fields (Cut Bank-9th, Kevin-Sunburst-13th, Rabbit Hills-35th, and Reagan-42nd) ranked in 

the top 50 oil producing fields in Montana (MBOGC 2006).

 For 2005, production for the planning area totaled 1.225 million barrels of oil (MBOGC 2006). That year’s 

production was about 50% less than the production recorded for 1991. The reported 1991 production was the 

highest of the 16-year period and production has declined each year since then.

 Glacier, Toole, Blaine, Valley, and Liberty Counties accounted for almost all of the oil production in the 

planning area. Glacier County accounted for 37% of the production in the planning area in 2006.

 In 2006, oil production in the planning area contributed only about 4% of Montana’s total oil production 

(MBOGC 2006 and 2007).

 It is unlikely that oil production in the planning area will increase in the future; it will most likely continue to 

decline.

Directional Drilling

Vertical drilling is the traditional drilling method employed throughout the planning area. Depending on subsurface 

geology, technological advances in directional and horizontal drilling allow operators to deviate boreholes from a few 

degrees (directional) to completely horizontal. This allows operators to reach reservoirs that are not located directly 

beneath the drilling rig, or allows the borehole to contact more of the reservoir. Directional drilling can also be utilized 

to reduce impacts to vegetation, soil, wildlife habitat (including fragmentation), livestock grazing, and visual and 

recreational values. Fewer miles of roads and pipelines are necessary and in some cases, facilities such as reserve pits 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Fluid Minerals 295

have been shared among multiple wells on a single pad. Directional boreholes may be specifically deviated or allowed 

to drift updip naturally on the flanks of a geologic structure.

Operators prefer conventional vertical drilling over directional or horizontal drilling because drilling and completion 

costs for directional and horizontal boreholes are higher than for conventional vertical boreholes, and the risk of losing 

the borehole due to technical drilling difficulties is also higher.

However, if specific reservoir conditions are deemed suitable and support the use of directional/horizontal practices, 

directional drilling can allow for greater borehole-to-reservoir contact (increased drainage area) and increased 

productivity. In this case, the potential for increased productivity may offset the additional drilling costs and risks, 

making this type of borehole the preferable drilling option. According to Eustis (2003), horizontal or directional drilling:

 increases the ability to intersect many fractures;

 minimizes premature entry of water or gas into the borehole;

 increases the potential drainage area;

 increases the ability to intersect layered reservoirs at high dip angles;

 improves coal gas production;

 increases productivity; and

 improves the injection of water, steam, etc.

The MBOGC (2007) reported 91 directional wells in the planning area at the end of 2007: 42 wells each in Blaine and 

Hill Counties, 3 wells in Glacier County, and 1 well in Toole County. Three Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) 

have been filed for wells in Chouteau County. Of these 91 wells, 50 are gas or gas shut-in, 1 is an oil shut-in, 7 are 

abandoned, 5 are spud and 28 are APDs.

Directional wells have been almost entirely gas wells and the successful productive completion rate is reported as 88%. 

The high success rate in the planning area is attributed to almost 90% of completed wells being field development wells. 

The industry prefers to not drill wildcat wells directionally in areas lacking detailed geology and reservoir characteristics, 

due to inherent and increased risks.

Almost all directional wells drilled or spud (86%) and all wells with APDs are operated by Devon Energy Production 

Company. To date, the Eagle Sandstone supports almost all directionally drilled wells. The drilling depths in the Eagle 

range from 1,200 to 2,800 feet. Nine wells have been drilled in the Sherard field, 21 in the Sawtooth Mountain field and 

33 in the Tiger Ridge field.

Horizontal boreholes have not been commonly used in the planning area. Horizontal boreholes appear to have only been 

used to contact more of the reservoir (increase the drainage area) and to increase productivity. The MBOGC (2007) 

reported that 36 wells located in the planning area are classified as horizontal wells. These wells are concentrated in 

Toole (12 wells), Glacier (11 wells), and Blaine (10 wells) Counties. One abandoned well and two spud wells are 

located in the northeast portion of Valley County. Of these 36 wells, 20 are oil or oil shut-in and temporarily abandoned, 

7 are abandoned, 4 are APDs, 2 are spud, 2 are injection wells and 1 is a gas well.

Horizontal wells have been almost entirely oil wells and the successful productive completion rate for these types of 

boreholes has been 75%. Almost all completed wells have been field development wells. The target formations for 

these wells have been older and deeper than for the directional wells. Most wells target the Jurassic Ellis Group (11 

wells), Mississippian Madison Group (8 wells), and the Devonian Birdbear (Nisku) formation (6 wells). Target drilling 

depths have been 1,300-6,950 feet, with about 66% in the 2,500-3,500 feet range.

Produced Water

Associated water produced with the oil or gas is disposed of by trucking the water to an authorized disposal pit; placing 

the water in lined or unlined pits; discharging the water into surface drainages, or through subsurface injection. The 

disposal of produced water in an injection or disposal well requires permit(s) from the primacy state or EPA. Primacy 

means that a state or agency has the ultimate responsibility for permitting and monitoring the Underground Injection 

Control program for Class 2 wells (saltwater disposal and secondary recovery wells). Montana is currently a primacy 

state candidate; operators in Montana must seek EPA approval until primacy is granted. In some instances, an additional 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

296 Fluid Minerals

surface management agency authorization may be necessary. The quality of the water often dictates the appropriate 

disposal method, and the Montana DEQ has primacy through the EPA to approve surface disposal of this water. An 

Environmental Assessment is prepared for all requests concerning disposal of produced water from federal wells.

In the planning area, approximately 193.6 million barrels of associated water was produced in the ten-year period from 

2003-2012. Of the total 193.6 million barrels of produced water, 156.4 million barrels, or roughly 81%, were produced 

in Glacier County (61.2 million barrels) and Toole County (95.2 million barrels), primarily from mature oil fields that 

employ water flooding operations. The remaining 37.2 million barrels of water were produced from the remaining 

counties, as follows:

• Blaine County 18,316,470 barrels

• Chouteau County 79,828 barrels

• Hill County 2,955,812 barrels

• Liberty County 7,618,436 barrels

• Phillips County 7,999,896 barrels

• Valley County 165,875 barrels

This water production occurred as a byproduct of natural gas production with the bulk of the water production occurring

in Blaine and Valley Counties. (Water Production Data gather from PI/Dwights Production Data, December 2012).

Coalbed Natural Gas

The extraction of coalbed natural gas (CBNG) combines the issues of high water production with low-pressure gas 

operations. The reservoir characteristics of coal dictate that high water production rates are initially required to dewater

the reservoir and allow the gas to flow from the cleat surfaces within the coal. The gas is primarily trapped on the face 

of the coal within the cleat system via molecular attraction. In order to liberate the gas molecules from the coal face, the

hydrostatic pressure, or head, must be reduced.

A typical CBNG well will initially exhibit high water production rates with little or no gas. At a certain point, the water 

rate will begin to steadily decline while the gas rate increases until it reaches a maximum gas rate. This simplified 

explanation of the process indicates that the CBNG production process appears to be backwards when compared to 

conventional oil and gas production, which starts with high hydrocarbon production rates and low water rates and then 

advances to low hydrocarbon rates and high water rates.

Generally, CBNG reservoirs occur at depths of less than 5,000 feet and are considered shallow wells by the industry. A 

typical CBNG well operation consists of a wellhead, insulated well house to cover the wellhead, powerline (buried or 

overhead), and a subsurface pipeline to transport the gas to a central production facility. The purpose of the powerline is 

to provide power to the high capacity electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) or progressive cavity (PC) pumps. The 

pumps are set toward the bottom of the tubing in the well and produce/push water up through the tubing. This allows the 

gas to flow freely up the well in the annular space between the tubing and the casing – which is also referred to as the 

backside. Central production facilities typically include gas metering equipment and compressors. Depending on how 

the operator disposes of the produced water, there could be an additional pipeline to transport the water to the nearest 

water disposal site, which could be a water treatment facility, water disposal well, water injection well (for secondary 

recovery operations), or some other water-holding facility (e.g., evaporation pond).

The water disposal sites are commonly co-located with the central production facilities. The quality of the extracted 

water resource varies, and options for its disposal are highly dependent on its quality, quantity and cost. In some cases, 

depending on water quality and quantity, water may be allowed to be disposed of in the local drainages. This action 

would be considered on a case-by-case basis and would need to be approved by both the Montana DEQ and the BLM.

No CBNG exploration or development has occurred within the planning area; therefore, no CBNG produced water 

discharge into surface water features including ephemeral channels has occurred. Under all disposal options, operators 

must obtain all necessary state permits.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Forests and Woodlands 297

Forests and Woodlands

Healthy forests are capable of providing society with the long-term sustainability of forest resources and products. A 

healthy forest displays resilience to disturbance by maintaining a diverse set of structures, compositions and functions at 

the stand and landscape levels.

The forests and woodlands of the planning area generally begin at about 2,500 feet in elevation in and around the 

“breaks” of the Missouri River and extend northerly toward the mountains in “stringers” following the drainages. In the 

three island mountain ranges (Sweet Grass Hills, Bears Paw Mountains and Little Rocky Mountains) the forests become 

more prevalent and exist on all aspects upwards to about 7,100 feet in elevation. The coniferous forests in the mountains 

are comprised of mostly ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine with minor amounts of limber pine occurring on 

the steeper and more exposed, drier slopes. The Sweet Grass Hills support disjunct populations of both whitebark and 

the more abundant limber pine. The Hills represent the easternmost extension of whitebark pine's range in Montana and 

are approximately 100 miles from the closest whitebark pine stands to the west (Kendall 1998). The forests of the breaks 

are considerably more open and almost exclusively ponderosa pine with Douglas-fir limited to the cooler, more moist 

bottoms and northerly aspects.

Hardwood species such as birch, aspen, cottonwoods and willows exist almost exclusively in areas where there is an 

abundance of moisture year round such as river bottoms and streams. The hardwood forests are minor by comparison to 

the coniferous forests, but provide an important component on the landscape for wildlife values.

Table 3.24 summarizes the forest and woodland acres throughout the planning area. The acres shown in the table are 

subject to change as ground truthing is completed.

Table 3.24

BLM Forests and Woodlands

Location of BLM Forests/Woodlands Acres

Percentage 

of

Total Acres

Bears Paw Mountains 840 2%

Breaks and other locations along streams and rivers 6,245 13%

Little Rocky Mountains 30,949 63%

Sweet Grass Hills 6,248 13%

Wilderness Study Areas 4,590 9%

Total for all locations 48,872 100%

Factors Affecting Forest and Woodland Health

Healthy forests and woodlands are biologically and structurally diverse. They are tolerant of fires and other natural 

disturbances and are dominated by vigorous trees, native grasses, shrubs and forbs. A healthy forest is not void of 

insects, disease and other causes of mortality, but is able to withstand such infestations as a natural part of the 

successional cycle.

Healthy forests and woodlands are dependent upon disturbances that help keep the forests from entering a late 

successional stage known as “climax.” Prior to the advent of organized fire suppression our forest and woodlands 

burned fairly frequently but with very low intensities. These low-intensity fires served the purpose of maintaining our 

forests in an early successional state that kept them free from diseases and did not allow dead fuels to build up. In 

addition, these fires also maintained a mix of natural openings and parks within the forests which were critical for 

wildlife. As the natural cycles of disturbances are altered the forest approaches climax and these natural openings begin 

closing in with encroachment. A climax forest becomes overstocked and stagnated, and therefore more susceptible to 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

298 Geology

diseases and pathogens as well as being less desirable for wildlife. A forest without cyclic disturbances begins a process 

of decaying and mortality increases. As mortality increases in all age classes, natural openings are lost to encroachment 

and these stands become more susceptible to high severity (instead of maintenance) wildfires. These wildfires burn with 

such intensities that tree loss is nearly 100%, and soil properties are altered such that re-sprouting of desirable grasses, 

shrubs and forbs does not happen. Oftentimes the burned site becomes infested with non-native and exotic plant species.

Cyclic natural disturbances may not be feasible or tolerated due to land ownership patterns and development over the 

past 100 years. However, active forest management which mimics natural disturbances is possible. Forest management 

with goals of restoring and maintaining forest health and natural openings would reduce overstocking, improve vigor and 

desirable species, improve wildlife habitat, increase desired forest structures, reduce the risk of high severity wildfires,

and provide some economic return to local economies.

Forest Products

No active forest management is occurring in the Bitter Creek and Burnt Lodge Wilderness Study Areas and Sweet Grass 

Hills ACEC since commercial sales are not allowed. Forest product sales in the Bears Paw Mountains are limited, 

primarily due to lack of access. Commercial activities in the breaks are limited to personal use, special forest products 

such as: fuelwood, Christmas trees, and post and pole products.

The BLM has an active program of selling personal use, special forest products permits in the Little Rocky Mountains, 

and in the past 10 years the commercial sales of forest products has increased. Demand for commercial forest products 

remains high; however, opportunities for the Little Rocky Mountains are limited due to market conditions and 

transportation costs. The nearest wood products processing facility is located in Columbia Falls, Montana, over 340 

miles away.

Forest Treatments

Over the past 10 years, less than 1,000 acres (2%) of forested land in the planning area have been treated. Most of the 

work has occurred in and around the towns of Zortman and Landusky in the Little Rocky Mountains. Projects there 

were designed to improve forest health, but had specific objectives of reducing hazardous fuels. Detailed inventories of 

these treated stands occurred. Using this most recent data, the treated acres averaged approximately 1.7 thousand board 

feet (MBF) per acre of product removal, along with about one ton per acre of other material (biomass) removed. Based 

on the data from past projects in the planning area, approximately 83 million board feet (MMBF) along with 50,000 tons 

of other biomass are available for removal in order to achieve healthy forest objectives. However, not every acre of 

forested ground is currently available for active management, nor is it foreseeable in the near future. A variety of laws, 

restrictions, management objectives, etc. play a role in determining feasibility of forest management. If an estimated

20% of the planning area will not receive any kind of treatment in the foreseeable future, approximately 39,100 acres 

would remain available for some kind of forest health treatment. To meet the goal of treating all available acres on a 

100-year rotation cycle (391 acres/year), the probable sale quantity for the planning area would be approximately 664 

MBF and 4,000 tons per year of biomass.

Personal use permits for incidental forest product removal such as fuel wood, Christmas trees, and post and poles are 

projected to continue at the current rate of 100 permits per year.

Geology

Geologic Setting

The following discussion offers a brief synopsis of the geologic history of the planning area. The regional stratigraphy is 

depicted in Figure 3.11.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Geology 299

Figure 3.11

Montana Stratigraphic Column
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

300 Geology

Paleozoic strata, rock types spanning time from approximately 570 to 240 million years ago, range in thickness from 

5,000 to 10,000 feet. The distribution of these formations is important because most of the oil and natural gas in 

Montana occurs within them.

Cambrian aged sediments consisting of sandstone (Flathead formation) are overlain by shale and limestone. Thickness 

varies from 1,000 to 1,500 feet across the area.

Ordovician aged rocks formed from deposition of sands, muds (Winnipeg formation), and limey sediments (Big Horn 

dolomite). Where exposed in the Little Rocky Mountains, rock thicknesses approach 275 feet.

Drilling indicates that several hundred feet of Silurian strata are present in easternmost Montana in a belt about 100 miles 

from the Canadian border. These sediments comprise the Interlake formation; a limey and dolomitic rock unit 

containing commercial deposits of oil.

About 1,000 feet of strata was deposited in middle Devonian time consisting of limestone and dolomite (Jefferson 

formation), thick deposits of anhydrite (similar to gypsum), and dark shales (Three Forks formation).

The Mississippian Period strata consist of approximately 1,000 feet of Madison group limestone with occasional thick 

beds of anhydrite. The Madison limestone yields large quantities of oil. In central Montana, narrow channel sands 

(Tyler formation) in the top of the Big Snowy Group also produce oil.

At the beginning of the Mesozoic Era, 240 to 66 million years ago, a condition developed which widely affected the 

pattern of sedimentary rocks in Montana. Northcentral Montana was elevated by a broad, gentle tectonic uplift. The 

horizontal Paleozoic strata were slightly domed or arched upward across a distance of about 300 miles, centering near 

Havre. This uplift is known as the Paleozoic Sweet Grass Arch.

Toward the middle of Jurassic time another marine sea spread over this portion of the state depositing sandy, shaley and 

limey sediments of the Ellis Group. Thicknesses range from 200 to 600 feet, being thickest to the east. The bottom bed 

of the Ellis Group formations consists of very fine sandstone (Sawtooth formation). The middle portion (Rierdon 

formation) is essentially limestone, and the upper part (Swift formation) is mainly shale with some sandstone. In central 

Montana, red and gray shale with a 5-10 foot bed of gypsum is present at the base.

The late Cretaceous to early Tertiary time was a period of intense volcanism and mountain building activity in this 

portion of Montana. The region is broken by centers of intrusive and/or extrusive igneous activity. Such areas include 

the Bears Paw Mountains, the Little Rocky Mountains, and the Sweet Grass Hills. Along the margins of these uplifts the 

exposed stratigraphic section may include units as old as Precambrian in age up to those deposited just prior to uplift. 

With the coming of the Tertiary Period the ancestral Rockies of western Montana were being eroded and the material 

spread for hundreds of miles over the plains region east of the mountains. The Hell Creek formation of latest Cretaceous 

age and the Fort Union formation of earliest Tertiary age resulted. Later, during Tertiary time, the old erosion surface of 

western Montana was uplifted again (Laramide orogeny) to form the second Rockies. Beds of gravel eroded from these 

mountains and were deposited by rivers and streams onto the plains. These gravels are known as the Flaxville gravels 

and are considered to be middle to late Tertiary age.

At the beginning of the Quaternary Period, large amounts of snowfall accumulated in Canada. The snow compacted to 

ice, building to a thickness of perhaps two miles. The weight of the ice caused it to spread southward into Montana, to 

approximately the present course of the Missouri River. Two major periods of glacial advance into the region occurred 

during the Pleistocene Epoch. The first, and farthest, advance occurred during the Illinoian stage, and the second during 

the Wisconsian. The ice blocked many of the north-flowing rivers creating large glacial lakes across central Montana. 

As the ice melted, its load of soil and rock material was deposited over most of northern Montana, filling preglacial 

valleys and covering the upland plains with glacial drift or moraine consisting of gravels, sand, and clay; but also 

characterized by numerous large boulders of igneous rock. With the last retreat of glacial ice from the region about 

10,000 years ago, the landscape looked quite different. The Missouri River, which formerly flowed in the current Milk 

River Valley and drained into Hudson Bay, was pushed south to its present position. Many other lesser streams and 

rivers either disappeared totally or had their courses radically altered.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Lands and Realty 301

In more recent time, erosion has dissected the landscape into its present form. Alluvial material derived from eroding 

mountains, or from reworked glacial deposits, occurs at several levels above current drainages.

Geologic Hazards

The planning area covers an area of very low probability for seismic hazards (USGS 2008). Other small-scale and 

localized geologic hazards such as rockfalls and sinkholes do exist in the planning area. However, these are infrequent 

events and pose minimal threat to public safety. 

Geologic Features – Azure Cave

Azure Cave is a limestone solution cavern located near Zortman, Montana, in the Little Rocky Mountains. The cave has 

national significance because of its bat hibernaculum values. It is one of several hibernaculums in the Pacific Northwest 

and possibly the northernmost in the United States.

Azure Cave is described in greater detail later in this chapter under Special Designations, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, Existing ACECs.

The surface geology at the site of the cave is Mississippian limestone of the Mission Canyon or Lodgepole formation. 

Based on the stratigraphy and structural traps, the area is rated as having a moderate occurrence potential for oil and gas.

The Record of Decision for the Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP (BLM 1994a) designated 142 acres as the Azure Cave 

ACEC to protect resources and the bat hibernaculum. The designation of the ACEC only applies to BLM lands. The 

cave is currently being managed to protect bats during crucial hibernation periods and the BLM allows access on a 

limited basis. Additionally, the BLM continues the withdrawal from mining claim location to protect public recreation 

values and the bat hibernaculum.

Factors that impact cave resources include vandalism and unauthorized entry, and unauthorized and illegal disposal of 

solid and/or hazardous waste which may result in degradation of groundwater resources.

Lands and Realty

The lands and realty program is a support program which responds to the demands of industry and utilities, the public, 

other government entities, and other BLM disciplines to help ensure that BLM lands are managed to provide the greatest 

possible benefit to the public. The program is responsible for management of land ownership adjustments, land use 

authorizations, public access, withdrawals, and trespass identification and abatement. The most active part of the lands 

and realty program is the authorization of rights-of-way which are issued primarily for roads, utilities, communication 

sites, and oil and gas facilities. 

Table 3.25 shows BLM acres (surface and subsurface) by county. The BLM lands in the westernmost counties of

Glacier, Toole, Liberty and Hill consist of mostly scattered surface parcels. The easternmost counties of Blaine, Phillips 

and Valley contain large blocks of contiguous BLM land as well as many significant parcels of land acquired from 

private landowners under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (LU lands).

Split estate is a land status term which applies when the surface is patented or deeded into non-federal ownership, while 

the federal government retains the mineral rights. Reverse split estate applies when the federal government transferred 

both the surface and mineral estate into non-federal ownership, but the surface estate was subsequently returned while 

the minerals, or a portion of them, were retained by the private landowner.

Four Indian reservations are located within the planning area: Blackfeet, Rocky Boy’s, Fort Belknap, and a portion of 

the Fort Peck Reservation. The BLM has no jurisdiction on tribal lands.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

302 Lands and Realty

Table 3.25

BLM Surface and Subsurface Acres

County BLM Surface BLM Subsurface 

Blaine 299,201 615,688

Chouteau 45,025 174,281

Glacier 1,040 6,184

Hill 14,448 156,967

Liberty 7,543 66,990

Phillips 1,029,362 1,744,612

Toole 27,646 123,203

Valley 1,013,209 1,351,730

Total 2,437,474 4,239,655

Land Ownership Adjustment

Land ownership (or land tenure) adjustment refers to those actions that result in the disposal of BLM lands and/or the 

acquisition of non-federal lands or interests. 

Disposal of BLM lands usually takes place through exchange or sale. Disposals result in a title transfer, wherein the 

lands leave the public domain. All disposal actions are coordinated with adjoining landowners, local governments, and 

current land users. Disposals through sale and use of sale receipts must meet the guidance and specifications provided 

by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) (43 CFR 2710), and other acts such as the Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Act, which provides a means of banking the proceeds from land sales and subsequent 

disbursement for land acquisition. 

Land exchange involves trading lands or interests in lands with willing non-federal landowners. Exchanges are 

discretionary BLM transactions, except for those exchanges that are congressionally mandated or judicially required. 

The value of the lands to be exchanged must be approximately equal and the lands must be located within the same state. 

Exchanges must be in the public’s interest and in conformance with the applicable land use plan. Land exchange is the 

BLM’s preferred method of land ownership adjustment to bring lands and associated interests with high public resource 

values into public ownership; consolidate land ownership and mineral estate patterns to achieve more efficient 

management of resources and BLM programs; and dispose of public land parcels identified through the RMP. 

The primary means of land ownership adjustment within the planning area has been through exchange. Since 

completion of the West HiLine and Judith-Valley-Phillips RMPs, eight land exchanges affecting federal and/or nonfederal lands within the planning area have been completed. These exchanges have improved public land ownership 

patterns by generally disposing of small, isolated tracts of public land with limited resource values while acquiring over 

5,900 acres of nonfederal land with higher public resource values that are adjacent to larger blocks of BLM land 

(LR2000, December 2007). Lands in the planning area have also been used in exchanges mandated by Congress.

Acquisition of land, or interest in land, occurs through exchange, donation, or purchase when the subject land meets 

acquisition criteria identified in land use planning and manual guidance. The primary funding source for purchases is the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Congress appropriates these funds annually based on agency nominations; 

the BLM tends to nominate acquisitions within special designation areas. Acquisitions are for the full fee interest in title 

or for partial interests such as road easements or conservation easements. The BLM acquires land and easements from 

willing sellers.

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act: The R&PP Act authorizes the transfer of BLM lands when it serves the 

public interest. No R&PP patents have been issued in the planning area since the completion of the West HiLine and 

Judith-Valley-Phillips RMPs. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Lands and Realty 303

Other Disposal Authorities: During this same time period, no lands were conveyed for agricultural entries under the 

Desert Land Act or Carey Act, nor have any lands been conveyed for airport grants, Indian allotments, color-of-title 

actions, and railroad or state grants. 

State Indemnity Selections: Under Ordinances of 1785 and 1850, sections 16 and 36 in each township were set aside 

for the maintenance of public schools and were known as school sections. A state indemnity or ‘in lieu’ selection is 

made by the state to compensate for school sections which it did not receive, either because the section was fractional, 

claimed prior to statehood, or reserved for some other purpose. Under such circumstances, a state is entitled to a state 

indemnity selection. As of April 2007, 1,021 acres of state indemnity selection obligations remain throughout the State 

of Montana.

Land Use Authorizations

Land use authorizations include right-of-way grants under Title V of FLPMA and right-of-way grants and associated 

temporary use permits under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (MLA), as amended; leases, permits, and easements under 

Section 302 of FLPMA; and R&PP Act leases. 

Land use authorizations are issued for a variety of purposes. Examples of long-term uses include rights-of-way for linear 

and site facilities. A permit is issued for a short term, up to three years, and allows the temporary use of BLM lands for 

such things as agricultural purposes, filming, placement of beehives, etc. which involve minimal land improvement or 

disturbance. Permits can be renewed, but are also revocable. The HiLine District analyzes requests for land use 

authorizations and applies mitigation measures on a case-by-case basis. 

Rights-of-Way: A right-of-way grant authorizes the use of a specific area of BLM land for a specific facility and a 

specific period of time; however, it grants no authority or possessory interest to the holder. The majority of rights-ofway granted are authorized by FLPMA or MLA. FLPMA rights-of-way authorize the use of BLM land for access to 

private land, for utility facilities and infrastructure, or for communication facilities. The MLA authorizes rights-of-way 

for oil and gas facilities not authorized under oil and gas lease.

Exceptions to the need for a right-of-way under FLPMA or MLA include roads and/or facilities authorized by specific 

statute such as Federal Aid Highways, county roads authorized under Revised Statute (RS) 2477 prior to implementation 

of FLPMA, and casual use activities that do not cause any appreciable surface disturbance.

RS 2477 provided for the use of unencumbered public lands for public roads; there was no requirement for an executed 

document authorizing these roads, nor were they required to be officially recorded on the BLM’s land use plats. Roads 

not already verified through administrative or judicial determinations to be RS 2477 roads will continue to be used in the 

previous manor until their status can be verified. It is a controversial issue that remains unresolved at this time.

The HiLine District administers 722 rights-of-way which encumber nearly 26,150 acres of BLM land (LR2000 Database 

Report, December 2012). The various types of rights-of-way and total acres for each are shown in Table 3.26. These 

grants are for a number of different facilities and are held by private individuals as well as various industry and 

government entities. Oil and gas pipelines, power transmission and distribution lines, roads, and telecommunication 

lines are the most common types of right-of-way facilities and account for well over half of the total number of grants. 

Other right-of-way facilities include communication sites, water facilities, railroads, and material sites. Approximately 

10 to 15 right-of-way actions are processed annually. In addition, applications are received to amend, assign, renew or 

relinquish existing right-of-way grants.

Communication Sites: These are locations containing authorized communication facilities which may include cellular 

telephone, microwave, paging, TV translators, mobile radio, or other communication uses. Only facility owners or 

facility managers are required to have authorizations; tenants or customers need a lease agreement with the facility 

owner or manager to utilize the site.

The BLM administers 44 communication site rights-of-way at 11 different locations. The location and designated use of 

each communication site is shown in Table 3.27. The nine commercial sites have management plans, and most sites are 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

304 Lands and Realty

occupied by more than one user. The BLM has administrative sites on Antoine Butte, Mount Royal, Rose Hill, and 

Whitewater (LR2000, December 20, 2012).

Table 3.26

BLM-Administered Rights-of-Way in the HiLine Planning Area

Type

Havre Field Office Glasgow Field Office Malta Field Office Total

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres

Powerlines 50 1,653 22 1,523 35 1,362 107 4,538

Telecommunication 

Lines 31 877 9 215 15 905 55 1,997

Roads/Highways 50 1,238 29 1,386 41 1,290 120 3,914

Communication 

Sites 19 19 2 6 23 98 44 122

Oil/Gas Pipelines 

and Facilities 63 585 8 251 61 1,873 132 2,709

Oil/Gas Roads 35 162 4 45 14 32 53 239

Material Sites 5 76 5 40 7 74 17 189

Water Facilities 111 2,774 27 621 41 8,253 179 11,649

Railroads 8 212 2 272 5 306 15 791

Total 372 7,596 108 4,359 242 14,194 722 26,148

Source: Lands and Realty Database, LR2000, December 20, 2012.

Table 3.27

Communication Sites

Communication Site Location Designated Use

Antoine Butte T. 25 N., R. 24 E., Section 12 Low Power; Broadcast

Harlem T. 32 N., R. 23 E., Section 6 Low Power; Non-broadcast

Kevin Rim T. 35 N., R. 18 E., Section 18 Low Power; Non-broadcast

Larb Hills T. 31 N., R. 33 E., Section 31 Low Power; Non-broadcast

Loring T. 36 N., R. 29 E., Section 17 Low Power; Broadcast

Mount Royal T. 36 N., R. 5 E., Section 30 Low Power; Broadcast

Northern Border T. 33 N., R. 38 E., Section 12 Low Power; Broadcast

Rose Hill T. 30 N., R. 40 E., Section 18 Low Power; Non-broadcast

Saco Hills T. 31 N., R. 33 E., Sections 7, 8 Low Power; Broadcast

Sheep Coulee T. 28 N., R. 8 E., Sections 31, 32 Low Power; Non-broadcast

Whitewater T. 35 N., R. 32 E., Section 33 Low Power; Non-broadcast

Source: LR2000 database, December 20, 2012.

The BLM has additional administrative communication facilities at non-commercial sites or on other agency land. They 

are located at Cabin Creek on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, on Centennial Butte on the Rocky Boy’s 

Reservation, and at Opheim.

Several communication sites in the planning area have been amended to allow the Northern Tier Interoperability 

Consortium to install communications and auxiliary equipment under the umbrella of the Department of Homeland 

Security. These sites include Antoine Butte, Mount Royal, the Saco Hills, and Whitewater.

Leases, Permits and Easements: The HiLine District administers one Section 302 FLPMA land use permit for 

agricultural purposes which involves about 6.8 acres of BLM land.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Lands and Realty 305

Nine agricultural Section 302 FLPMA leases for small grain farming are administered in the Lonesome Lake 

Management Area. The leases are issued for a fixed period of time, can be renewed, but are not revocable. The nine 

leases comprise 2,129 acres that are currently managed under a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bureau of 

Reclamation (No. 4-AG-05050).

No BLM-granted easements exist in the planning area. These easements should not be confused with access or 

conservation easements which are acquired by the BLM from non-federal landowners. An example of a BLM-granted 

easement would be an instance where private land containing a residence lies adjacent to BLM land that could be used 

for grazing. The private landowner could apply to the BLM for an easement that would restrict grazing on that land.

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP): The Recreation and Public Purposes Act authorizes the leasing of BLM 

land for recreation or public purposes to state and local governments, or to qualified nonprofit organizations. Applicants 

for an R&PP lease must have an established or a defined proposed project and submit a detailed plan of development. 

Five R&PP leases comprising about 52 acres exist within the planning area, including leases to the Malta School District 

for the location of two elementary rural schools on BLM land, the County of Phillips for the Lewis and Clark 

Amphitheater, and the Zortman Fire Station for the location of a fire dispatch building on BLM land. A recreational 

roping arena is located in the Glasgow Field Office. No airport leases are located on BLM land in the planning area. 

Table 3.28 depicts BLM leases and permits in the planning area.

Table 3.28

BLM Leases and Permits

Type

Havre Field Office Glasgow Field Office Malta Field Office Total

No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres No. Acres

Section 302(b) Lease 10 2,136 0 0 0 0 10 2,136

R&PP Lease 0 0 1 40 4 12 5 52

Source: Lands and Realty Database (LR2000), December 31, 2012.

Access

Access refers to the physical ability and legal right of the public, agency personnel, and authorized users to reach BLM

lands. The lands and realty program primarily assists in the acquisition of perpetual, exclusive easements to provide for 

legal access where other programs have identified a need. Public access easements are pursued as opportunities arise 

and/or when access is critical, are granted in perpetuity, and are usually exclusive, which means the BLM controls use of 

the road. When the BLM acquires a perpetual, exclusive easement for public road access, any commercial use of the 

road by industry or utilities requires an approved right-of-way grant from the BLM.

Access to BLM land is an issue of concern for both agency personnel and the public. The fragmented ownership pattern 

of BLM land intermingled with private and state land complicates the access issue. While progress has been made, the 

HiLine District still has areas that lack legal access to BLM land. Access acquisition efforts have focused on larger 

blocks of public lands which are designated for retention in public ownership; areas with important resource values; 

areas where public demand for access is high; and areas with substantial BLM investments. Access is acquired from 

willing landowners on a case-by-case basis as opportunities arise. 

The acquisition of road easements is the primary means of obtaining legal access to BLM land where none currently 

exists. Exclusive easements provide public access, while nonexclusive easements are generally for administrative use. 

The HiLine District currently administers a total of 35 easements, including 28 exclusive and 7 nonexclusive (LR2000, 

April 2007).

Land exchanges are used on occasion to acquire needed access to BLM land, and the consolidation of BLM land 

ownership patterns by exchange has generally improved access in the planning area. When disposing of BLM parcels 

containing roads or trails necessary for access to other BLM lands, the HiLine District protects these access routes by 

reserving them in the conveyance documents. Easements held by the BLM for public access across state and private 

land are shown in Table 3.29.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

306 Lands and Realty

Table 3.29

BLM Easements Across State and Private Land

Serial # Road Name Legal Description

M7852 Triple Crossing Access T26N R34E, sec. 32: W2

M17369

M17370

M16930

M16931

M17082

M16456

M22526

M83412

M83413

Dry Fork Road T24N R25E, sec. 23, 26

T24N R25E, sec. 25, 26

T24N R26E, sec. 30, 35

T23N R27E, sec. 3, 4

T24N R26E, sec. 36

T24N R26E, sec. 36

T24N R26E, sec. 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35

T24N R28E, sec. 26, 27

T24N R28E, sec. 28

T24N R27E, sec. 36

T23N R28E, sec. 16

M35069

M35070

M35079

Square Butte Road T23N R24E, sec. 36

T23N R24E, sec. 16

T23N R24E, sec. 16

M39387

M40854

M79542

Beaver Branch Road T27N R39E, sec. 7, 18

T26N, R37E, sec. 18

T26N R37E, sec. 16

M58619 Meissner Road T29N R6E, sec. 24

M60820 Assiniboine Creek Road T32N R29E, sec. 31

M67003 Big Reservoir Rd T30N R40E, sec. 16

M74128 Fisher Road T28N R35E, sec. 18

M77582 Coal Mine Coulee Road T26N R19E, sec. 34, 35

T26N R20E, sec. 34

M78475 Central Montana Rail Acquisition T36N R27E, sec. 17, 18, 19, 29, 30

M78843 Cow Creek Road T26N R19E, sec. 36

M78918 White Rock Coulee Road T27N R28E, sec. 16, 17, 20, 36

M83410 Big Sag Road T25N R31E, sec. 16

M83411 First Creek Road T25N R30E, sec. 16

M84001 Moffat Bridge T29N R6E, sec. 17

M93282

M93487

Vimy Ridge Road T25N R9E, sec. 11

T25N R9E, sec. 11

Source: Lands and Realty Database (LR2000), November 30, 2009.

Facilities

Five administrative sites are physically located within the planning area, but are supported and managed by BLM offices 

outside the area. The Little Rockies Fire Station and the Zortman administrative site, located east of Zortman, Montana, 

are managed and supported by the Central Montana District fire program. The Missouri Breaks Interpretive Center and 

The Fort Benton Visitor Center are located in Fort Benton and are managed by the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument. The Eagle Creek repeater is also located within the planning area, but is only used for radio 

support of and is managed by the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.

The Malta Field Office administrative site and related buildings are managed by the Malta Field Office. Offices located 

in Glasgow and Havre are leased from private entities. A regular assessment of asset condition is used to manage owned 

sites and optimize facility leasing versus owning any facilities needed to successfully support the management of the 

planning area.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Lands and Realty 307

The BLM has radio repeater sites at the following locations: Antoine, Mount Royal, Opheim, Whitewater, and Willow 

Creek.

Bridges and recreation sites exist in the planning area. Bridges may be inspected and maintained on different schedules 

than the roads, but are managed as transportation-related facilities. Recreation site inspection and maintenance will be 

done to support the recreation program objectives of the sites.

Withdrawals

A withdrawal is a formal action that sets aside, withholds, or reserves federal lands by administrative order or statute for 

public purposes. The purpose of a withdrawal is to accomplish one or more of the following:

 Segregate (close) federal land from the operation of all or some of the public land laws and/or mineral laws; 

 Transfer total or partial jurisdiction of federal land between federal agencies; and/or

 Dedicate federal land for a specific public purpose. 

Withdrawals can be categorized into three major types:

 Congressional: legislative withdrawals in the form of public laws. Examples include designations for wild 

and scenic rivers and national parks.

 Administrative: withdrawals made by the President, Secretary of the Interior, or other officers of the executive 

branch of the federal government. The Secretary may delegate this withdrawal authority only to individuals in 

the Office of the Secretary who have been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the 

Senate (FLPMA, sec. 204. [43 USC 1714] (a). Examples include recreation sites and public water reserves.

 Federal Power Act: power project withdrawals established under the Federal Power Act of June 10, 1920. 

These withdrawals are automatically created upon the filing of an application for hydroelectric power 

development with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 

Table 3.30 summarizes the types of withdrawals and the acres of BLM land withdrawn in the planning area. The BLM 

also administers withdrawals for several other agencies including the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Department of State/International Boundary.

Table 3.30

Withdrawals (Acres)

Type

Havre

Field Office

Glasgow

Field Office

Malta

Field Office Total

Sweet Grass Hills 19,687 NA NA 19,687

Little Rocky Mountains

Azure Cave

Camp Creek Campground

Montana Gulch Campground

Landusky Town Site

Landusky Recreation Site

Zortman Town Site

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation

NA NA

143

40

60

82

15

108

3,530

3,978

Power Site Reserve/Classification 30,406 NA NA 30,406

BLM NA 434 1,061 1,495

Total 50,093 434 5,039 55,566

Source: West HiLine Draft EIS p. 59, JVP Final EIS p. 134, and LR2000 (July 2007).

On October 5, 2000, the BLM withdrew 3,530 acres in the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area from location and 

entry under the Mining Law (i.e., closed to the location of new mining claims) to protect the ongoing reclamation of the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

308 Livestock Grazing

Zortman and Landusky Mines located in the Little Rocky Mountains. A five-year extension was granted on October 5, 

2005 to continue protection of the reclamation area, and an additional five-year extension was granted effective 

October 5, 2010. Approximately 1,200 acres have been disturbed by mine operations and reclamation work, of which 

about half is on BLM land.

Power Site Reserve and Power Site Classification withdrawals are administrative withdrawals that protect water/power 

development potential. The withdrawals are located in two general areas along portions of the Marias and Milk Rivers. 

Generally speaking, these sites are withdrawn from surface disposal only. 

All water power and water storage withdrawal reviews in Phillips and Valley Counties are pending site evaluation for 

water power potential.

The BLM considers requests for new withdrawals and withdrawal revocations, extensions, or modifications on a caseby-case basis. Existing withdrawals are also reviewed on a case-by-case basis prior to the end of the withdrawal period 

or as otherwise required by law to determine whether they should be extended, revoked, or modified. 

Livestock Grazing

The BLM is responsible for administering livestock grazing on BLM lands in the planning area. Livestock grazing can 

include the grazing of cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and bison. BLM lands are important to local ranch operations,

particularly in the eastern half of the planning area (Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties). In these areas, the majority of 

ranch operations lease or are permitted to graze on some BLM lands. The BLM lands are almost always intermingled 

with private and state lands, which are grazed as one unit. Across the planning area only a few allotments contain 100% 

BLM land. BLM lands maintain the integrity of many ranch operations and support the culture, lifestyle, and livelihood 

of the grazing lessees. In many cases, if ranchers lost their BLM grazing permit(s)/lease(s), the viability of their ranch 

operation would be seriously affected, thereby making it extremely difficult for them to stay in the livestock business.

Animal Unit Month (AUM) Allocations

Land in the planning area has been used by ranchers for grazing livestock since the latter part of the 19th century. More 

sheep were grazed in the early part of the 20th century than in the latter part. Sheep numbers probably reached their 

peak in the 1950s, but have steadily declined since then.

The HiLine District manages BLM lands for livestock grazing in portions of Blaine, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, 

Phillips, Toole, and Valley Counties, with the majority of the lands in Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties. 

Approximately 2.4 million surface acres of BLM land are available for grazing within 969 allotments (see 

Appendix G). Grazing allotments typically contain a combination of federal, state, and private lands and range in size 

from approximately 8 acres to 154,970 acres, with the average allotment size being approximately 3,150 acres. The 

HiLine District administers 763 grazing authorizations (permits and leases), permitting approximately 386,600 Animal 

Unit Months (AUMs) of livestock forage. Actual AUM use in the planning area is generally less than authorized AUM 

use. At present, approximately 28,904 acres of BLM land are closed to grazing. All allotments in the planning area have 

been assessed for rangeland health standards.

Grazing systems used on BLM lands fall into the following categories: yearlong, season long, and rotational (i.e., 

deferred rotation, rest rotation, and time-controlled grazing systems). Of the 969 allotments in the planning area, 

approximately 28% (270) authorize yearlong use, which is a reflection of the intermingled land pattern that exists across 

the planning area, as well as the small percentage of BLM land found in those allotments. The majority of these ranch 

operations use pastures containing BLM land throughout the year; however, this does not mean individual pastures 

containing BLM lands are used 12 months of the year.

Of the 763 grazing permits/leases the vast majority are cattle only; a handful authorize sheep; and 2 authorize bison. The 

use of horses for ranch operations is common and is authorized on a small percentage of the permits/leases. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Livestock Grazing 309

Rangeland improvement projects can serve as vegetation management tools or best management practices (BMPs) to 

control or improve livestock distribution, enhance wildlife habitat, and control noxious/invasive plants. These projects 

consist primarily of fences, reservoirs, springs, water wells, and vegetative or land treatments. When properly 

implemented, rangeland improvement projects assist in maintaining or improving rangeland health and increase forage 

production. Table 3.31 shows the range improvement projects completed on BLM land between 1992 and 2008, along 

with the total recorded number, which includes both the 1992-2008 and previously recorded rangeland improvement 

projects.

Table 3.31

Range Improvement Projects

Project Type Projects Completed 1992-2008 Total Recorded Number*

No. of Projects Miles/Acres Total No. of Projects Total Miles/Acres

Reservoirs 828 NA 5,006 NA

Springs 5 NA 74 NA

Wells 6 NA 88 NA

Pipelines 34 63 Miles 55 109 Miles

Fences 216 413 Miles 1,314 3,963 Miles

Land Treatment 14 1,968 Acres 36 10,990 Acres

Vegetation Treatment 18 5,308 Acres 170 52,518 Acres

Source: Rangeland Improvements Projects System (RIPS), 2008.

* Some of these projects may be within the boundary of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, but were never removed 

from BLM records. Similarly, some may be within the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.

All allotments in the planning area have been categorized as Improve Existing Resource Conditions (I), Maintain 

Existing Resource Conditions (M), or Custodial Management (C) to identify areas where management was potentially 

needed, as well as to prioritize workloads and the use of range improvement dollars. When the allotments were 

originally categorized, resource conditions in some of the allotments placed in the I category were not necessarily in 

need of improvement. Criteria that were used to place allotments in the I category included the following:

 amount of BLM land present in the allotment

 willingness of permittees/lessees to invest in management

 opportunities for constructing range improvements

 existence of grazing-related resource conflicts

 allotment had moderate to high forage production potential and was producing at low to moderate levels

 the rancher or the BLM identified opportunities for improvement in range condition

 range trend was static or downward

 livestock management could be improved through water distribution

 seasons of use or other factors

 opportunities existed for a positive economic return on public investments

In addition to the above factors, current policy is to categorize allotments as Category I where current livestock grazing 

management or level of use on public land is a significant causal factor in the non-achievement of land health standards. 

When identifying Category I allotments, the BLM will review condition of critical habitat, conflicts with sage-grouse, 

and whether projects have been proposed specifically for implementing the Healthy Lands Initiative. Allotments where 

land health standards are met or where livestock grazing on public land is not a significant causal factor for not meeting 

the standards and current livestock management is in conformance with guidelines would be categorized as Category M. 

Category C allotments would be allotments where public lands produce less than 10 percent of the forage in the 

allotment or are less than 10 percent of the land area.

The BLM has worked to resolve the issues identified in higher priority allotments. Currently, 198 allotments are 

categorized as I, 439 are classified as M, and 332 are classified as C (Appendix G). The I and M category allotments 

contain approximately 2,313,862 acres of BLM land, or 95% of the total acreage in the planning area. In the past, 

allotments in the I category generally received top priority.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

310 Livestock Grazing

Table 3.32

Watershed Plans, Watershed Reports and Implementation Plans Completed

Year Completed

Antelope-Brazil Complex Watershed Report 2003

Bears Paw to Missouri River Breaks Grazing Allotments Grazing Guidelines Implementation 

(Standards for Rangeland Health) and Grazing Permit/Lease Renewals

2005

Beauchamp Watershed Plan 2001

Beaver Creek Watershed Plan 2004

Big Warm Watershed Plan 2007

Cottonwood Watershed Plan 2005

Frenchman Creek Watershed Plan 2006

Larb Creek Watershed Report 2005

Loma/Vimy Ridge Watershed Environmental Assessment and Plan Amendment 2002

Lonesome Lake Management Area Environmental Assessment and 

Resource Management Plan Amendment

1996

Lower Little Beaver Watershed Monitoring and Standards and Guidelines Report 2006

Lower Little Beaver Watershed Plan 2001

Lower Marias Grazing Allotments Grazing Guidelines Implementation (Standards for 

Rangeland Health) and Grazing Lease Renewals

2006

Missouri-Lonetree Watershed Plan 1997

Missouri-Lonetree Watershed Plan Review and Update 2004

Missouri-Lonetree Watershed Ten Year Monitoring and Standards and Guidelines Report 2010

Northeast Bears Paw Grazing Allotments Grazing Guidelines Implementation

(Standards for Rangeland Health) and Grazing Permit Renewals

2009

Northwest Blaine Grazing Allotments Grazing Guidelines Implementation 

(Standards for Rangeland Health) and Grazing Lease/Permit Renewals

2006

Porcupine-Buggy Complex Watershed Report 2002

Rock Creek Watershed Report 2004

Telegraph-Fourcette Watershed Plan 2002

Upper Marias, Sweetgrass Hills and Kevin Rim Grazing Allotments Grazing Guidelines 

Implementation (Standards for Rangeland Health) and Grazing Lease/Permit Renewals

2007

Wayne Creek and Woody Island Grazing Allotments Grazing Guidelines Implementation 

(Standards for Rangeland Health) and Grazing Lease/Permit Renewals

2007

Whitewater Watershed Plan 2004

Willow North Watershed Monitoring and Standards and Guidelines Report 2005

Willow North Watershed Plan 1999
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Noxious and Invasive Species 311

Changes in federal grazing regulations required the BLM to evaluate rangeland health and manage livestock in 

accordance with the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota (BLM 1997a). The five standards (see Appendix H) relate primarily to physical and 

biological features of the landscape and are intended to be within control of the land manager and achievable by the user. 

These standards relate to all BLM resource programs, and rangeland health can be positively or adversely impacted by 

any resource program or resource use.

The standards are used to enhance sustainable livestock grazing and wildlife habitat while protecting watersheds and 

riparian ecosystems. Current management strives to maintain or improve rangeland health on all grazing allotments; 

however, the emphasis is on I and M category allotments and not all allotments in the planning area.

A total of 969 allotments totaling 2,429,979 acres have been evaluated (Appendix G), of which 907 allotments 

(2,239,760 acres) were found to meet rangeland health standards and 62 allotments (190,219 acres) were found to not be 

meeting one or more standards. In 35 of the 62 allotments not meeting standards, livestock were determined not to be 

the primary factor causing degradation of rangeland health. In the remaining 27 allotments not meeting rangeland health 

standards, past or present livestock uses were determined to be contributing factors. It is important to note that only 

specific areas (e.g., 15% or less of the allotment) within the 27 allotments were failing to meet at least one rangeland 

health standard, and in all cases corrective actions have been taken. Through an environmental review process for the 

969 allotments, management prescriptions for vegetation and grazing management were identified and implemented in 

watershed plans, watershed reports and implementation plans. These included construction of range improvements and 

changes to grazing management. The plans listed in Table 3.32 are located in or partially within the HiLine planning

area.

Where livestock grazing has been identified as contributing to an allotment failing rangeland health standards, guidelines 

or BMPs have been or will be implemented. Monitoring is conducted to determine whether objectives are being met and 

if further adjustments in management need to be made.

Over the last 40 to 50 years, an improvement in range condition has occurred, due largely to improved grazing 

management practices, development of range improvement projects (e.g., fences and water developments) and, in some 

cases, reduction in livestock numbers or change in kind of livestock. To various degrees, improvements in range 

condition generally are anticipated to continue under all alternatives based on vegetation treatment, range improvement 

projects, and development of guidelines for those areas determined not to meet rangeland health standards. 

Local ranching operations are increasingly being purchased for non-agricultural purposes and often by non-local 

investors. Although not exclusive, recreational sport hunting tends to be chief among those purposes, while traditional 

uses and users are often given a lesser priority. This trend is likely to continue and will increase the workload of area 

resource specialists as they adapt management to these changing paradigms. Rarely are new permittees/lessees familiar 

with the subtleties of BLM land ranching, and quite often existing activity plans do not fit the needs of new landowners.

The BLM anticipates that continued implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and site-specific allotment 

objectives will continue to stabilize and improve range areas.

Noxious Weeds and Other Invasive Non-Native Species

An invasive species as defined in Executive Order 13112 is an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause 

economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. Within the planning area, present invasive species consist of 

primarily exotic plant species. However, other types of organisms such as animals and pathogens are making their way 

closer to the planning area and could potentially impact activities on BLM lands within the next 20 years. Most of these 

species are associated with water bodies and have been designated by the state as Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS).

The State of Montana has developed priority categorization systems for noxious plants and ANS. Both noxious weeds 

and ANS have been identified as having the potential to cause economic and environmental harm and/or harm to human 

health.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

312 Noxious and Invasive Species

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plants

Noxious weed invasion contributes to the loss of rangeland productivity, increased soil erosion, reduced water quantity 

and quality, reduced species and structural diversity, loss of wildlife habitat, and in some instances, is hazardous to 

human health and welfare, as emphasized in the federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (PL 93-629, as amended by section 

15 – Management of Undesirable Plants on federal Lands, 1990). Some weed species pose a significant threat to 

multiple use management of BLM land.

Noxious and invasive plant species, for the most part, are associated with areas experiencing natural or man-made 

disturbances. Noxious and invasive plants are mainly found along waterways, roads, recreational destinations, overutilized rangeland, pipelines, drilling pads, rights-of-way, and livestock/wildlife paths and congregation areas. Data 

derived from state and BLM-based mapping suggests that approximately 140,000 acres or 8% of BLM land in the 

planning area is infested or potentially infested by at least one invasive species. This data includes species that do not 

occur on state or county noxious weed lists, but are known to be invasive. This data does not include any grass species 

and incomplete information on some species. The species known to occur within the planning area (on private, state, and 

federal lands) are outlined in Table 3.33.

Table 3.33

Noxious and Invasive Plants

Occurrence in the HiLine Planning Area

Name Scientific Name Symbol* Status

Occurs on 

Public 

Land

Occurs on 

Private/

State Land

BLM Acre 

Class*

field

brome

Bromus 

arvensis BRAR5 BLM Invasive Yes Yes High

downey brome

(cheatgrass)

Bromus 

tectorum

BRTE MT Priority 3 Yes Yes High

hoary cress

(whitetop)

Cardaria

draba CADR MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Trace

musk

thistle

Carduus 

nutans CANU4

BLM Invasive

Yes Yes Rare

Liberty County Noxious

diffuse 

knapweed

Centaurea 

diffusa CEDI3 MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Rare

spotted 

knapweed

Centaurea 

maculosa CEST8 MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Mod

Russian 

knapweed

Centaurea 

repens

ACRE3 MT Priority 2B Yes Yes High

yellow 

starthistle

Centaurea 

solstitialis CESO3 MT Priority 1A No Yes None***

oxeye daisy Chrysanthemum 

leucanthemum LEVU MT Priority 2B No Yes None

Canada

thistle

Cirsium 

arvense

CIAR4 MT Priority 2B Yes Yes High

poison 

hemlock

Conium 

maculatum COMA2

BLM Invasive

Yes Yes Trace

Chouteau County Noxious

field bindweed Convolvulus 

arvensis COAR4 MT Priority 2B Yes Yes High

houndstongue Cynoglossum 

officinale CYOF MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Low
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Noxious and Invasive Species 313

Table 3.33

Noxious and Invasive Plants

Occurrence in the HiLine Planning Area

Name Scientific Name Symbol* Status

Occurs on 

Public 

Land

Occurs on 

Private/

State Land

BLM Acre 

Class*

Russian olive Elaeagnus 

angustifolia ELAN BLM Invasive Yes Yes Mod

leafy

spurge 

Euphorbia 

esula EUES MT Priority 2B Yes Yes High

baby’s

breath

Gypsophila 

paniculata

GYPA

BLM Invasive

Yes Yes Trace

Blaine County Noxious

Chouteau County Noxious

Valley County Noxious

orange 

hawkweed

Hieracium 

aurantiacum HIAU MT Priority 2A No Yes None

black 

henbane

Hyoscyamus 

niger HYNI BLM Invasive Yes Yes Trace

perennial 

pepperweed

Lepidium 

latifolium LELA2 MT Priority 2A Yes Yes Trace

Dalmatian 

toadflax

Linaria 

dalmatica LIDA MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Rare

yellow 

toadflax

Linaria 

vulgaris LIVU2 MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Low

purple 

loosestrife

Lythrum 

salicaria LYSA2 MT Priority 1B No Yes None***

scentless 

chamomile

Matricaria 

perforata MAPE2

BLM Invasive

No Yes None

Chouteau County Noxious

Scotch

thistle

Onopordum 

acanthium ONAC BLM Invasive Yes Yes Low

curlyleaf 

pondweed

Potamogeton

crispus POCR3 MT Priority 1B No Yes None

sulfur 

cinquefoil

Potentilla 

recta

PORE5 MT Priority 2B No Yes Low

perennial 

sowthistle

Sonchus 

arvensis SOAR2

BLM Invasive

Yes Yes Low

Liberty County Noxious

Salt

cedar

Tamarix spp. TARA MT Priority 2B Yes Yes Low

common

tansy

Tanacetum 

vulgare TAVU MT Priority 2B No Yes None

Source: All species on Montana’s Noxious Weed List also appear on BLM’s Invasive Plant List. This table was constructed using 

data from the County Weed Districts, The Invaders Database System, The USDA PLANTS Database, and the Malta, Glasgow, and 

Havre BLM Offices.

* Symbol Taken from USDA’s Plants Database

** BLM Class Values: None = 0 acres; RARE = <1 acre; Trace = 1 to 5 acres; Low = 5 to 50 acres; Mod = 50 to 500 acres; 

High = > 500 acres

*** Species was identified and eradicated in the recent past.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

314 Noxious and Invasive Species

The invasive species management program continually changes as a result of new introductions, additional inventory and 

the ongoing implementation of management projects. The BLM uses a full range of integrated pest management in the 

planning area. The basic management of noxious and invasive plants consists of: 

 early detection and rapid response (newly invading species);

 containment and management (widespread weed infestations);

 inventory, monitoring and evaluation; and

 internal and external awareness, education and outreach.

The control methods used to control noxious weeds include:

 Chemical – application of herbicides

 Physical – includes both mechanical and manual removal methods

 Biological – both Classical and Non-Classical

- Classical Biological control is the use of natural enemies from a 

target plant’s native range and is usually a species of herbivorous 

insect/arthropod or a plant pathogen. 

- Non-Classical Biological Control is the use of targeted grazing 

to affect plant populations. The goal of Non-Classical 

Biological Control is not livestock production, although in some 

instances that can be a secondary benefit.

 Cultural – includes revegetation and changes in land use practices 

(timing, duration, forage harvest, etc.)

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) and 

Other Invasive Species

The current ANS list includes some plant species that are also listed as 

noxious. Table 3.34 shows the species of concern. Other than a few plant 

species, the planning area is currently free of ANS. However, suitable habitat 

for many of these species is present and if introduced, these species could 

impact BLM lands and their management. 

Long-term monitoring indicates invasive species are generally spreading 10-

25% annually on BLM land. This range is variable because trend data reflects 

the increased resources over time in locating invasive species rather than new 

increases in overall infested areas due to dispersion.

The annual expansion of invasive species will most likely continue at current 

rates as a whole. Uncommon species in the planning area should be static or 

declining in abundance due to coordinated emphasis on eradication and 

containment. Designated prevention areas and education activities at the state 

and local levels have been implemented for noxious weeds and other nonnative invasive species. If effective, the spread of invasive species could be reduced by public land users who have been 

presented with the prevention message and apply that knowledge to their activities.

Widespread species will account for most of the expansion, even though mitigation is in place for most surfacedisturbing activities. Widespread infestations must be prioritized for management due to limited resources, thus the 

absence of active management in these situations and the abundance of these species account for most of the annual 

spread. Increases in energy development or recreation would most likely increase the probability of spread because of 

the associated surface disturbance and/or the mobility of vehicles entering from infested areas.

Factors that impact invasive species include natural and anthropogenic pathways and disturbance mechanisms. Their 

ability to spread is not always associated with their proximity to established infestations. Natural processes that 

contribute to the spread of invasive species include fire, flooding, ice scouring in streams, drought, wind, and wildlife. 

Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species

Priority Classes

Priority Class 1 species are currently 

not known to be present in Montana 

but have a high potential to invade, 

and there are limited or no known 

management strategies for these 

species. Appropriate management for 

this class includes prevention of 

introductions and eradication of 

pioneering populations.

Priority Class 2 species are present 

and established in Montana, have the 

potential to spread in Montana, and 

there are limited or no known 

management strategies for these 

species. These species can be 

managed through actions that involve 

mitigation of impact, control of 

population size, and prevention of 

dispersal to other waterbodies.

Priority Class 3 species are not known 

to be established in Montana, have a 

high potential for invasion, and 

appropriate management techniques 

are available. Appropriate 

management for this class includes 

prevention of introductions and 

eradication of pioneering populations.

Priority Class 4 species are present 

and have the potential to spread in 

Montana, but there are management 

strategies available for these species. 

These species can be managed through 

actions that involve mitigation of 

impact, control of population size, and 

prevention of dispersal to other 

waterbodies.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Noxious and Invasive Species 315

Construction activities (roads, wells, and pipelines), recreation, and agricultural uses also contribute to the spread of 

invasive species. These challenges require coordination across all of the BLM’s resource programs to develop, integrate, 

and implement aggressive management techniques and strategies for controlling adverse impacts and the spread of 

invasive species in the planning area. Management actions anticipated to address the challenges presented by invasive 

species and pest control are incorporated in the alternatives in Chapter 2.

Table 3.34

Aquatic Nuisance Species

Common Name Scientific Name Priority Class

Occurs In or

In Proximity to Planning 

Area (Yes/No)

Crustaceans

spiny waterflea Bythotrephes cederstroemi Class 1 Unknown

rusty crayfish Orconectes rusticus Class 1 Unknown

Fish

northern snakehead Channa argus Federal Injurious 

Wildlife Species

No

Eurasian ruffe Gymnocephalus cernuus Class 1 No

Asian carp Includes:

Hypophthalmichthys nobilis, 

Mylopharyngodon piceus, 

Ctenoparyngodon idella,

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix

Class 1 No

round goby Neogobius melanostomus Class 1 No

zander Sander lucioperca Class 1 No

tench Tinca tinca Class 1 No

Mammals

nutria Myocastor coypus Class 1 No

Mollusks

zebra mussel Dreissena polymorpha Class 1 No

New Zealand mudsnail Potamopyrgus antipodarum Class 2 No

Parasites/Pathogens

heterosporosis Class 1 No

IHN virus Class 1 No

Asian tapeworm Bothriocephalus 

acheilognathi

Class 3 Unknown

whirling disease Myxobolus cerebralis Class 2 No

Plants

flowering rush Butomus umbellatus Class 4 Unknown

egeria Egeria densa Class 1 No

hydrilla Hydrilla verticillata Class 1 No

yellow flag iris Iris pseudacorus Class 4 Unknown

purple loosestrife Lythrum salicaria Class 4 Yes

Eurasian watermilfoil Myriophyllum spicatum Class 3 No

curley pondweed Potamogeton crispus Class 4 Yes

salt cedar/tamarisk Tamarix spp. Class 4 Yes

Source: ANS 2002.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

316 OHV Use/Travel and Transportation Management

Off-Highway Vehicle Use and 

Travel and Transportation Management

Off-Highway Vehicle Use

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use in the planning area primarily consists of riding ATVs, motorcycles, and full-sized 

trucks and vehicles for pleasure. Participation in these recreational activities varies by season, topography, and 

vegetative cover. The BLM roads, primitive roads and trails in the planning area provide many opportunities for OHV 

use that vary from back country to concentrated use areas.

The HiLine District currently manages 124 acres of open, 2,429,930 acres of limited to existing roads, primitive roads 

and trails, and 7,419 acres of closed designations. The open areas described below have also been designated as 

intensive use areas, which are generally defined as BLM lands with no restrictions on which OHVs can be driven and 

where no compelling resource protection needs, conflicts of use, or public safety issues exist to warrant limiting crosscountry travel.

The following areas and acreages represent current OHV management decisions by OHV category:

Open

 Fresno OHV Area (84 acres) – open to cross-country motorized use and designated as an intensive use area. 

This area is located 20 miles north of Havre, near Fresno Reservoir. It contains approximately 84 acres of 

extremely variable terrain including steep hills suited for ATV and motorcycle hill climbing enthusiasts. Use 

occurs primarily during the spring and summer months, with peak use in the summer.

 Glasgow OHV Area (40 acres) – open to cross-country motorized use and designated as an intensive use area. 

This high priority travel management planning area is a 40-acre site immediately north of Glasgow which has 

been used primarily as an area for ATV and motorcycle use. Use occurs primarily during the spring and 

summer months, with peak use in the summer.

Limited

 Bitter Creek WSA (60,701 acres) – limited to identified primitive routes

 Burnt Lodge WSA (13,727 acres) – limited to identified primitive routes

 Remaining BLM land (2,355,502 acres) – limited to existing roads, primitive roads, and trails

Closed

 Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,429 acres) – closed to OHV use

Overall, a small percentage of the total recreational OHV use in the planning area occurs cross-country, suggesting a low 

frequency of motorized, wheeled cross-country travel, with most occurring during the fall hunting season. However, 

even under a low frequency rate this type of travel causes problems.

Increased OHV use has become a significant issue within the planning area because of the potential resource degradation 

that can result from high levels of use. General estimates of OHV use can be assumed by reviewing the estimates 

prepared for Montana public lands as part of the Off-Highway Vehicle EIS and Proposed Plan Amendment for Montana, 

North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota (BLM 2001b). This report estimated that the number of trucks used in offhighway applications increased 12% between 1990 and 1998 (BLM 2001b, Table 3.6). ATVs and motorcycles were 

considered a separate group in this report, and their use increased by 61% from 1990 to 1998.

Demand for access to BLM land is expected to increase. If private landowners discontinue allowing access to their lands 

for hunting or other recreational purposes, the demand for access will also increase for other private landowners who do 

allow access. This is due to a number of factors, including public awareness, increased tourism, and increased 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

OHV Use/Travel and Transportation Management 317

restrictions by private landowners (e.g., closed roads, changes in ownership). The public is becoming more aware of the 

public land recreation opportunities existing in the planning area. In addition, visitation is expected to increase as the 

result of federal, state, and local agency marketing efforts to increase tourism. With an increase in nonlocal 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. 

Previous recreational use estimates indicated that the projected number of OHVs for Montana by 2005 could be 24,597 

for ATVs and motorcycles and 33,727 for trucks. By 2015, it is projected that the number of ATVs and motorcycles will 

increase to 36,249, and the number of trucks will increase to 36,797 in Montana (BLM 2001b, Table 3.7). The data 

suggest that OHV use is one of the fastest growing activities in the State of Montana. With the registration of OHVs 

increasing on an annual basis, it is expected that OHV use will continue to increase on all BLM land throughout 

Montana.

Travel and Transportation Management

Transportation system roads provide physical access to BLM, state, private and other federal lands throughout the 

planning area. Demands for transportation are directly related to the resources found on BLM land. A transportation 

system provides access for commercial activities (e.g., livestock grazing, timber harvest, mineral development, outfitting 

and guiding); non-commercial activities and casual use (e.g., OHV use, hunting, fishing, camping, etc.); and for 

administrative access to manage resources.

BLM roads are currently classified by three different types: collector, local, or resource roads. Collector roads normally 

provide primary access to large blocks of land, and connect with or are extensions of a public road system. Local roads 

normally serve a smaller area than collectors and connect to collectors or a public road system. Resource roads are spur 

roads that provide point access and connect to local, collector, or other roads. Below are the new standardized terms and 

their descriptions (BLM Technical Note 422). However, the current policy of road classification will remain in place 

until implementation of travel management planning following the signing of the Record of Decision for this RMP.

 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 four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles. Primitive roads do 

not normally meet any BLM road design standard.

 Trail: A linear route managed for human-powered, stock, or off-highway vehicle forms of transportation or for 

historical values. Trails are not generally managed for use by four-wheel drive or high-clearance vehicles.

The transportation system includes state, county and BLM roads. Various government entities and individuals acquire 

rights-of-way from the BLM for those portions of the transportation system roads that cross BLM land. Issuing a rightof-way is based on access needs and resource considerations.

Road Maintenance

Transportation system roads are currently classified by maintenance intensities. The intensities range from 0 (minimum 

maintenance) to level 5 (the highest level of maintenance).

The BLM road maintenance terminology also changed according to Technical Note 422. This policy changes 

maintenance levels to maintenance intensities. Maintenance intensities provide for the appropriate intensity, frequency, 

and type of maintenance necessary to keep the roads in acceptable condition. Maintenance intensities provide a range of 

objectives and standards, from identification for removal through frequent and intensive maintenance. Maintenance 

intensities range from Level 0 to Level 5; however, the current policy of road maintenance will remain in place until 

implementation of travel management planning following the signing of the Record of Decision for this RMP.

Roads with the highest public use receive routine maintenance. Using native-surfaced roads during the wet season may 

contribute to irreparable road and resource damage. Concerns about public safety and the potential for resource and road 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

318 Paleontological Resources

damage may cause road closures during inclement weather. Each BLM road will have a maintenance intensity 

associated with it; however, this will be deferred to travel management planning.

State and county system roads are usually constructed and maintained to higher standards than BLM roads and provide 

access to and through BLM lands. These roads are not maintained by the BLM.

The inventory and management database for linear features, dams, buildings, and recreation and administrative sites is 

the Facility Asset Management System (FAMS).

Cattle guards, bridges and culverts on the road system are constructed and maintained using available funds. Bridges 

and major culverts are monitored and maintained as part of the transportation and facilities program and recorded in 

FAMS.

Roads in the planning area provide access for recreationists, ranchers, resource specialists, and administrators. The 

planning area has approximately 30,143 miles of currently mapped routes, of which 3,908 miles are on BLM land. Most 

of the roads are of native surface (dirt, gravel, or sand).

The planning area has never completed formal transportation planning to determine which roads will be included in a 

formal transportation system. The HiLine District will complete an inventory of all BLM roads in an effort to depict a 

baseline road system. Identification of the travel management areas will be included in the RMP, but travel management 

planning will be deferred until implementation following the signing of the Record of Decision for this RMP.

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources include 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. 470aaa 

Sec. 6301(4)). Fossils are found where erosion has exposed the fossil-bearing strata. Most paleontological formations in 

the planning area, except in the Little Rocky Mountains, date from the Late Cretaceous Period; however, also present are 

Early Cretaceous Period units such as the Colorado Shale. The earliest unit is the Judith River formation, which is 

highly fossiliferous and contains quantities of dinosaur, crocodilian, amphibian, fish, turtle, marine reptile, bird, 

invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils. Occasionally, small mammal remains are found. A later unit is the Bearpaw Shale, 

which contains marine reptiles, fish, rare terrestrial dinosaurs, and invertebrate fossils. The latest and most productive 

deposit is the Hell Creek formation which contains abundant fossils of terrestrial dinosaurs, including those of 

Tyrannosaurus rex. These formations are exposed along the Missouri River valley and on the surface in the southern 

part of the planning area where glacial till is absent as well as in areas covered with glacial till, such as coulees. 

Paleozoic invertebrate fossils can be found in all of the planning area mountain ranges. Exposures of the Hell Creek 

formation along the Missouri River are found in southern Phillips and Valley Counties.

Paleontological Localities

As of March 2007, 621 paleontological locations have been documented in the planning area (Hanna 2007). Of the 

documented 621 locations, 409 (66%) are vertebrate fossil localities and 212 (34%) are nonvertebrate localities (Hanna 

2007). Table 3.35 shows paleontological site distribution by county and includes all ownerships.

The majority of the paleontological sites occur in Hill County (67.1%). It should be noted that while Phillips County 

does not have the same level of site density as Hill County, Phillips County has been the location of several nationally 

and internationally significant paleontological finds (e.g., Leonardo, the mummified dinosaur). Further, Phillips County 

has more significant paleontological sites on public land. The majority of the paleontological sites in the planning area 

are located on private surface ownership.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources 319

Table 3.35

Paleontological Site Distribution

County Number of Sites Percentage

Blaine 39 6.3%

Chouteau 7 1.1%

Glacier 4 <1%

Hill 417 67.1%

Liberty 32 5.1%

Phillips 43 6.9%

Toole 39 6.3%

Valley 40 6.4%

Source: Hanna (2007)

Paleontological Classifications

Occurrences of paleontological resources are closely related to the geologic units that contain them, and the potential for 

finding important paleontological resources can be broadly predicted by the presence of the pertinent geologic units at or 

near the surface. Therefore, geologic mapping can be used as a proxy for assessing the potential occurrence of important 

paleontological resources. The Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC) system adopted by the BLM in 2008 uses 

geologic units as base data. The PFYC system provides a uniform tool to assess potential occurrences of paleontological 

resources and evaluate possible impacts.

Under the PFYC system, geologic units are classified based on the relative abundance of vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate or plant fossils and their sensitivity to adverse impacts, with a higher class number indicating a higher 

potential. This classification is best applied at the geologic formation or member level. It is not intended to be an 

assessment of whether important fossils are known to occur occasionally in these units (i.e. a few important fossils or 

localities widely scattered throughout a formation does not necessarily indicate a higher class), nor is it intended to be 

applied to specific sites or areas. The classification system is intended to provide baseline guidance to assessing and 

mitigating impacts to paleontological resources. In many situations, the classification should be an intermediate step in 

the analysis, and should be used to assess additional mitigation needs. The PFYC classes are defined in detail below:

Class 1: Units unlikely to contain recognizable fossil remains. This includes units that are igneous or metamorphic 

in origin (but excludes tuffs), as well as units that are Precambrian in age or older. Management concern for 

paleontological resources in Class 1 units is negligible or not applicable. No assessment or mitigation is needed 

except in very rare circumstances. The occurrence of significant fossils in Class 1 units is non-existent or extremely 

rare.

Class 2: Sedimentary geologic units that are not likely to contain vertebrate fossils or scientifically significant 

nonvertebrate fossils. This includes units in which vertebrate or significant nonvertebrate fossils are unknown or 

very rare, units that are younger than 10,000 years before present, units that are Aeolian in origin, and units which 

exhibit significant physical changes in rock (i.e. compaction, cementation, mineral replacement). The potential for 

impacting vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils is low. Management concern for 

paleontological resources is low, and management actions are not likely to be needed. Localities containing 

important resources may exist, but would be rare and would not influence the classification.

Class 3: Fossiliferous sedimentary geologic units where fossil content varies in significance, abundance, and 

predictable occurrence; or sedimentary units of unknown fossil potential. These units are often marine in origin 

with sporadic known occurrences of vertebrate fossils. Vertebrate fossils and uncommon nonvertebrate fossils are 

known to occur inconsistently and predictability is known to be low. Two subsets to Class 3 units are described 

below:

Paleontological Locality Photo by Craig Miller
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

320 Paleontological Resources

Class 3a includes a broad range of potential impacts. Geologic units of unknown potential, as well as units of 

moderate or infrequent fossil occurrence are included. Assessment and mitigation efforts also include a broad 

range of options. Surface-disturbing activities will require sufficient assessment to determine whether 

significant fossil resources occur in the area of a proposed action, and whether the action could affect the 

paleontological resources.

Class 3b includes units that are poorly studied and/or poorly documented, so that the potential yield cannot be 

assigned without ground reconnaissance. Management concern for paleontological resources in these units is 

moderate, or cannot be determined from existing data. Surface-disturbing activities may require field 

assessment to determine a further course of action.

Class 4: These are Class 5 geologic units (see below) that have lowered risks of human-caused adverse impacts 

and/or lowered risk of natural degradation. They include bedrock units with extensive soil or vegetative cover, 

bedrock exposures that are limited or not expected to be impacted, units with areas of exposed outcrop that are 

smaller than two contiguous acres, units in which outcrops form cliffs of sufficient height and slope so that impacts 

are minimized by topographic effects, and units where other characteristics are present that lower the vulnerability 

of both known and unidentified fossil localities.

Class 5: Highly fossiliferous geologic units that regularly and predictably produce vertebrate fossils or uncommon 

invertebrate or plant fossils, and that are at risk of human-caused adverse impacts or natural degradation. These 

include units in which vertebrate fossils or uncommon invertebrate or plant fossils are known and documented to 

occur consistently, predictably, or abundantly. Class 5 pertains to highly sensitive units that are well exposed with 

little or no soil or vegetative cover, units in which outcrop areas are extensive, and exposed bedrock areas that are 

larger than two contiguous acres.

Table 3.36 and Figure 3.12 show the acres and areas for each geologic class described above.

Table 3.36

BLM Surface Ownership by Geologic Class

(Acres)

Geologic

Class

Paleontological 

Potential

BLM

Surface Only

Percentage of Total 

BLM Land in the 

Planning Area

2 Low 123,958 5%

2 Moderate 42,666 25%

3a Moderate 1,340,385 55%

3b Moderate 103,255 4%

4 High 716 <1%

5 High 371,554 15%

Based on the table above, the majority of BLM surface acres fall within geologic Class 3 and Class 5. Projects proposed 

in Class 4 and Class 5 geologic units with the potential to impact significant resources will be subject to paleontological 

inventory. Projects proposed in Class 3 geologic units may also be subject to paleontological inventory depending upon 

the topography in the project area.

Professional paleontologists conducting research or assessment and mitigation are regulated through the permit process. 

The BLM issues, on average, one or two permits a year specifically for the planning area. Approximately 18 statewide 

research permits allow surface collecting/reconnaissance and include the planning area. The BLM also issues 

approximately three consulting permits annually in Montana. These are statewide permits which include the planning 

area.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Paleontological Resources 321

Figure 3.12

Paleontological Classifications
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

322 Public Safety

Recreational fossil collecting of common invertebrates, plants and petrified wood is allowed on most BLM land; 

however, some locations/areas may be closed to casual collection. Amateur fossil collectors and hobbyists may collect 

reasonable amounts of common invertebrate and plant fossils on public lands. The number of people involved in this 

activity is unknown. The HiLine District processes approximately six inquiries a year regarding fossil and/or rock 

collecting. Further interest in fossil collection is demonstrated by the existence of privately owned paleontological 

guiding businesses that provide recreationists the opportunity to excavate fossil remains on private land. In addition, 

hikers, mountain bikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts sometimes accidentally discover fossil remains. Some of these 

discoveries are passed on to the appropriate agencies, but some are not. Many important paleontological discoveries 

have been and will continue to be made by amateur or accidental paleontologists, but the number of such discoveries is 

also unknown.

Fossil theft and vandalism is an issue within the planning area. Public interest in fossils and the commercial value of 

fossils have increased significantly in recent years. As public interest increases, the monetary value of fossils also rises;

federal land management agencies (including the BLM) are under increasing pressure to both protect scientifically 

significant fossil resources and to ensure their appropriate availability to the general public. Escalating commercial 

values of fossils also means that increasingly, fossils on federal lands are subject to theft and vandalism. These crimes 

reduce scientific and public access to scientifically significant and instructive fossils and destroy the contextual 

information critical for interpreting the fossils. As described in Title 43 CFR Subparts 8365.1-5 and 8360.0-7, willful 

disturbance, removal and destruction of scientific resources or natural objects on federal lands is illegal and there are 

penalties for such violations. Often, the most pronounced damage is the loss of the context and other significant 

scientific data, the worth of which is difficult to evaluate in monetary terms. With the passage of the Paleontological 

Resources Preservation Act in 2009 (16 U.S.C. 470aaa et seq.), paleontological theft has penalties under federal law. 

Public Safety

Abandoned Mine Lands

The Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) program is tasked with identifying and mitigating physical and environmental 

hazards on lands affected by mining practices. Typical hazardous material issues within the planning area are associated 

with past mining activities, illegal dumping, and accidental material releases from transport vehicles.

Not all AML sites include conditions that are hazardous to humans or the environment. However, the physical hazards 

that may be encountered at AML sites include basic trip-and-fall hazards from debris, obscure mine shafts, dilapidated 

mine buildings and equipment, harmful chemicals or contaminated soils, unused explosives, and open mine adits with 

oxygen-depleted or toxic environments. The potential for injuries and deaths from these hazards increases with the 

growth of the western population and recreational use of public lands. Therefore, sites easily accessed by the public are 

given first priority for implementation of mitigation or closure measures.

Hazardous conditions at AML sites can include both on-site and off-site impacts. Mine wastes on AML sites may affect 

or preclude the growth of vegetation and give rise to fugitive dust with hazardous heavy metal constituents when 

disturbed. Water quality issues may come from the direct flow of water laden with heavy metals out of mine adits, or 

leaching from mined materials contributing undesirable heavy metal constituents to nearby stream and river subbasins. 

The heap leach process uses cyanide to remove gold or other desirable metals from mined materials. Heavy metal 

constituents can adversely affect many aquatic species and also may adversely affect avian and mammalian species 

around such mine sites and drainages via direct and indirect routes of intake. The metals associated with mining 

activities in the planning area are primarily gold, silver, lead, zinc, copper, and arsenic. 

Zortman/Landusky Mine

The abandoned Zortman/Landusky Mine in the Little Rocky Mountains consists of two mine sites. The mines are near 

the towns of Zortman and Landusky and are located on a mixture of patented mining claims (private lands) and BLM 

lands. Pegasus Gold Corporation and Zortman Mining, Inc. operated the mines from 1979 through 1998, when the 

operator filed for bankruptcy protection and proceeded with closure of the mines.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Public Safety 323

An Environmental Impact Statement was jointly prepared with Montana DEQ to review and analyze reclamation plans 

for the site, and a Record of Decision, issued in May 2002, selected a final mine reclamation plan (BLM and MDEQ 

2002). The reclamation was estimated to cost more than the funding available from reclamation bonds posted by the 

company; however, with supplemental funding from the BLM and the State of Montana, the reclamation earthwork was 

completed in May 2005, but a funding shortfall remained for future water treatment.

Upon conclusion of the bankruptcy process, the BLM invoked its CERCLA authority in June 2004 when the BLM 

issued an Action Memorandum for Zortman and Landusky Mines Time-Critical Removal (BLM 2004c) in order to 

continue water treatment in the absence of a mine operator. The BLM is the lead federal agency for conducting removal 

actions at the site under its CERCLA authority.

An Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) (BLM 2006d) and accompanying action memorandum (BLM 

2006e) were completed in September 2006. The purpose of the EE/CA was to reassess the existing and anticipated water 

quality site conditions, evaluate the performance of the current removal actions, and to assess the costs and amounts of 

funding available to continue or where needed, improve the water collection and treatment practices. The EE/CA was 

the next step in continuing removal actions needed to protect public health, welfare, or the environment. It addressed the 

management of Operable Units OU1, OU2, and OU3 which treat mine drainage, treat leach pad waters, and reclaim 

reactive mine waste units, respectively. The EE/CA includes an assessment of the potential human and ecological harm 

from the water currently being released from the site, or that would be released if any of the capture or treatment 

systems, or reclaimed waste units, were modified. The present capture and treatment systems are optimal and no largescale changes in water treatment technology are warranted. The CERCLA site continues to be monitored for reclamation 

and remediation success.

One issue of relatively recent concern is contamination from some iron-rich seeps that occur in Swift Gulch, north of the 

Landusky Mine. The water quality from these seeps has declined since the mine closure in 1998. Ongoing water 

treatment facility construction and analysis within the gulch is the current focus of the DEQ’s technical working group 

with representation from the BLM and the Fort Belknap tribes.

On October 5, 2000, the BLM withdrew 3,505 acres in the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area from location and 

entry under the Mining Law to facilitate reclamation of the mines, including long-term water treatment. A five-year 

extension of the withdrawal was granted on October 5, 2005, and a second extension was granted effective 

October 5, 2010.

Hazard Class Dams

The BLM has a designated Safety of Dams Coordinator to ensure hazard rated dams are properly managed. Condition 

assessments are performed as required by the latest version of the BLM 9177 (Dam Safety) Manual and associated 

handbooks. Emergency Action Plans that provide for public safety have been completed and are updated annually. The 

Emergency Action Plans are available for public review in the Montana State Office, the BLM field office in which each 

dam is located, and in county emergency services offices.

The planning area has 134 hazard rated dams, which means they have a minimum 25 foot hydraulic height or impound 

50 acre-feet or more. This total includes 132 dams rated low hazard, of which 82 are in the Glasgow Field Office, 15 are 

in the Havre Field Office, and 35 are in the Malta Field Office. Two dams are rated as high hazard: Anita Reservoir in 

Blaine County, and PR-19 Reservoir in Phillips County.

Hazardous Materials

Hazardous materials represent a significant risk to public safety, human health and the environment, and are therefore 

important issues for BLM management. Hazardous materials management also involves the prevention of illegal 

hazardous material actions on BLM lands; the regulation, authorization and proper use of legal hazardous materials on 

BLM lands; and timely, safe responses to hazardous materials incidents on BLM lands.

Some dumping occurs on BLM lands in the planning area. Much of the activity is intentional, small quantity waste 

dumping which may include hazardous substances, household waste, petroleum products, solid waste, and agricultural 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

324 Recreation

materials. Dumping may occur anywhere on BLM 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, then all of the materials are removed and disposed of properly. 

Instances of significant or hazardous dumping in the planning area are fairly limited, which is attributed to the relatively 

low population density around the BLM lands.

BLM Law Enforcement Rangers have 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 lands.

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 direct health and safety hazard to individuals who may inadvertently come across 

them and also present a hazard to wildlife. Discarded drug paraphernalia is also a concern due to potential skin 

puncture/disease transmission hazards.

Hazardous materials may legitimately be brought onto BLM lands for 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 and antifreeze. 

Recreation

The most popular outdoor recreation activities statewide for Montana residents are (in decreasing order) walking, 

wildlife watching, hiking, biking, swimming, picnicking, nature photography, fishing, motorcycling, hunting, camping, 

golfing, horseback riding, and boating (MFWP 2003). Most recreation users participate in dispersed recreation 

activities, either individually or in small groups. While Montana resident and non-resident recreationists generally 

participate in the same outdoor activities, the top non-resident recreational activities are wildlife watching, day hiking, 

and picnicking.

Large tracts of BLM land in the planning area provide a wide variety of seasonal recreation opportunities for both 

residents and non-residents. Hunting dominates the scene in the fall, with snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, and ice 

fishing occurring during the winter. Springtime activities include fishing, sightseeing, and photography. Camping, 

picnicking, driving for pleasure, sightseeing, fishing, hiking, boating, dispersed OHV use, and varmint hunting dominate 

recreation during the summer months. OHV use is an important consideration at many of the recreation sites. Overall, 

BLM land supports some type of recreational activity during all times of the year with the heaviest use occurring during 

fall hunting seasons.

The Camp Creek and Montana Gulch campgrounds in the Little Rocky Mountains are the only two fee recreation sites in 

the planning area. Several smaller developed recreation sites are distributed throughout the area that attract non-resident 

tourists and provide recreation for local residents as well. Many fishery reservoirs offer trout and/or bass while some 

reservoirs have northern pike. Winter months provide opportunities for ice fishing. Access to most recreation facilities 

and areas is by the primary transportation corridors, including U.S. Highways 2 and 191, and various state highways.

To a limited extent, BLM lands provide access to the Milk and Missouri rivers where fishermen can catch catfish, 

walleye, sauger, sturgeon, paddlefish, pike and bass, and hunters can hunt deer, elk, pronghorn, waterfowl, and upland 

game birds. However, most of the Milk River shoreline is privately owned which limits access, especially for hunting. 

MFWP provides some marked fishing access sites where legal streamside access is available along the river.

Montana’s population in the western and southcentral counties is increasing, while most of the eastern and northern 

counties lost population during the 1990s. These unequal changes have caused increased demand for recreation facilities 

in high growth areas and decreased ability to pay for existing facilities in areas that have lost residents. Further, Montana 

residents are aging and wages are low, so accessibility and affordability are becoming important facets of outdoor 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Recreation 325

recreation planning. As the population ages, there is likely to be less demand for strenuous outdoor recreation activities 

and more demand for activities like walking, golfing, fishing, and motorized recreation.

Tourism is an important component of Montana’s economy, and it creates 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 impact of tourism on Montanans. Since demand for both 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation access will likely continue to increase, facilities will be needed to address this 

demand effectively while simultaneously managing Montana’s natural and cultural assets in a sustainable manner 

(MFWP 2003).

Although visitor use information is lacking or incomplete for some areas, BLM lands in the planning area received a 

minimum of 53,000 recreation visits in 2005. The major recreation activity categories in the area, in order of 

approximate total use percentage, are shown in Table 3.37.

Table 3.37

Major Recreation Activities in the HiLine Planning Area

Activity Percentage of Total Use

Hunting 42%

Sightseeing, picnicking, watching wildlife 16%

Fishing 13%

Driving for pleasure 11%

Camping 9%

Hiking, horseback riding, bicycling 3%

Winter sports 1%

Off-road vehicle activities 3%

Snowmobiling 1%

Water sports 1%

Source: BLM Recreation Management Information System (RMIS) (2012).

Recreation Management Areas

BLM lands are classified into one of three Recreation Management Area categories, as follows:

Special Recreation Management Areas

Special Recreation Management Areas have recreational values with development potential and need more intensive 

recreation management because outdoor recreation is a high priority, thus requiring a greater recreation investment. 

Major investments in facilities within Special Recreation Management Areas can be excluded where the BLM’s strategy 

is to target demonstrated, undeveloped, recreation-tourism market demand. Here, recreation management actions are 

geared toward meeting primary recreation-tourism market demands to sustain distinctive recreation setting 

characteristics. However, major investments in visitor services can be authorized both to sustain those distinctive setting 

characteristics and to maintain visitor freedom to choose where to go and what to do; all in response to demonstrated 

demand for undeveloped recreation.

The planning area presently has five Special Recreation Management Areas (North Missouri Breaks, Sweet Grass Hills, 

South Phillips, Little Rocky Mountains, and South Valley) as shown in the Recreation section of Chapter 2 and on 

Map 2.9.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

326 Renewable Energy Resources

Extensive Recreation Management Areas

Extensive Recreation Management Areas also have recreational values with development potential but require less 

intensive recreation management than Special Recreation Management Areas. Management of these areas focuses on 

supporting and sustaining the principal recreation activities and the associated qualities and conditions of the area, but 

these activities are commensurate with management of other resources and resource uses. Recreational uses that are not 

compatible with other resources may be restricted or constrained to achieve the interdisciplinary objectives of the area.

The planning area presently has three Extensive Recreation Management Areas (Havre, Phillips and Valley) as shown in 

the Recreation section of Chapter 2 and on Map 2.9.

Public Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas

Any BLM lands not designated as a Special Recreation Management area or an Extensive Recreation Management Area

are Lands Not Designated as Recreation Management Areas. This category applies to most of the BLM lands that are 

managed for traditional dispersed recreational use with little or no facility development.

Special Recreation Permits 

The BLM issues Special Recreation Permits (SRPs) for specific recreational uses of BLM land and related waters. The 

permits are a means to manage visitor use, protect natural and cultural resources, and serve as a mechanism to 

accommodate commercial recreational uses. Four types of use require permits: commercial, competitive, organized 

groups/events, and individual or group use in special areas. Most SRPs within the planning area are issued for 

commercial outfitting and guiding to hunt big game, but occasionally SRPs are issued for photography, wildlife viewing, 

horseback trips, fishing and organized group events.

The HiLine District currently administers approximately 14 ongoing commercial SRPs for outfitted upland game bird 

and big game hunting as well as fishing. Outfitting and guiding is one of the uses permitted by the BLM to help satisfy 

public demand for recreational use of BLM land. Some outfitters and guides are ranchers or farmers who provide 

recreation services as a means of economic diversification. Others operate seasonal businesses as outfitters and employ 

some local residents as guides. These seasonal businesses, operating primarily between September and December, are 

permitted to lead a variety of activities, including bird, upland bird, waterfowl, prairie dog, deer, elk, and pronghorn 

hunting. A few permitted outfitters also provide visitors an opportunity for horseback riding and other backcountry 

recreation activities. In recent years, there has been an increase in applications for short-term or one-year SRPs to hold 

special events or organized group events on BLM land. Special events include activities such as organized trail rides and 

bow target shoots. Organized group SRPs are mainly related to eco-tourism activities such as bird-watching tours, 

guided bus tours, and guided nature hikes. These activities normally take place during the spring and summer months.

Renewable Energy Resources

Renewable energy includes biomass, geothermal, solar power, and wind. As demand has increased for clean and viable 

energy to power the nation, consideration of renewable energy sources available on BLM lands has come to the forefront 

of land management planning. In cooperation with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the BLM 

assessed renewable energy resources on BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. Forest Service lands in the western 

United States (BLM and DOE 2003).

Developing renewable energy projects depends on market trends and market value. The demand for renewable energy is 

illustrated by development projects throughout the west on public and private lands. The importance of renewable 

energy sources increases as nonrenewable energy prices increase and as the need grows for more and cleaner energy 

sources.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Renewable Energy Resources 327

The BLM has received inquiries from several individuals and companies regarding renewable energy projects. The 

primary limiting factors in site selection include access to power transmission interconnects, acquisition of permits, and 

power purchase agreements between the producer and owner of the powerlines.

Biomass

Biomass technology creates energy from plants and plant-derived materials. The BLM/NREL study (BLM and DOE 

2003) did not identify the planning area as one of the top 25 BLM potential areas for biomass resources. To date, no 

proposal has been submitted to the BLM for developing biomass energy resources on BLM lands in the planning area.

Geothermal Resources

Geothermal energy is energy that comes from heat stored within the earth. The energy is generated within the earth’s 

core, about 4,000 miles below the surface, and is created by the radioactive decay of minerals, a process that occurs in all 

rocks. In certain states, Nevada is a good example, the BLM administers geothermal leases that involve public land. 

Geothermal resources found on federal mineral estate are considered leasable minerals. As such, the same laws and 

regulations governing other leasable minerals cover exploration and development of geothermal resources. Use of low 

temperature geothermal resources is most common in warm-water heating systems in homes and businesses. Although 

not yet widespread, low temperature geothermal use is increasing as prices for other types of energy increase. Due to a 

variety of geologic processes, shallow geothermal resources underlie substantial portions of many western states,

including lands in the planning area. However, there is presently a low level of interest in developing Montana’s 

federally administered geothermal resources.

Geothermal resources are rated by temperature:

 low temperature – less than 194°F.

 moderate temperature – 194-302°F.

 high temperature – greater than 302°F.

The State of Montana has more than 50 geothermal areas and at least 15 high temperature sites. High temperature areas 

in western Montana are located near Helena, Bozeman, Ennis, Butte, Boulder and White Sulphur Springs. Seven 

locations have surface temperatures above 149°F. and 20 locations have surface temperatures above 110°F. The 

estimated deep reservoir temperatures for some Montana sites are over 350°F.

Four principal Montana geothermal sites are located in the planning area at Landusky, Lodgepole, Mountain View, and 

Sleeping Buffalo.

The Little Rocky Mountains area contains considerable warm water (average 75°F.) derived from the Madison Group at 

surface or shallow depths. Drilling in the surrounding area may increase the available flow to 100,000-250,000 L/min 

(Sonderegger and Bergantino 1981). The waters at the Lodgepole spring are warm enough for significant direct heating

(86°F.), but no current commercial development of the resource is occurring. The springs at Landusky have a 

temperature of 69°F. and a flow rate of 628 gpm.

The Mountain View geothermal site, a well located in western Toole County, has a temperature of 114.5°F. The depth 

and flow information are unavailable for this site.

The Sleeping Buffalo “springs” were discovered by a 1928 oil well which intersected pressurized hot water and gas. 

This well was cased and left in place, and the 108°F. water (with gas) flowed to the surface at 700 gallons per minute. A 

large resort complex was built around the well in the 1930s and became a popular destination resort. A new well, 

“Legion Health Plunge 2A,” was drilled in 1958 to a depth of 3,200 feet. This well (API 25071-06384) is completed in 

Mission Canyon Limestone.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

328 Renewable Energy Resources

Solar Power

Concentrating Solar Power

Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology uses sunlight concentrated on a single point to generate power. The 

BLM/NREL study (BLM and DOE 2003) indicates that the potential for this type of renewable energy lies primarily in 

states to the south and southwest of Montana. No BLM lands within the planning area were identified as having 

potential for this type of energy source. To date, no proposal has been submitted to the BLM for developing CSP

facilities on BLM lands in the planning area.

Photovoltaics

Photovoltaic (PV) technology makes use of semiconductors in PV panels (modules) to convert sunlight directly into 

electricity. The BLM/NREL study (BLM and DOE 2003) did not identify the planning area as one of the top 25 

potential areas for PV potential. To date, no proposal has been submitted to the BLM for developing PV facilities on 

BLM lands in the planning area.

Wind

The BLM/NREL study (BLM and DOE 2003) did not identify the planning area as one of the top 25 potential areas for 

wind energy potential; however, due to the increasing interest in wind energy potential in the west and the associated 

applications for wind energy on BLM lands, the BLM prepared a Final Programmatic EIS on Wind-Energy 

Development on BLM-Administered Lands (BLM 2005). The Programmatic EIS categorized BLM lands into areas 

having low, moderate, or high potential for wind energy development from 2005 through 2025 on the basis of their wind 

power classification. Wind power classes range from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest). Wind resources in Class 3 and higher 

could be developed economically with current technology over the next 20 years.

The seven wind power classes are further grouped into three distinct levels: high, moderate and low potential for wind 

power resources (Table 3.38 and Appendix O). Included in the low potential are the poor and marginal wind power 

classes; the fair wind power class is included in the moderate potential; and good, excellent, outstanding and superb are 

grouped within the high potential category. The percent of high potential acres managed by the BLM is 6% of the entire 

planning area (366,000 acres); 22% of moderate potential is managed by the BLM (1,841,000 acres); and 16% of low 

potential is managed by the BLM (235,000 acres).

Table 3.38

Wind Power Classes Converted to Development Potential

Wind

Power Class

Resource Potential

(Utility Scale)

50m Wind Power 

Density (W/m2)

Development 

Potential

(20 Years)

Percent of

Planning Area

(all ownerships)

Percent of 

Development 

Potential that is 

BLM Surface 

Ownership

1 Poor 0-200

Low 9% 16%

2 Marginal 200-300

3 Fair 300-400 Moderate 52% 22%

4 Good 400-500

High 39% 6%

5 Excellent 500-600

6 Outstanding 600-800

7 Superb >800
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Social 329

The Western Renewable Energy Zones – Phase 1 Report identified two qualified resource areas (QRAs) in the planning 

area (WGA and DOE 2009). Qualified resource areas represent those lands with the greatest energy density within a 

contiguous area. The QRAs are located in the western and central part of the planning area (Appendix O). One of the 

QRAs (MT_NW) includes the Sweet Grass Hills and Kevin Rim ACECs and areas west and southwest of the ACECs. 

The other QRA (MT_NE) includes BLM land in the Little Rocky Mountains and areas northwest and southwest of the 

mountains. The QRAs include about 3,052,200 acres, of which 1,723,000 acres (56%) are within the planning area and 

about 31,000 acres (1%) are BLM land (Table 3.39).

Table 3.39

Qualified Resource Areas for Renewable Energy

(Acres)

Name Total Area Planning Area BLM Land

MT_NW 2,001,870 1,092,856 15,999

MT_NE 1,050,316 630,150 15,125

Total 3,052,186 1,723,006 31,123

Approximately 2,248,000 acres of BLM surface lands are open to commercial wind energy development without use 

limitations, and approximately 189,000 acres are subject to exclusion limitations. The wind energy development 

potential across the HiLine planning area is shown in Table 3.40.

Table 3.40

Wind Energy Development Potential

Wind Potential

Total Surface

(acres)

BLM Surface

(acres) % BLM

High 6,145,000 365,000 6%

Moderate 8,275,000 1,839,000 22%

Low 1,452,000 233,000 16%

Total 15,872,000 2,437,000 15%

Wind energy development in the proximity of the Interstate 15 corridor, where a new transmission line is being 

constructed to make the produced wind energy available for the power grid, is currently limited to isolated development 

on private lands. However, the potential does exist for increased commercial wind energy development, including 

facilities located on BLM lands. Currently, the BLM does not have any pending authorizations for wind site testing and 

monitoring or wind farms. The Programmatic EIS (BLM 2005) will be used by the BLM when considering development 

of commercial wind energy projects on BLM lands in the planning area.

Social

This section discusses the social conditions in the planning area, with a particular emphasis on the counties where the 

majority of the BLM surface and subsurface acreage is located. The planning area encompasses over 2.4 million acres in 

Blaine, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, Phillips, Toole and Valley Counties. The majority of the surface and subsurface 

acreage is located in the eastern part of the planning area in Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties. Data for the planning 

area as a whole and the State of Montana are included for comparison purposes.

Social Trends and Attitudes

This section focuses on social trends and attitudes that affect BLM land management. One trend is the increasing 

popularity of BLM land for recreation. A comprehensive report on recreation by Cordell, et al. (1999) indicates 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 having the greatest increases. Another trend is a concern over
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

330 Social

maintaining access to BLM land if access through private land is required to reach the BLM land. In addition, the 

general public’s loss of access to some private land is putting more pressure on the BLM land. These changes are linked 

to the pursuit of a quality recreation experience and occur for a variety of reasons: lands are purchased for recreation or 

other reasons and are closed to others; lands are leased to outfitters for exclusive use; and private lands and roads are 

closed to avoid problems with safety, fire, fences, weeds, litter, and open gates.

Another trend that is occurring in the nation and Montana is the aging of the population. In 2008, 14.2% of the 

population in the planning area was 65 or older. For the state as a whole, the percentage of population 65 or older is 

expected to increase to 18.7% by 2020 (NPA Data Services 2008). 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 not available locally.

Changes in the management of BLM land are just one aspect of a broader debate on environmental and resource 

management that is occurring locally, nationally and globally. Social values for lands and natural resources can take 

many forms such as commodity, amenity, environmental quality, ecological recreation, and spiritual. While the 

commodity value 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, et al. 2001).

In the rural West, in places where land use has been relatively unrestricted, concern is being expressed by some 

individuals and groups regarding the control and management of BLM land. People with these concerns feel that change 

in BLM land management is being driven by government officials and environmental advocacy groups who do not have 

a true understanding of the lands or the people living nearby who depend upon these lands for their livelihood and 

recreation. Of particular concern is the loss of uses of the land such as hardrock mining, livestock grazing, and offhighway vehicle use. People with these concerns seek to balance what they consider to be environmental extremism 

with economic and human concerns. They may feel that local elected officials who deal with their problems on a daily 

basis are better equipped to make decisions about BLM land.

Bison reintroduction has become a concern to people interested in preserving the role of cattle ranching and the 

associated lifestyle in Phillips and adjacent counties. The idea of a “Buffalo Commons” replacing cattle ranching with 

native prairie and wildlife over large landscapes in the Great Plains was introduced in the latter 1980s (Popper and 

Popper 1987). Since the publication of the initial paper, many additional papers have addressed this subject, some of 

them specifically looking at Phillips County (Atlas of Bison Conservation: Economic and Demographic Conditions, 

Human Activities, and Opportunities for Conservation (Headwaters Economics 2008); The Prairie Foundation: 

Socioeconomic Impacts on Valley and Phillips Counties (Bioeconomics 2002); New Direction for the Prairie Economy: 

Connecting Conservation and Rural Development in the Northern Great Plains (WWF 2009). This proposal was met 

with skepticism from the residents of these rural areas. 

In 2001 the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) helped form the American Prairie Foundation (APF), a Montana-based land 

trust (originally named The Prairie Foundation). The APF goal is to assemble a “multi-million acre wildlife reserve. 

Called the American Prairie Reserve, this American treasure will one day become larger than Yellowstone National Park 

and rival in splendor the Serengeti of Africa and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. . . . Over time APF intends to 

utilize conservation easements to ensure the protection of the natural resources of the Reserve in perpetuity.” (APF 2009) 

The APF states that setting aside an area for bison will offer public benefits at the local and regional levels which include

access to land for hunting and other recreational purposes, increased economic activity related to its diverse programs, 

and enhanced historical, cultural and educational opportunities (APF 2009).

In 2004, the APF purchased property in Phillips County and in 2005, bison were brought in from the Wind River Cave 

National Park in South Dakota. By the spring of 2010, with additional animal reintroductions and births, the bison herd 

size had grown to over 200 animals (WWF 2010). The BLM changed the livestock class from cattle to bison on two 

grazing leases associated with the APF land and all bison that graze on BLM land are considered livestock. Based on the 

BLM’s 2008 Middle Box Elder Environmental Assessment (MT-090-08-19) on the change in class of livestock for the 

allotment in south Phillips County, the BLM has recommended that APF not seek further changes in class of livestock 

on additional BLM grazing allotments. 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Social 331

Phillips County residents and local ranching-related groups have expressed concerns with setting aside a multi-million 

acre area for bison. They are concerned that managing for bison will do nothing to enhance local communities and they 

do not want the area to become a service economy. They also indicate that the loss of family ranches through the 

purchase of land would intensify the ongoing population loss in the area. People feel local ranchers who may want to 

purchase land cannot always compete with the prices that can be paid by nonprofit organizations that may not need to 

make a profit from the ranch livestock operation. This could inhibit the ability of younger people to set up a family 

ranch operation. Other concerns include bison passing disease to cattle, and the logistics of managing bison. There is 

some concern that if there is an attempt to change the class of livestock from bison back to cattle in the future, the BLM

and/or ranch operation may be required to invest in rebuilding the necessary infrastructure (interior and boundary fences) 

to support cattle grazing. Ranchers in this area feel they have taken good care of the land and this is why this land is 

considered so desirable. Residents and ranching groups indicate the BLM did not give enough thought to changing 

leases from cattle to bison. Added to these concerns are the ongoing purchase of large ranches or ranch operations by 

people living out of state and the uncertainty caused by the Department of the Interior’s 2008 Bison Conservation 

Initiative.

Social Study Area Counties and Communities

The 2010 population of the planning area was 61,084, a decrease of 2.4% since 2000. During the decade 1990-2000, the 

planning area's population grew 1.2%. The population in the planning area is expected to decrease 6% between 2000 

and 2020. The area is sparsely populated, with 2.2 persons per square mile, compared to an average for the state of 6.8

persons per square mile. The population of the planning area was 67.0% white and 29.7% Native American in 2010. 

The remaining 3.3% includes Asian and Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, and people of two or more races. The 

Native American populations are concentrated in Blaine (49.4% Native American) and Glacier (65.8% Native American) 

Counties. The median family income in the planning area is lower than the state average ($37,137 versus $43,948), and 

the percentage of persons below the poverty level is higher (18.4% versus 14.1%). Additional demographic information 

may be found in Table 3.41.

Blaine County

Blaine County is located along the HiLine in northcentral Montana adjacent to the Canadian border. It is bordered by 

Hill and Chouteau Counties to the west, the Missouri River to the south, and Phillips County to the east. The Upper 

Missouri River Breaks National Monument, which is managed by the BLM, occupies the southern part of the county but 

is not part of this planning effort. Blaine County is home to the majority of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation which is 

located in the southeast portion of the county. About 12% of Blaine County is federal land (including the BLM and U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service), 20% is Indian Reservation land, 7% is state land and 61% is private land. The BLM manages 

299,201 surface acres and 615,688 subsurface acres in the Blaine County portion of the planning area. (These figures do 

not include the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.)

Blaine County had a 2010 population of 6,491, a 7.4% decrease since 2000. The population is expected to continue to 

decline in the future. Of the planning area counties, Blaine has one of the lower percentages of population 65 and over, 

and the second highest percentage of Native Americans. Chinook, the county seat, had a 2010 population of 1,203, a 

decline of 13.2% since 2000. Havre, the largest town along the HiLine with a 2010 population of 9,310, is located about 

20 miles west of Chinook in Hill County. Blaine County is home to the larger part of the Fort Belknap Indian 

Reservation. In 2007, Blaine County had 655 farms and ranches with an average size of 3,588 acres (U.S. Census of 

Agriculture 2007). Farming or ranching was the primary occupation of 56% of those identifying themselves as farm or 

ranch operators.

See the Social section, Affected Groups and Individuals, for discussions of the attitudes and lifestyles of local residents 

including Ranchers/Livestock Permittees, Native Americans, Recreationists, and Local Communities. See the Cultural 

section under Historical Overview for a discussion of the history of the area.

Phillips County

Phillips County is located along the HiLine in northern Montana adjacent to the Canadian border. It is bordered by 

Blaine County to the west, the Missouri River to the south, and Valley County to the east. The Charles M. Russell and
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

332 Social

Table 3.41

HiLine Planning Area Demographics

Population and Social Characteristics in 2000, 2008, 2009 and 2010

County Planning 

Area 

Total

State of 

Blaine Chouteau Glacier Hill Liberty Phillips Toole Valley Montana

Population

2010 Population 6,491 5,813 13,399 16,096 2,339 4,253 5,324 7,369 61,084 989,415

Percent Change from 2000-2010 -7.4 -2.6 1.1 -3.5 8.4 -7.6 1.1 -4.0 -2.4 9.7

2000 Population 7,009 5,970 13,246 16,671 2,158 4,601 5,267 7,675 62,597 902,190

Percent Change from 1990-2000 4.2 9.5 9.3 -5.6 -6 -10.9 4.4 4.4 1.2 12.9

Net Migration 2000-2009 -968 -639 -1,018 -1,160 -358 -551 -341 -792 -5,827 42,980

Projection 2020 

(Based on 2000 Census data) 6,180 4,770 13,560 15,480 1,630 3,490 4,740 5,910 55,760 1,078,460

Percent Change from 2000-2020 

(Based on 2000 Census data) -5.0 -9.5 1.9 -6.3 -5.8 -11.9 -8.5 -16.6 -6.0 10.3

Demographics

Persons / Sq. Mi. 2010 1.5 1.5 4.5 5.6 1.6 0.8 2.8 1.5 2.2 6.8

Percent 65 and Over 2009 13.4 19.9 10.2 12.1 23.6 21.7 14.4 21.4 17.1 14.6

Percent White 2010 48.2 75.8 31.1 73.9 98.2 87.0 92.0 87.0 67.0 89.4

Percent Native American and

Alaska Native 2010 49.4 21.8 65.6 21.7 0.2 8.3 4.5 9.8 29.7 6.3

Income and Poverty

Median Household Income 2008 $32,601 $40,588 $36,0149 $40,341 $35,663 $35,229 $37,175 $39,344 $37,137 $43,948 

Percent Persons Below Poverty 

Level 2008

24.0 16.2 25.5 18.2 17.2 16.1 15.8 14.5 18.4 14.1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, various dates.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Social 333

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuges, which are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are located in southern 

Phillips County. A portion of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument is also located in the southwestern 

part of the County. Phillips County is home to a small part of the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. About 41% of 

Phillips County is federal land (including BLM, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 4% is 

Indian Reservation land, 6% is state land and 49% is private land. The BLM manages 1,029,362 surface acres and 

1,744,612 subsurface acres in the Phillips County portion of the planning area. (These figures do not include the Upper 

Missouri Breaks National Monument.)

Phillips County had a 2010 population of 4,253, a decline of 7.6% since 2000. The county lost over 10% of its 

population between 1990 and 2000 due to the closing of gold mines in the Little Rocky Mountains. The population of 

Phillips County is projected to continue to decrease in the future. Malta, the county seat, had a 2010 population of 1,997, 

a decrease of 5.8% since 2000. Phillips County has one of the highest populations in the planning area of persons aged 

65 years and older, 21.7% of the population in 2009. In 2007, Phillips County was home to 556 farms and ranches with 

an average size of 3,608 acres (U.S. Census of Agriculture 2007). Farming or ranching was the primary occupation of 

65% of those identifying themselves as farm or ranch operators.

See the Social section, Affected Groups and Individuals, for discussions of the attitudes and lifestyles of local residents 

including Ranchers/Livestock Permittees, Native Americans, Recreationists, and Local Communities. See the Cultural 

section under Historical Overview for a discussion of the history of the area.

Valley County

Valley County is located along the HiLine in northeastern Montana adjacent to the Canadian border. It is bordered by 

Phillips County to the west, the Missouri River to the south, and Roosevelt and Daniels Counties to the east. The 

Charles M Russell National Wildlife Refuge and Fort Peck Dam are located in southern Valley County. Valley County 

is home to the eastern edge of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation. About 46% of Valley County is federal land (including 

BLM, Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 9% is state land and 44% is private land. The BLM 

manages 1,013,209 surface acres and 1,351,730 subsurface acres in the Valley County portion of the planning area.

Valley County is the easternmost county in the planning area. The 2010 population was 7,369, a decline of 4.0% since

2010. Valley County’s population is projected to continue to decline in the future. The county seat and largest city in 

the county is Glasgow, with a 2010 population of 3,250, a less than 1% decrease in population since 2000. Valley

County has one of the highest populations in the planning area of persons aged 65 years and older, 21.4% of the 

population in 2009. In 2007, Valley County was home to 770 farms and ranches with an average size of 2,677 acres 

(U.S. Census of Agriculture 2007). Farming or ranching was the principal occupation of 58% of those identifying 

themselves as farm or ranch operators in Valley County.

See the Social section, Affected Groups and Individuals, for discussions of the attitudes and lifestyles of local residents 

including Ranchers/Livestock Permittees, Native Americans, Recreationists, and Local Communities. See the Cultural 

section under Historical Overview for a discussion of the history of the area.

Affected Groups and Individuals

Discussions of affected groups and individuals are included to facilitate the assessment of social impacts. The following 

groups will be assessed: ranchers/livestock permittees, local communities, recreationists (including motorized and 

nonmotorized), groups and individuals who prioritize resource protection, groups and individuals who prioritize resource 

use, and Native Americans. It should be noted that these groups are not mutually exclusive and examples of households 

that fit into all categories are likely to be present. For example, many local community residents engage in a variety of 

motorized and nonmotorized recreation activities, and ranchers are very concerned about the continued health of the 

rangeland.

In many cases the social effects are described in terms of effects to quality of life which could include the amount and 

quality of available resources such as recreation opportunities and resolution of problems related to resource activities. 

Other, less tangible beliefs that could affect social well-being include individuals having a sense of control over the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

334 Social

decisions that affect their future, and feeling that the government strives to act in ways that consider all stakeholders’ 

needs.

Ranchers/Livestock Permittees

Ranching is an important part of the history, culture, and economy of the HiLine. The Great Northern Railway brought 

European immigrants to the northern Great Plains to homestead. While the Homestead Act was signed in 1862, many 

settlers arrived in Montana during a ten-year period from 1908-1918 prompted by the advertising campaign of the 

railroads. By 1918, many ranches and farms were crippled by the drought and onslaught of grasshoppers and settlers left 

the land. See the Historical Overview in the Cultural section, the Livestock Grazing section and the Economic section of 

this chapter for more information on livestock grazing and BLM grazing permits.

Many of the farmers and ranchers in the planning area are third and fourth generation farmers and ranchers who enjoy 

living off the land, being self-employed, working outdoors, and living a rural lifestyle. They pride themselves in 

“keeping the ranch in the family” and conserving and improving the land. Many farmers and ranchers view their 

farming and ranching enterprise not only in economic terms, but also consider the ecological and cultural “products” that 

their farm or ranch contribute to society. They are very concerned about maintaining the health of the range because 

their livelihood and lifestyle depend on it and about enhancing the ability of younger people to set up a family ranching 

operation because the local ranching communities and rural schools depend on this. The closeness to the land and link 

with their parents and grandparents makes ranching a precious opportunity to provide children with a heritage filled with 

values that many families wish to duplicate. Lessons taught by drought, floods, wildfire, predators, depressed markets, 

and life and death are learned through ranching experiences.

Ranchers and farmers face many challenges today, including changing federal regulations, aging rancher populations, 

economic issues, trends in agricultural practices, and changing land use. In the past, many small farms and ranches have 

been consolidated into larger units that can better compete in the marketplace. In addition, many ranchers have 

diversified their income by seeking supplemental work off the ranch, providing outfitting and guest ranch services, 

and/or diversifying their output. See also the discussion in this section at the end of Social Trends and Attitudes 

regarding ranching concerns.

Concerns expressed by ranchers and livestock permittees include continuation of current BLM management for livestock 

grazing as well as maintaining motorized access to their allotments, future designation of relinquished allotments as 

reserve common allotments, and changing livestock class from cattle to bison.

Scoping comments from those concerned with livestock grazing include: Grazing in the Malta area is an integral part 

of the area’s economy and should receive special consideration as its own planning issue. With good water development 

and sound grazing management plans that include a rest rotation, grazing can benefit the area. More emphasis should 

be placed on range management and grazing.

Recreationists – Including Motorized and Nonmotorized

Recreation is a component of most lifestyles in the planning area and is important to many residents. Recreationists are 

very diverse and changes in management can affect the people who engage in the various activities differently. 

Recreational activities include OHV use, hunting, fishing, wildlife watching, sightseeing and hiking. See the Recreation 

section of this chapter for more information on recreation areas and activities.

Some scoping comments on recreation concerned the potential loss of activities such as OHVs on roads, primitive roads

and trails and traveling off road to retrieve game. Some commenters discussed the importance of motorized recreation to 

their lifestyles. 

Scoping comments from OHV proponents include: I believe off road travel should be allowed for hunting. There are a 

large number of people who are not in shape due to age, etc., to walk several miles and drag an animal back to a 

vehicle. I’ve talked to several who are quitting hunting for this reason. With no hunting, us landowners will be overrun 

with deer and antelope. As far as damage from the land, you can find very little that came from off road travel.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Social 335

The HiLine is well known for its hunting and fishing opportunities. In addition, visitors/tourists are increasingly drawn 

to the area to observe wildlife.

Scoping comments from recreationists include: Hunting, angling, and general outdoor recreation has a substantial 

economic and historical legacy on the public lands. Please recognize the cultural values of hunting, fishing, and 

sustainable fish and wildlife and the need for maximum measures to ensure their future and not sacrifice it for energy 

production.

Many outfitting guides specialize in providing accommodations and services for hunting, fishing and other recreational 

activities. While outfitting provides additional jobs to the economy and supplemental income to many ranches, some 

locals are concerned that outfitters are to blame for the closure of private access to public lands, thus giving them 

unparalleled access to prime hunting. They feel that landowners, present or absentee, are blocking road access and 

outfitters are paying for the privilege to access public lands through private lands.

One scoping comment indicated: Identify public land that cannot be accessed by the public where outfitting takes place 

and seek opportunities to secure access to these areas.

Groups and Individuals Who Prioritize Resource Protection

A variety of groups and individuals give resource protection in the planning area a high priority. Resource protection 

groups with a direct interest in the planning area include the Sweet Grass Hills Protective Association, American Prairie 

Foundation, and The Nature Conservancy. The latter two groups are concerned with native prairie restoration. The 

following concerns were among those received from these groups and individuals during scoping: habitat for wildlife 

including special status species, riparian health, noxious weed management, energy and mineral development, 

transportation management, and special management designations.

One scoping comment indicated: The Malta RMP planning area is an American treasure. Not all of the public will see 

it that way, of course. For some it will be a “wasteland” or a land with “nothing out there.” Others will view it as a 

revenue source, principally from oil and gas, wind power, or grazing. But increasingly, people recognize the prairie of 

northern Montana as a dramatic, scenic and historic landscape still embracing significant natural tracts and offering 

tremendous potential for prairie restoration.

Groups and Individuals Who Prioritize Resource Use

Some groups and individuals including many local residents have expressed concerns about the potential limitations to 

oil and gas and other types of development within the planning area. Some indicated that oil and gas development, along 

with wind powered development, would bring an economic boost to the area, including jobs and revenue. Others 

indicated that these resources can be developed in an environmentally friendly manner.

One scoping comment indicated: The oil and gas need to be developed so we have lower energy costs and also are 

creating revenue. Any time we can produce something from our natural resources, for example, cattle from the grass or 

oil and gas from the ground, we are creating wealth for the United States. It does this because the money is spent here 

and we don’t have to import the products.

Local Communities

The planning area is rural and largely unpopulated, with an agricultural-based lifestyle that is highly prized by the 

residents. Some of the qualities the residents find most satisfying are the good people, small close-knit communities, 

natural beauty and wide open spaces, and the feeling this is a good place to raise children. Residents have indicated a 

willingness to forego amenities found in more urban environments (e.g., more available medical care, higher incomes 

and employment levels, etc.) to pursue what they consider a high quality of life. The area experiences a low crime rate, 

fewer social problems than larger urban areas, and plentiful uncrowded outdoor recreation opportunities. 

Small rural communities can be tied to the BLM and other public lands in a variety of ways. Local businesses and 

governments depend upon BLM employees to support businesses and public services. Use of public lands for recreation 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

336 Social

activities, livestock grazing, minerals/energy development, and other activities can provide economic and leisure-time 

opportunities.

While planning area residents feel this way of life is desirable, they observe with real concern the rate of population 

outmigration from the area and the lack of opportunity for employment. These values and concerns can lead to conflicts 

in resource issues. Generally, residents are in favor of economic growth through resource development or other industry 

because it would provide employment for them or their children and would promote overall economic well-being. On 

the other hand, they wish to continue to enjoy the outdoor recreational opportunities associated with a sparse population 

and a largely pristine environment.

One scoping comment indicated: It is vital to the local stakeholders that issues directly impacting their properties, 

livelihoods and communities be handled appropriately. While all uses should be considered the BLM must ensure that 

the balance between more recently developed uses such as recreation, and other uses that have endured over the years 

and support the local economy, be given special consideration.

Native Americans

Indian tribes with an interest in the planning area include the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, the Fort 

Belknap Indian Community, the Chippewa Cree Tribes, the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Fort Peck Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes, the Little Shell Tribe of the Chippewa Indians, the Crow Tribe, the Blackfeet Nation, and the Confederated 

Salish and Kootenai Tribes. These tribes are either located within or close to the planning area or, on occasion, visit 

locations within the planning area that are of particular cultural and spiritual significance. Areas of particular spiritual

interest to many of the tribes include the Sweet Grass Hills in the western part of the planning area and the Little Rocky 

Mountains in the central part of the planning area. Other sites within the planning area that have cultural and religious 

significance include vision quest sites, ceremonial and/or dance grounds, rock art sites and plant gathering areas. See the 

Cultural section of this chapter for a more detailed discussion of the cultural features and Native American history of the 

planning area.

Three Indian reservations are located in the planning area, and one is located directly to the east of the planning area. 

The Blackfeet Reservation is located on the western edge of the planning area predominately in Glacier County, and 

encompasses 2,371 square miles. The Native American population of the reservation was 8,944 in 2010. Browning is 

the hub of the reservation, with a population of 1,016 in 2010. Ranching and farming are major uses of reservation land.

The Rocky Boy’s Reservation is located in Chouteau and Hill Counties, encompasses 171 square miles, and is home to 

members of the Chippewa-Cree Tribe. In 2010 the Native American population of the reservation was 3,221. Box Elder 

is the largest community within the reservation with a population of 87 people in 2010. Many community and tribal 

services are located in Box Elder. Tribal government, education, and medical/social services employ many of the tribal 

members.

The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation is located in Phillips and Blaine Counties and is home to the Gros Ventre and 

Assiniboine Tribes. The reservation encompasses 1,014 square miles and 2,704 Native Americans lived on the 

reservation in 2010. There are several unincorporated communities on the reservation including Fort Belknap Agency, 

Lodgepole, and Hayes. The 2010 populations of these communities were 1,293, 265, and 843 respectively. Many 

community services are located in Harlem, which had a 2010 population of 808. Harlem is located just north of the 

reservation. The Tribes and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are the largest employers on the reservation.

The Fort Peck Reservation is located directly east of the planning area. The reservation is home to the Sioux and 

Assiniboine Tribes. The reservation encompasses approximately 3,289 square miles and was home to 6,714 Native 

Americans in 2010. Tribal governments and associated services are located in Poplar, which had a population of 810 in 

2010. The largest community on the reservation is Wolf Point, with a 2010 population of 2,621.

According to scoping comments, the Sweet Grass Hills are of religious importance to many of the northern plains tribes,

contain many medicinal and ceremonial plants, and should be protected The Sweet Grass Hills were designated as an 

ACEC in 1992 and withdrawn from mineral entry for twenty years in 1996. An effort headed by a member of the 

Blackfeet Tribe is underway to place the Sweet Grass Hills on the National Register of Historic Landmarks. One 

commenter in the scoping process stated that the “Sweet Grass Hills is our church.”
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Soil Resources 337

One scoping comment indicated: There are four Indian reservations—home to seven tribes—within or close to the RMP 

area. Other tribes have close historical ties to the region. The BLM should reach out to Native interests to ensure that 

sites of cultural and historical importance are respected and protected.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, requires identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 

effects of federal programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations.

Native Americans represent about 30% of the population in the planning area and their populations are concentrated in 

Blaine and Glacier Counties. Blaine and Glacier Counties also had the highest percentage of persons living below the 

poverty level in 2008, with figures of 24.0% and 25.5%, respectively, as shown in Table 3.42.

Table 3.42

Income and Poverty Statistics (2008)

County

Median Household

Income

Percent of Population 

Living in Poverty 

Blaine $32,605 24.0%

Chouteau $40,588 16.2%

Glacier $36,149 25.5%

Hill $40,341 18.2%

Liberty $35,663 17.2%

Phillips $35,229 16.1%

Toole $37,175 15.8%

Valley $39,344 14.5%

Montana $43,948 14.1%

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Quickfacts (2009).

Soil Resources

Stable and quality soils in the planning area provide the foundation for other resources (e.g., biological resources) and for

resource uses (e.g., livestock grazing). Soils are also an engineering medium upon which roads, trails, facilities, etc. are 

built. Soil is a living system that is linked to nutrient and hydrologic cycles, energy flows, and other ecological 

processes.

Indicators of soil resource condition include both visual and nonvisual factors. Visual indicators include evidence of soil 

loss (water and wind erosion) or transport (mass movement, slope failure, deposition), and changes in soil profile 

(thickness, structure). Some indicators are indirect. These include changes in vegetation (species, abundance, seral 

stage), changes in drainage, and changes in land use (grazing, cultivation, development). Changes outside the normal 

range are identified by comparison to historical observations or to similar (control, reference) areas.

Nonvisual indicators of soil condition include soil chemistry (pH, salinity, sodium absorption ratio (SAR)), physical 

properties (permeability and infiltration rates, moisture retention), and yield or productivity.

Data sources include soil survey data, rangeland health assessments, field observations, vegetation monitoring, grazing 

allotment evaluations, and baseline data provided from previous NEPA analyses.

Soils in the planning area are derived mainly from glacial till, weathered sedimentary or igneous bedrock and alluvium 

from mixed sources. These parent materials, along with variable climate, topography, vegetation, and management 

create complex and diverse soil patterns, varying greatly in suitability, limitation and productivity characteristics.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

338 Soil Resources

Detailed soil surveys have been published by the United States Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) for Blaine-Soil Survey Area (SSA) 608 (USDA-NRCS 1986), Chouteau-SSA 615 

(USDA-NRCS 2003), Glacier-SSA 600 (USDA-NRCS 1980), Hill-SSA 041 (USDA-NRCS 2003), Liberty-SSA 051 

(USDA-NRCS 2002), Phillips-SSA 641 (USDA-NRCS 2004), Toole-SSA 101 (USDA-NRCS 2002) and Valley-SSA 

105 (USDA-NRCS 1984). These soil surveys were performed by the NRCS according to National Cooperative Soil 

Survey standards and were conducted at the second and third order of detail. Spatial (State Soil Geographic 

[STATSGO] and Soil Survey Geographic [SSURGO]) and tabular soil datasets are available on the internet at the 

following site: http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. This website provides up-to-date spatial data as well as interpretive 

ratings and soil characteristics for each soil map unit (SMU).

Suitability and limitations of soils for specific proposed actions (including, but not limited to range improvements, 

mineral development, roads or rights-of-way locations) are determined by conducting site-specific soil investigations. 

Soils are investigated to determine erosion hazard and reclamation suitability by evaluating slope and soil properties such 

as texture, organic matter content, structure, permeability, depth, available water capacity, and salt concentration.

Soils in the planning area are grouped geographically by Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs) for descriptive purposes

(see Map W.10, which is available on the internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd). The following descriptions of MLRA are 

derived from the USDA Agriculture Handbook 296 (NRCS 2006).

Brown Glaciated Plain (MLRA 52) is generally covered by glacial till plains. Glacial till ranges from a few feet to 

about 200 feet thick and is generally underlain by clayey and loamy shale. Landscapes range from nearly level to gently 

rolling and strongly rolling to steep along drainageways. Alluvial deposits are extensive alog the Milk River, but occur 

in narrow and discontinuous strips along other streams and rivers. Shale, siltstone, or sandstone bedrock can be exposed 

along the valley walls of deeply dissected drainages. Upland potholes, valley bottoms, terraces, and fans are common 

inclusions. Soils are dominantly well developed, moderately deep to very deep (from 20 to more than 60 inches) and 

well drained. Textures generally vary from loamy to clayey. The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Alfisols, 

Entisols, and Mollisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an ustic soil moisture 

regime, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. Natrustalfs (Elloam and Thoeny series) and Haplustalfs (Phillips series) 

formed in till on till plains. Ustorthents (Hillon and Sunburst series) formed in till on till plains and hills. Argiustolls 

formed in till on till plains and hills (Bearpaw, Joplin, Scobey, Telstad, and Vida series) and in alluvium on alluvial fans, 

stream terraces, and hills (Ethridge and Evanston series). Erosion hazards are slight to moderate due to the relatively 

gentle rolling topography, short slope lengths.

Black Elk Coulee, Blaine County Photo by Craig Miller
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Soil Resources 339

Northern Dark Brown Glaciated Plans (MLRA 53A) is covered by glacial till plains. The gently undulating to rolling 

till plains in this area are interrupted by more strongly rolling and steep slopes adjacent to kettle holes, kames, moraines,

and major stream valleys. The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are Inceptisols and Mollisols. The soils in the area 

dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an ustic soil moisture regime, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. 

They generally are very deep, moderately well drained or well drained, and clayey or loamy. Calciustepts (Zahill series), 

Natrustolls (Niobell series), and Calciustolls (Zahl series) formed in till on till plains and moraines. Haplustolls (Tally 

series) formed in eolian deposits, alluvium, or glaciofluvial deposits on fans, terraces, and outwash plains and in 

drainageways. Argiustolls formed in till (Vida and Williams series) and mixed till and alluvium (Bowbells series) on till 

plains, moraines, and hills. Argiustolls also formed in alluvium or eolian deposits over till (Dooley series), alluvium 

(Turner series), and alluvium, lacustrine deposits, or glaciofluvial deposits (Farnuf series) on lake plains, fans, and 

terraces and in drainageways.

Northern Rolling High Plains, Northern Part (MLRA 58A) consists of eroded plateaus and terraces. Slopes 

generally are gently rolling to steep, with areas of steeply sloping badlands bordering the larger streams and rivers. 

Marine and continental sediments of the Cretaceous Montana Group underlie this MLRA. The Montana Group includes 

the Bearpaw shale; Judith River sandstone, siltstone and shale; Claggett shale; Eagle sandstone; and Telegraph Creek 

sandy shale. Soils are mostly fine textured, high in smectitic 2:1 clays, and shallow to moderately deep (from 10 to over 

40 inches). Soils are loamy or sandy where high sandstone ridges occur. The dominant soil orders in this MLRA are 

Entisols and Inceptisols. The soils in the area dominantly have a frigid soil temperature regime, an ustic soil moisture 

regime, and mixed or smectitic mineralogy. Ustorthents formed in residuum on hills and ridges (Cabbart, Neldore, and 

Yawdim series) and in alluvium on fans and terraces (Lambert series). Ustifluvents (Havre series) formed in alluvium 

on fans, terraces, and flood plains. Haplustepts (Delpoint and Yamacall series) formed in alluvium, eolian deposits, and 

residuum on terraces, fans, and hills. Natrustalfs (Gerdrum series) and Haplustolls (Shambo series) formed in alluvium 

and glaciofluvial deposits on fans and terraces and in drainageways. These soils can have severe erosion hazards and 

have poor reclamation suitability because of the dominance of steep and very steep slopes (greater than 20% slope) and 

extreme physical properties such as high clay content, slow permeability, and shallow depth and sparse vegetative 

ground cover. Soils are generally low in organic matter and high in sodium and soluble salts.

Northern Rocky Mountain Foothills (MLRA 46), Northern Rocky Mountains (MLRA 43A), and Central Rocky 

Mountains (MLRA 43B) are characterized by rugged hills and low mountains to rugged glaciated mountains and thrustand-block faulted mountains. The bedrock formations range from Precambrian to Cretaceous in age. Rocks consist of 

shale, siltstone, sandstone, limestone, dolomite, argillite, quartzite, gneiss, schist, and granite. These areas receive more 

precipitation than the other MLRAs (15 to over 20 inches annually); therefore, vegetative cover is higher. Soils are 

shallow to very deep, very poorly drained to well drained, and have most of the soil texture classes. The dominant soil 

orders in these MLRAs are Mollisol, Entisol, Andisols, Inceptisols, and Alfisols. Mineralogy is mixed or smectitic. 

Erosion hazards are slight to severe. Shallow soils are difficult to reclaim after surface-disturbing activities.

Table 3.43 lists the dominant STATSGO soil map units in the planning area and the dominant associated MLRA and 

acreages. These units total 69% of the entire surface acreage in the planning area (all ownerships).

Water Erosion

Water erosion is a function of many factors including: soil erodibility; slope gradient; length of slope; rainfall amount, 

duration, and intensity; and vegetation cover. Erosion hazard is the susceptibility of soil to erosion. 

The soil erodibility factor (Kw) quantifies soil detachment by runoff and raindrop impact. This erodibility factor is an 

index used to predict the long-term average soil loss, from sheet and rill erosion. The Kw factor applies to the whole 

soil, which includes rock fragments and is based primarily on the percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter, soil 

structure, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and rock fragments. Values of Kw range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors 

being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet erosion by water (USDA-NRCS 2007).

Slope gradient is the difference in elevation between two points, expressed as a percentage of the difference between 

those points. Representative Value (RV) Slope indicates the expected slope value for a given SMU (USDA-NRCS 

2007). For example, the Lisam-Dilts clays, 8% to 35% slopes SMU has a RV slope of 22%.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

340 Soil Resources

Table 3.43

STATSGO Soil Map Units

Map Unit ID Map Unit Name MLRA Acres

MT036 Vida-Bearpaw-Zahill 52 472,342

MT058 Bowdoin-Marvan-Vaeda 52 111,480

MT071 Leavitt-Burnette-Babb 46 159,916

MT088 Cabbart-Badland-Neldore 58A 104,668

MT102 Cabbart-Delpoint-Rock Outcrop 58A 123,783

MT141 Cowood-Rock Outcrop-Rubble Land 43A 120,500

MT186 Kobar-Ethridge-Marias 52 417,703

MT191 Fairfield-Martinsdale-Cabba 46 336,258

MT245 Harlem-Havre-Lallie 52 196,013

MT257 Harlem-Havre-Lardell 52 195,615

MT270 Hedoes-Castner-Belain 46 377,197

MT277 Hillon-Neldore-Cabbart 52 527,792

MT343 Loberg-Garlet-Evaro 43A 190,954

MT385 Marvan-Vaeda-Marias 52 144,867

MT395 Michelson-Redchief-Adel 46 128,981

MT418 Neldore-Bascovy-Rock Outcrop 58A 235,839

MT422 Neldore-Dilts-Rock Outcrop 52, 58A 449,908

MT423 Neldore-Hillon-Rock Outcrop 52, 58A 148,482

MT425 Neldore-Rock Outcrop-Marvan 52 103,373

MT428 Neldore-Elloam-Sunburst 52, 58A 455,133

MT429 Neldore-Rock Outcrop-Bascovy 58A 343,453

MT453 Phillips-Elloam-Thoeny 52 1,017,617

MT526 Scobey-Kevin-Hillon 52 2,101,449

MT564 Telstad-Joplin-Hillon 52 1,873,105

MT593 Vaeda-Ustic Torriflluvents-Harlem 52 133,608

MT635 Williams-Bearpaw-Vida 52 217,329

MT639 Williams-Zahill-Cabba 46 144,041

MT685 Zahill-Bearpaw-Vida 46 113,307

Source: STATSGO, USDA-NRCS 2007.

Table 3.44

Water Erosion Hazard Ratings

(Acres)

Erosion Hazard Rating Class BLM Land Federal Mineral Estate

Slight 1,254,858 2,270,022

Moderate 206,992 395,147

Severe 816,467 1,513,174

Source: GIS calculated acres using USDA-NRCS's SSURGO datasets (Kw-dominant condition x RV slopedominant condition) downloaded from Soil Data Mart in April and August 2007.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Soil Resources 341

Kw and RV Slope for each named component in a SMU can be found in the respective Soil Survey or on USDANRCS’s Soil Data Mart on the internet at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

The water erosion hazard for bare non-compacted soil is estimated by using the formula: Water Erosion Hazard = Kw 

factor x RV Slope. Water erosion hazard is divided into three rating classes: slight (0 to < 3.21), moderate (3.21 to 7), 

and severe (> 7). Table 3.44 depicts the approximate surface and subsurface acreage amounts associated with each of 

these classes. Figure 3.13 shows water erosion hazard by soil erodibility factor and slope. A map that displays the water 

erosion hazard ratings by SMU (Map W.11) can be found on the internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd. 

Figure 3.13

Water Erosion Hazard by Soil Erodibility Factor and Slope

Wind Erosion

Wind erosion is a critical issue following the removal of protective vegetation which results in the displacement or loss 

of topsoil in some areas, increased sediment deposition in other areas, and impacts to ambient air quality from elevated 

dust levels.

The wind erosion index (WEI) is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the 

tons/acre/year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. This index is divided into three rating classes: slight (0, 

38, 48, 56), moderate (86), and severe (134, 160, 180, 220, 250, 310).

A close correlation exists between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface 

clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind 

erosion (USDA-NRCS 2007).

WEI for each named component in a SMU can be found in the respective Soil Survey or on USDA-NRCS’s Soil Data 

Mart on the internet at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/.

Table 3.45 depicts the approximate surface and subsurface acreage amounts associated with each class. A map that 

displays the wind erosion hazard ratings by SMU (Map W.11) can be found on the internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0.15 0.17 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.37 0.43 0.55 0.64

Slope (%)

Soil Erodibility Factor (Kw)

Severe Water 

Erosion Hazard

Slight Water 

Erosion Hazard

Moderate Water 

Erosion Hazard
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

342 Soil Resources

Table 3.45

Wind Erosion Hazard Ratings

(Acres)

Erosion Hazard

Rating Class BLM Land Federal Mineral Estate

Slight 1,068,818 1,789,134

Moderate 1,294,165 2,283,438

Severe 23,740 90,276

Source: GIS calculated acres using USDA-NRCS's SSURGO datasets

(WEI-dominant condition) downloaded from Soil Data Mart in August 2007.

Reclamation Suitability

Reclamation is the reconstruction of topographic, soil, and plant conditions after disturbance, which may not be identical 

to the predisturbance site, but which permits the degraded land mass to function adequately in the ecosystem of which it 

was and is a part (Munshower 1994). The needs of modern society necessitate that disturbed areas be returned to some 

type of stable ecosystem (not actively eroding) as rapidly as possible (Munshower 1994). Reclamation is not the 

restoration of a site; instead, the long-term objective of reclamation is to set the course for eventual ecosystem restoration 

(BLM 2007b).

Reclamation suitability criteria are based upon the inherent ability of the soil to recover from degradation often referred 

to as soil resilience. The ability to recover from degradation means the ability to restore functional and structural 

integrity after a disturbance. Both the rate and degree of recovery need to be considered. Soil functions that are 

important include sustaining biological activity, diversity and productivity; capture, storage and release of water; storing 

and cycling nutrients and other elements; filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing and detoxifying contaminants; 

and providing support for plant and animal life.

Factors for reclamation suitability include relative risk of water and wind erosion, salinization, sodification, organic 

matter and nutrient depletion, effective precipitation, and the loss of adequate rooting depth to maintain desired plant 

communities. Steep slopes increase the vulnerability to water erosion. Low available water capacity, shallow rooting 

depth, and excess salt or sodium can reduce plant diversity, resistance to stress, and seedling survival. Inadequate 

precipitation limits seedling survival and species selection for reclamation.

Table 3.46 depicts the approximate surface and subsurface acreage amounts associated with each class. A map that 

displays the SMUs with a poorly suited rating (Map W.12) can be found on the internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd. 

Table 3.46

BLM Reclamation Suitability in Montana

(Acres)

Reclamation Suitability

Rating Class BLM Land Federal Mineral Estate

Well Suited 444,658 875,197

Moderately Suited 457,610 853,079

Poorly Suited 1,533,484 2,422,506

Source: GIS calculated acres using NASIS datasets in an Access Database Template

given by USDA-NRCS (Montana State Office -Bozeman) in August 2007.

Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, 

forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and that is available for these uses. It has the combination of soil properties, growing 

season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops in an economic manner if it is treated and 

managed according to acceptable farming methods. In general, prime farmland has an adequate and dependable water 

supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favorable temperature and growing season, an acceptable level of acidity or 

alkalinity, an acceptable content of salt or sodium, and few or no rocks. Its soils are permeable to water and air. Prime 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Solid Minerals 343

farmland is not excessively eroded or saturated with water for long periods of time, and it either does not flood 

frequently during the growing season or is protected from flooding (7 CFR 657.5 (a)). Approximately 15,462 acres of 

potential prime farmland soil mapping units are on BLM lands and approximately 131,598 acres are on the federal 

mineral estate (designated by the USDA-NRCS). Most of the prime farmland occurs along stream and river valleys and 

terraces as well as on gently sloping upland areas. To meet the criteria of a prime farmland unit, most soils on BLM 

lands would require additional moisture, such as dependable irrigation water which is lacking on BLM lands.

Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high value food and fiber 

crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply needed to 

economically produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according 

to acceptable farming methods. Examples of such crops are citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruit, and vegetables 

(7 CFR 657.5 (b)). By definition, no unique farmlands occur within the planning area.

Solid Minerals

Leasable

Mineral resources are managed under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Coal is a leasable solid mineral with occurrence 

potential in the planning area; however, no leases have been issued, no production is occurring, and the potential for 

development is considered to be low enough that there is no interest in obtaining leases. Factors contributing to this lack 

of potential include the poor coal quality as well as the prominence of thin, discontinuous beds which are not amenable 

to surface mining. Much of the coal in the planning area is contained in beds less than five feet thick.

In the western portion of the planning area, small portions of western Liberty, northern Chouteau, and southwestern 

Blaine Counties contain the only assumed recoverable coal deposits. These coal deposits are contained in the Upper 

Cretaceous age Eagle, Judith River and Hell Creek formations and in the Tertiary age Fort Union formation. Past coal 

production in the area was predominantly from numerous, very small underground operations. An estimated 850,000 

tons of coal was mined for local use from the Big Sandy and Milk River coal fields in Blaine County between 1890 and 

1960 (USBOM 1966).

In the eastern portion of the planning area, coal beds are present in the Cretaceous Kootenai formation, the Eagle 

Sandstone, the Judith River formation, and the Fort Union formation. Coal has been reported at one location in the 

Jurassic Morrison formation on the flank of the Little Rocky Mountains uplift near Zortman. Generally, the coal in the 

planning area is classified as sub-bituminous in grade with a British Thermal Unit (BTU) rating of 8,300-11,500 BTUs 

per pound. The most likely area for development would be associated with a small area of Fort Union coal in Valley 

County. The coal there is near the western limit of the Scobey Lignite Field and contains the only strippable coal 

identified in the planning area.

The planning area has no occurrence potential for phosphate, potassium, sodium, asphaltic material or oil shale 

resources. 

Locatable

The General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, allows the location and maintenance of mining claims on those federal 

mineral estate lands open for mining claim location and patent. The BLM manages the Mining Law program on federal 

mineral estate, including lands where the surface is private and the claimant does not receive written consent from the 

surface owner. BLM management includes authorizing and permitting mineral exploration, mining, and reclamation 

actions. For exploration or operations other than casual use, the operator is required to submit a Notice or a Plan of 

Operations under regulations at 43 CFR 3809. These regulations require all operations to be conducted in a manner that 

prevents unnecessary or undue degradation.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

344 Solid Minerals

Management actions may recommend closures to mineral entry by withdrawing areas from further location of mining 

claims or sites and may apply mitigation needed to protect other resource values when conducting activities under the

operation of the mining laws.

Potentially locatable metallic (gold, copper, lead, zinc and silver deposits), nonmetallic (bentonite), and precious to semiprecious (diamond/kimberlite) minerals exist in the planning area (based on historical mining, geology, and known 

deposits). Areas of occurrence of precious metal deposits (gold and silver) are confined to portions of the Sweet Grass 

Hills and the Little Rocky Mountains. Approximately 19,671 acres in the Sweet Grass Hills and 3,505 acres in the Little 

Rocky Mountains are currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry, subject to valid existing rights, which means 

that no new mining claims can be filed on those lands and valid existing claims must be honored. 

Several igneous intrusions about the size of a city block are found near the Missouri River Breaks region of Phillips and 

Blaine Counties. These intrusions originated at extreme depth from within the earth and are called diatremes. The 

composition of these diatremes is similar to kimberlite, which contains diamonds in South Africa and other diamond 

producing areas. To date, sampling and analysis of these diatremes has not revealed any occurrence of diamonds. 

Several mining claims have been located in this area and presumably have been located on these diatremes.

Bentonite is composed of clay minerals from the montmorillonite group. The clay commonly has great ability to absorb 

water and swell from 10 to 15 times its dry volume. Swelling properties of the individual clay minerals determine the 

commercial use of the deposit. Deposits of bentonite are generally created from metamorphism of volcanic ash 

deposited in a marine environment. The geologic formations that contain the most noted bentonite deposits are the 

Bearpaw Shale of the Montana Group, and the Mowry in the Colorado Group. Although bentonite does occur in other 

formations, these are considered to have the necessary thickness and physical properties to contain commercial deposits. 

The Bearpaw Shale in Phillips and Valley Counties contains commercial bentonite deposits. Mineable bentonite in the 

Glasgow area is from a middle member of the Bearpaw formation. The upper and lower bentonite beds in this formation 

are each two to three feet thick. The upper bed has the best quality, but is the most difficult to mine due to limestone and 

iron concretions.

Bentonite can be considered locatable, leasable or salable (under the mining and mineral leasing laws) depending on 

quality of the material and whether the mineral estate is public domain or acquired. At present there are no bentonite 

leases or sale permits within the planning area.

Commercial mining of bentonite has occurred across the state since the turn of the century. Up until the late 1970s the 

general use of bentonite in the Phillips and Valley Resource Areas was pit run bentonitic shale for sealing stock ponds 

and lining canals.

In 1976, Federal Bentonite opened a small processing plant southeast of Glasgow. The bentonite mining claims were 

leased from the Brazil Creek Bentonite Company of Glasgow. This was an open pit mine with plant processing 

capacities of approximately 200,000 tons annually. The final product was used for production of taconite pellets (used in 

iron ore refining). The plant was in production until 1979 and processed less than a million tons of bentonite. Although 

the plant was shut down, bentonite was mined from 1983 through 1985. Federal Bentonite produced approximately 

180,000 tons during that three-year period. The bentonite was solar dried and shipped in bulk by rail.

In 1978, after several years of exploration, American Colloid opened a bentonite processing plant in Malta. This was an 

open pit operation with the capabilities of processing approximately 250,000 tons annually. The final product was used 

for drilling fluid additives or in the production of taconite pellets for the iron industry. The bentonite deposits were just 

south of Malta, located along outcrops of the Bearpaw Shale. Up to the time the plant closed in 1986, American Colloid 

had processed approximately one million tons of bentonite. The plant was forced to close due to lack of a market for oil 

and gas drilling mud additives and taconite pellets. In 1988, American Colloid withdrew its patent application on 28 

mining claims due to lack of a market for bentonite.

Although no active mining of bentonite is occurring in the Glasgow area, 450 active, unpatented mining claims located 

for bentonite are controlled by S&B Industrial Minerals Inc., North America. In the past few years, work has included 

exploration drilling and a Plan of Operations for a small five acre bentonite mine. Any future mining would require a 

large infusion of capital investment and a clear market indication for any significant operation to be feasible.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Solid Minerals 345

Major markets for bentonite 20 to 30 years ago were the Canadian oil and gas industry and the Great Lakes iron ore 

(taconite) industry. At present there is no increase in demand from either industry. The surge in oil and gas production 

has already occurred with no new bentonite projects being initiated, and the taconite industry in the Great Lakes region is 

nearly defunct. The distance from this source area to available markets is the primary limiting factor.

Table 3.47 shows current active mining claims by county.

Table 3.47

Active Mining Claims

County

Active Mining Claims Commodity

Lode Placer Lode Placer

Blaine 40 0 gold

Chouteau 0 0

Glacier 0 0

Hill 0 0

Liberty 15 0 gold

Phillips 32 201 gold bentonite

Toole 6 0 gold

Valley 0 450 bentonite

Source: BLM LR2000 (2009).

Salable

Salable minerals were designated under the Materials Act (July 1947), which authorizes the disposal of petrified wood 

and common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, cinders and clay through a contract of sale or free use permit. 

Uncommon varieties of these same minerals are locatable under the Mining Law. Management actions for salable 

minerals determine areas open or closed to mineral material development and identify mitigation needed to protect other 

resource values.

Salable minerals include, but are not limited to, sand, gravel, stone (e.g., decorative stone, limestone, and gypsum), clay 

(e.g., shale), limestone aggregate, and common clay; all of which occur within the planning area. These commodities are 

classified as industrial minerals and typically are characterized as high bulk, low value. As long as the development 

potential remains limited and the unit valuation remains low, mineral materials are not expected to be significant 

contributors to the mineral industry sector of the local economy.

The planning area contains deposits of sand and gravel that originated from fluvial and glacial sources. The BLM issues 

permits for the use of these materials. Most of the commercially developed gravel sources are privately owned. The 

primary users of federally owned mineral material deposits are state and county governments which remove material 

under free use permits issued by the BLM.

Tertiary gravels make good material for road surfacing and construction projects. Most deposits contain adequate fines 

for roadwork, though some may require crushing. Some of the quaternary terrace deposits consist almost entirely of 

limestone pebbles and cobbles, and may not be as durable as deposits containing more igneous material.

The deposits of glacial origin contain a large percentage of igneous material. The amount of fines is variable depending 

on the specific depositional environment. The till or moraine material has a high clay content and makes a good low 

permeability liner for ponds and canals.

In the past, chemical grade limestone has been mined from the Beaver Creek area in the Little Rocky Mountains for use 

as caustic lime at the Zortman/Landusky Mine.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

346 Special Designations

Extensive deposits of bentonitic shale (common clay) occur throughout the planning area. This material is useful in 

construction projects where low permeability barriers are required such as for reservoirs or irrigation canals. When 

active, the Zortman/Landusky Mine used bentonitic shale as liner material for cyanide leach pad and pond construction. 

Several hundred thousand cubic yards of bentonitic shale have been mined from BLM lands within 10 miles of the 

Zortman/Landusky Mine. This production ended when the mine closed and future use of similar material is not 

anticipated to be significant.

The entire planning area typically experiences a relatively low and steady level of salable minerals disposal activity. The 

primary commodity produced within the planning area is sand and gravel. Table 3.48 shows current gravel pits by 

county and estimated average annual production.

Table 3.48

Active Gravel Pits

County

Mineral Materials

Sites

Average Annual 

Production 

(estimated)

(cubic yards)

Blaine 4 5,000

Chouteau 1 1,000

Glacier 0 0

Hill 0 0

Liberty 0 0

Phillips 9 10,000

Toole 4 5,000

Valley 9 5,000

Source: BLM LR2000 (2009).

Special Designations

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern

Existing ACECs

Azure Cave ACEC 

The Azure Cave ACEC (141 acres) was designated in 1994 to protect cave resources and potentially the northernmost 

bat hibernaculum in the United States. Azure cave is a limestone solution cavern located near Zortman in the Little 

Rocky Mountains (shown on Map K.1 in Appendix K). The cave has national significance because of its bat 

hibernaculum values. A colony of nine bat species including little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and least brown bat 

(Myotis leibii) occupies the cave during the winter.

Azure Cave is located at an altitude of 4,465 feet. The inner temperature is 41°F. The entrance is a 20-foot diameter 

opening on the south side of a steep canyon. At the rear of the entrance, a 6-foot-high passage leads into the top of a 

large room (Big Room); a 70 foot drop is required to reach its floor. Big Room has two pits leading downward to the 

lower level; the pits are about 40 feet deep and require rope for descent. Most of the lower level is horizontal and 

contains several rooms connected by small crawlways. One crawlway leads upward to a series of small rooms and dome 

pits. Many of the rooms are party clay filled, and most of the crawlways are plugged with red clay after a short distance. 

Several false floors in the cave are probably due to cementation of the upper clay by vadose water and then excavation of 

clay under the false floors. Many stalagmites are built on these false floors. The cave reaches a depth of -220 feet and 

has 1,580 feet of mapped passage (Campbell 1978).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Special Designations 347

The cave contains a significant amount of speleothems. The lower level has many stalactites and stalagmites, some of 

which are more than 6 feet long. Cave popcorn and flowstone decorate the walls of the cave. In one room, very large 

clusters of helectites are found that are probably the best in Montana. The cave is still active and wet; the formations are 

still growing. A large colony of bats occupies the cave during the winter (Campbell 1978).

Azure Cave was again surveyed in 1979 (Chester, et al. 1979). An additional 298 feet of passage was mapped, bringing 

the length of the cave to 1,878 feet. They identified this as one of two known caves in the Northwest that contains 

hibernating bats. Because of the cave importance as a hibernaculum the report also recommended that entry by the 

public take place only between June 15 and August 15 each year during the absence of hibernating bats (Chester, et al. 

1979).

Unrestricted access to the cave could represent a hazard to people inexperienced with caves and cave features, so only 

experienced cave explorers with knowledge of vertical caving techniques are allowed in it after receiving a permit from 

the BLM.

The lands were transferred to the BLM from the National Forest System by Public Land Order No. 3938 on February 23, 

1966. This order withdrew 139.41 acres around the entrance to the Azure cave for the protection of public recreation 

values and the significant cave values and resources it contains. This withdrawn area is within the ACEC boundary. The 

withdrawal removed the land from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws (30

U.S.C. Chapter 2) and reserved it under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior for the protection of public 

recreation values. The withdrawal does not alter the applicability of the public land laws governing the use of the land 

under lease, license, or permit, or governing the disposal of their mineral or vegetative resources other than under the 

mining laws.

Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC 

The Big Bend of the Milk River ACEC (1,972 acres) was designated in 1994 to protect and manage archaeological 

resources, including the Henry Smith and Beaucoup sites, which represent bison hunting and prehistoric ceremonial use 

of the Northwestern Plains. The Henry Smith site is managed for interpretation and the Beaucoup site is managed for 

research.

The Big Bend area of the Milk River, northeast of Malta (shown on Map K.2 in Appendix K), has a high density of 

archaeological resources, many with rare or unique characteristics and scientific values. The cultural resources are 

between 1,000 and 2,000 years old and provide an exceptional opportunity for the study of relatively pristine sites 

encompassing a broad range of cultural functions established during a short period of prehistory. Sites include 

prehistoric bison kills in the form of traps, jumps and pounds with associated drivelines; prehistoric ceremonial and 

religious locales such as petroglyph boulders, medicine wheels, intaglios and burials; and complex habitation and 

resource exploitation manifestations characterized by large numbers of stone circles and cairns.

Two archaeological sites have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (24PH188 

and 24PH189). Collectively termed the Beaucoup Site Complex, the two sites represent the nearly intact archaeological 

remains of Besant and Avonlea bison hunting cultures in primary archaeological context.

The Henry Smith Buffalo Jump Site (24PH794), an Avonlea bison kill site, is also considered eligible for NRHP listing. 

This site contains bison kill areas, drive lines, meat processing areas, petroglyph boulders and numerous concentrations 

of tipi rings and intaglios.

Vegetation types in the area include grassland, grassland-sagebrush and woodland. The latter type occupies a narrow 

strip of land along the Milk River and in coulee bottoms. Tree and shrub species include chokecherry, common 

snowberry, creeping juniper, plains cottonwood, silver sage, big sage, rose, silver buffaloberry, willow, box elder and a 

half shrub, fringed sagewort. Grass species include blue grama, green needlegrass, western wheatgrass, inland saltgrass, 

little bluestem, needleandthread, plains muhly, and prairie junegrass. The ACEC has no known endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened plant species. It may contain small patches of noxious plants (Canada thistle, leafy spurge, and knapweed).

Topography in the area varies from gentle rolling grasslands to level terraces along the Milk River, to river breaks 

composed of exposed shales, clays, and sandstones.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

348 Special Designations

Bitter Creek ACEC

The Bitter Creek ACEC (60,701 acres) was designated in 2003 for its scenic diversity and variety of vegetation types and 

wildlife habitats. The ACEC (as shown on Map K.3 in Appendix K) is the same area as the Bitter Creek WSA in Valley 

County. Since this is a WSA, current management of this area is guided by BLM Manual 6330-Management of BLM 

Wilderness Study Areas, until Congress determines its eligibility into the National Wilderness Preservation System. If 

Congress does not designate this area as wilderness, a plan for management of the ACEC would be developed through a 

public process and initiated within two years. Following release by Congress and until an ACEC management plan is 

completed, the ACEC would be managed under BLM Manual 6330 as an extensive recreation management area where a 

limited commitment of resources will provide dispersed and unstructured recreational activities.

Numerous cultural sites are known to occur in the vicinity of the ACEC. Prehistoric inhabitants of this area were seminomadic hunter-gatherers. They were dependent on the abundant bison, pronghorn, deer and elk of the region as well as 

seasonally important plant species. They left behind chipped stone tools, fire hearths and tipi rings. These prehistoric 

features are still visible in the ACEC. This region was later homesteaded and cultural features associated with farming 

and raising livestock are also in the area.

Major recreation interests include hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking, sightseeing, nature study, and photography. Other 

recreational uses include camping, backpacking, and visiting homesteads. This area is managed for sparse use which is 

appealing to individuals who value challenge, remoteness, harsh conditions, risk taking, pioneering, self-reliance, and 

minimal social encounters. This semi-primitive nonmotorized area diversifies the recreation opportunities in 

northeastern Montana.

Seventy percent of the soils consist of shallow to moderately deep Lisam and Dilts soils on shale uplands. Surface 

runoff is rapid and water erosion hazard is severe. Thirty percent of the soils are mainly Phillips, Elloam and Thoeny. 

They are deep, well drained soils on glaciated uplands. Surface runoff is medium and water erosion hazard is moderate.

The Bitter Creek ACEC is located in the glaciated Missouri Plateau. Land characteristics of this area include rolling 

terrain, denuded badlands, and lush riparian areas. The major drainages support shrubs, willows, and cottonwood trees. 

Large plateaus converge into rugged eroded breaks. There are some high cliffs and classic badlands type areas. A 

“blow-out” type of landscape exists where the shale soils are held in place by horizontal juniper, buffaloberry, and a 

variety of small shrubs.

The Bitter Creek ACEC contains a variety of plant communities in healthy condition, including riparian, wetland, 

shortgrass prairie benches, woody draws, and shale badlands. The ACEC is within the Grama-Needlegrass-Wheatgrass 

(Bouteloua-Stipa-Agropyron) Potential Natural Vegetation type (Kuchler 1966) and is representative of this type in late 

successional status. The wooded draws include buffaloberry, Rocky Mountain juniper, green ash, chokecherry, and less 

commonly aspen.

The dominant vegetation of the stream channels is a sedgerush and/or streambank willow community at the wettest zone 

with rose-snowberry, buffaloberry and silver sagebrush with western wheatgrass, green needle grass, Canada wildrye 

and other deep rooted perennial grasses at the upper terrace level. Tree cover is very limited; species include green ash, 

plains cottonwood and peachleaf willow.

Minimal visual intrusions do not detract from the scenic experience. Scenic qualities include the vast, unhampered 

domain; lack of facilities such as paved roads, buildings, and billboards; and spatial organization such as line, form, 

visual compositions that dominate the landscape. These visual compositions can be defined as vegetation characteristics, 

geological features, visual clarity, and social imprints.

The entire ACEC is within the Willow Creek watershed. No perennial streams are located in this area and existing 

waters in reservoirs and seasonal runoff contain high levels of salts. Willow Creek, Bitter Creek, Chisholm Creek, and 

Eagles Nest Coulee are the primary stream courses in the ACEC.

The Bitter Creek area combines a lack of road development with a variety of habitats that support diverse grassland 

wildlife species. Included in this area are excellent examples of prairie riparian, wetland, grassland, woody draw, and 

breaks habitats. Migratory game, upland game and nongame birds; raptors; game and nongame resident wildlife; fur-
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Special Designations 349

bearing species; predatory wildlife species; amphibians and reptiles are present in the area either yearlong or seasonally. 

The predominant wildlife species in the area are ones that migrate. Game species include mule deer, pronghorn 

antelope, sharp-tailed grouse, and greater sage-grouse. The sensitive species that could use the area at some time during 

the year include peregrine falcon, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike, northern goshawk, Baird's sparrow, canvasback, 

common loon, long-billed curlew, Swainson's hawk, and burrowing owl.

A watchable wildlife area is situated on the eastern rim where hawks and eagles can be seen soaring over the ACEC. 

This rim differs in elevation by as much as 600 feet from the floor of the ACEC.

Kevin Rim ACEC

The Kevin Rim ACEC (4,557 acres) was designated in 1988 to protect, maintain, and/or enhance the peregrine falcon 

habitat, other sensitive raptor habitat, and cultural resources while encouraging other types of multiple use activities to 

the extent they are compatible with the ACEC designation. This ACEC is located in Toole County, and is shown on 

Map K.5 in Appendix K.

Archaeological resources in the ACEC are significant. Kevin Rim is a major escarpment located near numerous lakes 

and ponds. The area offered excellent buffalo hunting opportunities during prehistoric and early historic times. The rim 

was used for jumps which involved driving the buffalo over the edge to be killed by a fall of over 60 feet. The buffalo 

were then processed and consumed on the plains below as evidenced by hundreds of occupation sites along the base of 

the rim and extending outward for several miles. Most of the sites consist of stone circles, or tipi rings, and many of 

these are quite extensive (one site covers 160 acres and contains almost 300 tipi rings).

Most of the oil and gas resources within the Kevin Rim area are located in the Kevin-Sunburst field and the Amanda gas 

field. The discovery well for the Kevin-Sunburst field was drilled in March of 1922. By 1930, approximately 400 oil 

and gas wells had been drilled. By this time the margins of the field were fairly well defined (except for the west side) 

and it was quite obvious this area contained a large volume of oil and gas.

Kevin Rim serves as a primary breeding and nesting area for a number of raptors including state sensitive species such as 

the golden eagle and ferruginous hawk. Other raptors using the rim include the prairie falcon and rough-legged hawk. 

The steep, south facing walls of the rim provide optimum habitat for raptor breeding and nesting and is an uncommon 

feature in this area of gently rolling plains. Yearlong raptor use of the rim also occurs. Most raptors, including those 

using the rim, are quite susceptible to disturbance. This is especially crucial during the breeding and nesting period and 

may be a significant factor limiting maximum raptor use of the rim.

Kevin Rim ACEC Photo by Craig Miller
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

350 Special Designations

Kevin Rim also has potential high value habitat for peregrine falcons. No known use of the rim is presently occurring. 

However, peregrine falcons have used a nest site on Kevin Rim in the past. The rim has been identified as a peregrine 

reintroduction site.

Mountain Plover ACEC

The Mountain Plover ACEC (24,762 acres) was designated in 2003 to provide natural habitat for the mountain plover, a 

prairie bird. The ACEC is located in south Valley County, Montana and is shown on Map K.4 in Appendix K. The 

eastern corner of the area is in the Milk River Basin, approximately 20 miles west-southwest of Glasgow, Montana.

This ACEC contains breeding habitat for mountain plovers. The area is unique because the hardpan areas along Beaver 

Creek provide habitat for mountain plovers away from traditional habitat associated with prairie dogs. The area contains 

approximately 160 mountain plovers, which is greater than 1% of the global population of this species. The area is also 

recognized as a Globally Important Bird Area by the National Audubon Society because of the numbers of breeding 

mountain plovers in the area.

Numerous cultural inventories have been conducted in south Valley County which have resulted in the discovery of 

cultural sites. These are generally small prehistoric sites consisting of stone tools, remnants of fire pits or hearths, stone 

cairns, and tipi rings. The area also contains cultural features associated with farming and raising livestock. 

Dispersed recreation opportunities exist within this area being used primarily for hunting and OHV travel. The primary 

season of use is September 1 through December 1.

A common soil along the watercourses is a Vaeda silty clay. This nearly level and gently sloping soil (0 to 3%) is on 

fans and terraces. The Vaeda series consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in alluvium deposited by water from 

ancient rivers. Permeability is very slow. The available water capacity is low or moderate. They have a high content of 

sodium (alkali) which causes a dispersed condition, and intake of water into the soil is restricted. This soil is subject to

rare flooding. Surface runoff is medium to rapid. The hazard of wind erosion is slight and the hazard of water erosion is 

moderate. A common term to describe these soils is “hardpan.” Mountain plovers were found to primarily use these 

areas.

Surrounding the Vaeda silty clay soils are predominantly Lisam-Dilts clays with Thebo-Lisam clays, with 5 to 35% 

slopes. The ACEC consists of undulating to strongly rolling soils on uplands. The soils occur in an unpredictable 

pattern on the landscape. In places cobbles and stones are on the surface. Surface runoff is rapid. The hazard of wind 

erosion is moderate and the hazard of water erosion is severe. 

The major upland vegetation types that occur in this area include the grass, big sagebrush/grass, and saltbush types. 

Clubmoss does not cover any appreciable amount of land in this area. Nuttall's saltbush is the dominant plant on broad 

alluvial valleys associated with sedimentary badlands. Associated grass species include Sandberg bluegrass and western 

wheatgrass. Important forbs include prickly pear, wild onion, and wild parsley. Greasewood is often associated as a 

fringe type.

Mountain plovers primarily use the Nuttall's saltbush habitat on the valley bottoms. On the gentle rises on either side of 

the valleys is the wild buckwheat habitat. Both habitats have an extremely low vegetative height profile (4 inches) and 

large amounts of bare ground, primarily found in the bottom lands of the major drainages. Other habitats used by the 

mountain plovers included bentonitic soils dominated by a sparse growth of knotweed species, low rises in the bottom 

lands containing almost pure stands of blue grama, and shale soils with western wheatgrass. This latter habitat occurs on 

the ridge sides among the horizontal juniper habitat. Other similar appearing areas of vegetation (or lack of vegetation) 

are elsewhere in south Valley County and also in north Valley County, but are not as extensive.

This ACEC is within the Little Beaver Creek watershed. The area drains into Willow Creek, which flows into the Milk 

River downstream of Glasgow. Water quality is limited by salt content and high sedimentation rates due to the sparsely 

vegetated shale uplands. Grub Reservoir is the only large waterbody and covers 250 acres.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Special Designations 351

Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC

The Prairie Dog Towns within the 7km Complex ACEC (16,403 acres) were designated in 1994 to provide additional 

management of prairie dog habitat for black-footed ferret reintroduction and long-term ferret recovery, associate species 

(mountain plover, burrowing owl, and ferruginous hawk), recreational viewing, and prairie dog shooting. The ACEC is 

shown on Map K.6 in Appendix K.

The Prairie Dog 7km Complex is in the southern portion of Phillips County. This area contained a significant amount of 

high quality habitat for endangered black-footed ferret. Prairie dogs are essential as the primary prey species for the 

black-footed ferret. The 7km Complex is based on the USFWS habitat assumptions for ferret management: the area 

encompasses two or more prairie dog towns that are not more than 7 kilometers apart (Biggins, et al. 1989).

The black-footed ferret, thought to be nearly extinct, was rediscovered at Meeteetse, Wyoming late in 1981 and a 

successful captive breeding program allowed USFWS to plan reintroduction of the ferret in its natural environment. In 

1986, the Montana Black-Footed Ferret Working Group proposed eight possible reintroduction sites (Clark, et al. 1987). 

In 1987, they narrowed the selection to the top four Montana sites which were all in or associated with the Phillips 

Resource Area. The four sites were further evaluated after additional inventory data in 1988, and a paper by Clark and 

Minta (1989) selected this as the best possible site for reintroduction of the ferret in Montana.

The area still contains many acres of prairie dogs, but the overall acreage of prairie dogs is greatly reduced due to the 

presence of plague, and the ferret reintroduction effort has not succeeded here because of the reduction in prey.

Sweet Grass Hills ACEC

The Sweet Grass Hills ACEC (7,419 acres) was designated in 1992 to protect habitat which has high potential for 

reintroduction of the peregrine falcon; protect areas of traditional spiritual importance to Native Americans; and protect 

seasonally important elk and deer habitat and aquifers in the area that provide potable water to local residents. The area 

is also unique because of its gold, coal, silver and copper mining history. The ACEC is comprised of West and Middle 

Buttes, which are located in northeastern Toole County, and East Butte, which is located in northern Liberty County. 

The entire ACEC lies within the Sweet Grass Hills TCP. The ACEC is shown on Map K.7 in Appendix K.

The Sweet Grass Hills are important to the Blackfeet, Chippewa-Cree and Gros Ventre tribes for their traditional use. 

Numerous published and unpublished sources document this importance. For example, the Sweet Grass Hills were 

noted as important to traditional Blackfeet religious activities in the Congressional report on the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act hearings in 1978. The Gros Ventres are reported to have used Middle Butte and Porcupine Butte 

for vision quests in the late 1880s. Modern religious use of Mount Brown by members of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation 

is documented in BLM files. The Sweet Grass Hills offer the solitude and undisturbed environment which are key 

elements for traditional uses. Documented archaeological sites on the summit of Mount Royal and on the slopes of West 

Butte consist of the remains of structures regarded by Plains archaeologists as vision quest structures.

Soil types include loamy and clayey soils on fans and footslopes of mountains and foothills; loamy and clayey soils on 

forested mountains; loamy and loamy-skeletal soils on bedrock ridges and footslopes of mountains; and medium texture 

soils on terraces, footslopes, and fans.

Gold prospecting was widespread on East Butte near the turn of the century. The principal areas of placer mining were 

on Tootsie Creek and on the south slope of East Butte. 

At the Sweetgrass Mine on East Butte, several tons of copper, lead, zinc, and 651 ounces of silver were produced before 

it was abandoned. In 1966, the Anaconda Company smelted 100 tons of a high silica ore containing lead, copper, silver,

and traces of gold from the vicinity of the Brown-eyed Queen Mine.

Historical records and physical evidence indicate exploration interest in lode and placer deposits on all three buttes 

within the Sweet Grass Hills at various periods through the early 1960s. Approximately 2,000 ounces of gold from 

placers near Gold Butte within the Middle Butte complex is the only reported production (BLM 1996b).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

352 Special Designations

Contemporary exploration in the Sweet Grass Hill commenced in the early 1970s. Several companies have had 

exploration interest in all three buttes, particularly in the Tootsie Creek area of East Butte, up through to the early 1990s. 

In 1993, the BLM completed the validity examination of 14 unpatented mining claims on East Butte as a result of the 

area being segregated for evaluation of Native American traditional interests and hydrologic concerns. The results 

indicated eight of the claims meet the test of discovery under the mining law and were valid. (BLM 1996b). The BLM 

currently has no Notices for exploration or Plans of Operation in the Sweet Grass Hills. The area is currently withdrawn 

from mineral entry and location. The withdrawal will expire in 2017.

Stone and riprap have been extracted from quarries in the intrusives in the Sweet Grass Hills. An inactive riprap quarry 

is located on a patented mining claim in Section 32, T. 36 N., R. 5 E. The Bureau of Reclamation has a withdrawal in 

Sections 29 and 32 for preserving riprap sources needed for reclamation projects. However, no riprap sources were ever 

developed on the withdrawn lands.

Another unique feature of the Sweet Grass Hills is the high value habitat potential for reintroduction of the peregrine 

falcon. South facing cliffs provide excellent habitat for breeding and nesting. Such cliffs are an uncommon feature in 

this area of gently rolling plains. Use of the cliffs for breeding and nesting would allow peregrine falcons to utilize the 

surrounding prairies as a food base.

No peregrines are currently known to use the Sweet Grass Hills. The Sweet Grass Hills have been proposed as an 

important portion of a reintroduction area.

The Sweet Grass Hills also provide excellent 

habitat for elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer. 

The forested habitat, topographic relief, and lush 

drainages are unique to the prairies of northern 

Montana. Elk inhabiting East Butte tend to 

concentrate during winter on the east side in the 

general locale of Mount Lebanon. Here they use 

the windswept (mostly warmer, southerly 

exposures) slopes where grasses are available, 

while bedding in the nearest timber where thermal 

cover provides protection. Elk on West Butte use 

southern exposures in the winter.

Mule deer also prefer the south-facing windblown 

slopes during the winter, concentrating at the 

prairie timber edges; however, mule deer are 

scattered throughout the Hills and heavy 

concentration areas are hard to pinpoint. Deer 

also form smaller wintering groups than elk; 

therefore, winter concentration areas are more 

numerous and scattered. Mule deer use drainage 

bottoms, hay and alfalfa croplands during all 

seasons of the year. The use of some of the 

higher elevation timbered areas, dominated by 

public lands, is highest during the summer.

White-tailed deer are common to all drainages 

extending from the hills. The rank deciduousshrub vegetation lining these drainages creates 

excellent cover as well as forage for whitetails. 

The heads of some of these drainages lie midslope 

in the hills and the deer habitat can extend for 

over 5 miles down their length. Hay cropland can 

be important feeding sites for the whitetails. Sweet Grass Hills ACEC Photo by Kathy Tribby
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Special Designations 353

Potential ACECs

Frenchman ACEC

The Frenchman ACEC (42,020 acres) is nominated to protect scenic values, fish and wildlife resources (crucial mule 

deer winter range, diversity of wildlife and native fish), and an unfragmented fragile landscape.

The Frenchman Breaks are located mostly in extreme northeastern Phillips County and partially in northwestern Valley 

County (see Map K.8 in Appendix K). The area provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species and important winter 

habitat for several big game species. For further information on this potential ACEC, see Appendix K.

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC 

The Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas ACEC (461,220 acres) is nominated to protect habitat for 

greater sage-grouse, Sprague’s pipit, and other sagebrush and grassland-dependent species and protect this habitat from 

fragmentation.

The Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse Priority Areas are located in north Valley and Phillips Counties (see Map K.14

in Appendix K). The area provides relatively unfragmented habitat for multiple special status species birds including 

USFWS candidate species greater sage-grouse and Sprague’s pipit, and BLM sensitive species long-billed curlew, 

Baird’s sparrow, McCown’s longspur and chestnut-collared longspur. For further information on this potential ACEC, 

see Appendix K.

Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC 

The Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area ACEC (930,265 acres) is nominated to protect habitat for greater 

sage-grouse and other sagebrush-dependent species and protect this habitat from fragmentation.

The Greater Sage-Grouse Protection Priority Area is located in southern Valley and Phillips Counties (see Map K.15 in 

Appendix K). The area provides a large expanse of high quality greater sage-grouse habitat. For further information on 

this potential ACEC, see Appendix K.

Little Rocky Mountains ACEC

The Little Rocky Mountains ACEC (27,177 acres) is nominated to protect prehistoric and historic archaeological 

resources and spiritual and traditional resources. Located in western Phillips County, the area is shown on Map K.17 in 

Appendix K.

Cultural resources consist of both prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, and spiritual and traditional 

resources. For further information on this potential ACEC, see Appendix K.

Malta Geological ACEC

The Malta Geological ACEC (6,153 acres) is nominated to protect paleontological resources. The proposed ACEC 

location (Map K.9 in Appendix K) has a high likelihood for the presence of rare and significant vertebrate and nonvertebrate fossil remains.

The area is known in the local, national, and international paleontological community for producing some of the more 

unique vertebrate specimens. For further information on this potential ACEC, see Appendix K.

Woody Island ACEC

The Woody Island ACEC (32,869 acres) is nominated to protect habitat for grassland-associated birds, including 

Montana BLM species of concern.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

354 Special Designations

The Northwest Woody Island ablation moraine is a block of intact grassland habitat entirely on public land (22,411 

acres) which is located in northern Blaine County and bordered by Canada to the north. The portion in Phillips County 

(9,699 acres) is also entirely on public land. It is separated from the Blaine county portion by six miles of mostly private 

land and is located two miles south of Canada. See Map K.10 in Appendix K.

Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC

The Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation ACEC (3,575 acres) is nominated to promote successful reclamation, protect 

associated infrastructure, and ensure public safety on BLM lands affected by prior mining activities. For further 

information on this potential ACEC, see Appendix K and Map K.11.

Reclaimed Landusky Mine leach pads with newly installed wind turbine Photo by Peter Bierbach

to power water treatment plants

National Historic 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 in 1804-1806. A 

portion of the Marias River exploration trail of the 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (the route 

traveled by Meriwether Lewis while exploring the 

Marias River in July 1806 during the Expedition’s 

return trip) crosses approximately 7 miles of BLM 

land.

Nez Perce National Historic Trail

On October 6, 1986, the Nez Perce National 

Historic Trail was designated in recognition of the 

national significance of the 1877 conflict that 

began in Lapwai, Idaho, and ended at the Bears 

Paw Mountains where the Nez Perce surrendered on October 5, 1877. A portion of the Nez Perce National Historic Trail 

crosses approximately 3 miles of BLM land north of the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument.

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail on the Upper Marias River

Photo by Craig Miller
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Special Designations 355

Watchable Wildlife Areas

Four Watchable Wildlife Areas are located on BLM land within the planning area: BR-12, Lonesome Lake, Wards 

Dam, and portions of the Northeastern Plains Birding Trail.

The BR-12 Watchable Wildlife Area is located in northern Blaine County. This 200 acre prairie marsh in the midst of 

open grasslands is narrow and long, and is a great place to view ducks, Canada geese, golden eagles, ferruginous hawks, 

Swainson’s hawks, shorebirds, and songbirds for much of the year.

The Lonesome Lake Watchable Wildlife Area is located in Chouteau County and is a unique prairie wetland complex. 

The shallow lake provides a resting spot for migrating waterfowl and shorebirds, especially in the spring. Look for 

pintails, mallards, blue winged teal, gadwalls, shovelers, willets, American avocets, and dowitchers. Occasionally tundra 

swans and snow geese have been spotted.

The Wards Dam Watchable Wildlife Area is located in north Valley County near the Bitter Creek WSA. This small 

prairie marsh provides open water and cattail habitat for a variety of waterfowl such as pintails and pied-billed grebes 

and other wetland-dependent species. The wetland is surrounded by rolling grasslands teaming with grassland birds such 

as Sprague’s pipits and sharp-tailed grouse. 

The Northeastern Plains Birding Trail is comprised of thirteen specific locations within northeastern Montana, of which 

only two are located on BLM land: one at the Camp Creek Campground within the Little Rocky Mountains and the 

second within the Bitter Creek WSA north of Glasgow. This vehicle-based trail showcases three National Wildlife 

Refuges, two campground/recreation areas, several Wildlife Management Areas, a National Historic Site, a National 

Park, a city park, and numerous tracts of public land.

 The Camp Creek Campground Watchable Wildlife Area within the Little Rocky Mountains is the first island 

mountain range visible from U.S. Highway 2 for travelers heading west and is a haven for mountain and forest 

wildlife, from pinyon jays in pines to bighorn sheep in mountain meadows.

 The Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area north of Glasgow is part of a globally-important bird area that harbors 

pipits, longspurs, and grassland sparrows, and is the only place on the Northeastern Plains Birding Trail to see 

the swift fox.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The BLM has identified and evaluated various river segments to determine their potential inclusion in the National Wild 

and Scenic Rivers System per Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. A .75 mile segment of the Marias River 

from State Highway 87 near Loma downstream to the confluence of the Missouri River was found to be free-flowing and 

possess one or more outstandingly remarkable values. Appendix L, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Report of Eligibility and 

Suitability Determinations, includes a complete list of the rivers and streams that were assessed for free-flowing and 

outstandingly remarkable values.

Wilderness Study Areas

Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area

The Bitter Creek WSA is located in Valley County, about 25 miles northwest of Glasgow and 18 miles south of the 

Canadian border. The WSA contains 60,701 acres in three roadless segments identified as Bitter Creek South, Bitter 

Creek West and Bitter Creek East.

The WSA consists of flat to rolling terrain varying less than 500 feet in elevation from south to north. Some extensive 

erosion resulting from glacial melt formed the denuded badland terrain through the center of the WSA. Vegetation 

consists of prairie grasses, creeping juniper, buffaloberry and other shrubs. Isolated stands of aspen and cottonwood are 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

356 Special Designations

located in the drainages. The climate is semi-arid, characterized by fluctuations in precipitation and temperature, 

moderately low rainfall, low humidity, hot summers and cold winters.

Use in the WSA is mostly confined to the occasional outdoor enthusiast and grazing operators. Recreational use has 

primarily been by seasonal hunters. Some boundary signs have been installed at key access routes. Local demand to 

specifically use the WSA for wilderness values is minimal per year. The fall hunting season creates extensive use of 

primitive routes within the WSA and unauthorized cross-country travel. This area is also described in further detail in 

the Existing ACECs, Bitter Creek ACEC section above.

Bitter Creek Wilderness Study Area Photo by Kathy Tribby

Burnt Lodge Wilderness Study Area

The Burnt Lodge WSA lies a mile north of the Missouri River in Phillips and Valley Counties. It is bounded by a 

combination of a road, private land, state land and BLM land. Except for the road, the boundary is difficult to follow on 

the ground. The southern border is contiguous with the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The WSA 

contains 13,727 acres.

Most of this WSA has a natural appearance. The unit has a typical river breaks topography formed by tributaries that 

drop mostly from the northwest to the river. The steep slopes are badlands, but the majority of the area is covered with 

low tablelands. Its topography and trees hide the few developments. The primitive routes lie along flat ridgetops that 

finger into the WSA from the north. Most show old signs of construction, but are seldom used and difficult to follow. A 

person can drop below the ridges to escape these imprints.

Use in the WSA is mostly confined to the occasional outdoor enthusiast and grazing operators. Recreational use has 

primarily been by seasonal hunters. Some boundary signs have been installed at key access routes. Local demand to 

specifically use the WSA for wilderness values is minimal per year. The fall hunting season creates extensive use of 

primitive routes within the WSA and unauthorized cross-country travel.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Special Designations 357

Vegetation – Rangeland

Fire and grazing were integral components sustaining the native prairie ecosystem prior to European settlement. Current 

vegetation communities reflect the many influences serving to shape them since then. Human activities have affected 

rangeland and forest plant communities primarily through livestock grazing and dryland farming, although a variety of 

other activities such as timber harvesting, fire suppression, mining, oil and gas development, and introduction of exotic 

plant species can also be included. These activities have resulted in alteration of the natural fire regime, an increase in 

woody plant species, and alteration of nutrient and hydrologic cycles. Alteration of the natural fire regime has likely had 

the greatest influence on native plant communities of any single ecosystem component; however, recent studies indicate 

that change from a natural grazing scenario, whereby herds of migrating animals used the landscape in a high-intensity, 

short-duration mode, to most currently managed livestock grazing systems, where grazing tends to be lower intensity but 

for a longer duration, may have had more impact than previously suspected.

Grassland communities, indicative of the climate, are the most prevalent of all community types across the planning area. 

Livestock grazing serves to maintain the health and functionality of the native prairie we know today, which provides a 

diversity of heterogeneous vegetation communities across the landscape.

Generally, most grass species are adapted to frequent fire intervals. It is widely thought that under natural conditions 

these grassland communities burned every five to seven years. With successful fire suppression over the last century, 

many grasslands are becoming shrublands, with an associated loss of habitat features provided by grasslands. 

Additionally, increased shrub growth increases the risk of high severity fires that alter soil and vegetation characteristics, 

increasing the risk of invasion by noxious weeds. With the addition of woody fuels from encroachment of trees and 

shrubs, the potential for very hot fires that burn duff and litter down to mineral soil has increased.

Two types of sagebrush communities can be found throughout the planning area. The silver sagebrush type is found in 

areas with well drained soils, while the Wyoming big sagebrush type is adapted to much drier sites and more clayey 

soils. Other commonly found species of shrubs include fringed sagewort, rabbitbrush, and winterfat. Large tracts of 

mature sagebrush communities were likely isolated and uncommon under natural conditions due to the frequency of the 

natural fire cycle. Most existing large tracts of sagebrush likely represent a disclimax, or aberrant plant community 

brought about from historic heavy grazing and fire suppression.

Other shrub communities occur in areas with unique site characteristics. Black greasewood and fourwing saltbush 

communities can be found in areas where more saline, heavy clay soils prevail. Woody draw shrub communities exist 

where soils are more productive and soil moisture conditions are favorable. These communities include chokecherry, 

currant, buffaloberry, snowberry, and aspen, which are particularly important to wildlife species, as well as green ash, 

box elder, and redosier dogwood.

The Frenchman Creek, Rock Creek, Milk River, Marias River, and Missouri River areas all have typical breaks type 

terrain. Breaks topography is rugged and supports relatively little vegetation due to steep terrain, shale and rock 

outcroppings, and an abundance of coarse clay soils.

Dense clubmoss (Selaginella densa Rydb.) is a major component of most upland vegetation communities, and is 

considered to be one of the main causative factors restricting improvement in ecological status where it has become 

dominant in the plant community. Once a site is dominated by dense clubmoss, a threshold is considered to have been 

crossed from which the plant community is unable to recover without considerable effort. Conversely, it also contributes 

to the stability of sites from decreases in ecological status and soil erosion. These sites are consequently very static. It is 

theorized that fire suppression and alteration of the natural fire cycle in an ecosystem where natural fires occurred 

frequently has in part allowed dense clubmoss to dominate many sites where it otherwise would likely have been 

suppressed.

Nonnative perennial communities are widespread across the planning area, by far the most common of which is crested 

wheatgrass, although annual bromes (e.g., cheatgrass) are increasing rapidly. When possible to manage as such, crested 

wheatgrass pastures can provide early season forage so grazing can be deferred on native rangeland. When intermixed 

with native communities, however, it more often than not serves to increase grazing pressure on native species as 

livestock are reluctant to utilize the early maturing plant.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

358 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

No major changes in existing vegetation composition across the planning area are expected to occur in the foreseeable 

future; however, some smaller scale, site-specific trends are likely to continue. Sagebrush will likely continue to 

increase in areas south of the Milk River, primarily in response to fire suppression and management activities that 

support alteration of the natural fire regime. Although the cause is unknown, a continued decline in woody-draw plant 

communities, primarily buffaloberry, will likely continue. Competition and encroachment from invasion of weedy 

species is likely to increase, particularly salt cedar encroachment from the Missouri River basin and knapweeds and leafy 

spurge from the west and the Milk River corridor. Currently, cheatgrass and annual bromes are rapidly becoming more 

prevalent in native communities, particularly in those areas occurring downwind of Conservation Reserve Program 

(CRP) fields (see Figure 3.14).

The first photo in Figure 3.14 was taken in 1967; the second was taken in 2006 at the same location. Note the prevalence 

of annual bromes in the foreground of the 2006 photo. Visual observations indicate the occurrence of annual bromes 

across much of the planning area now seems to be the norm, rather than the exception.

The factors that affect vegetation resources can be relatively obvious (e.g., wildfire, floods, logging, mining, and road 

construction) or more subtle (e.g., fire suppression, livestock grazing, or climate change).

Grasslands are adapted to, and to a certain extent require disturbance. How these disturbances are managed is generally 

more important than the type of disturbing factor itself.

Figure 3.14

Prevalence of Annual Bromes in 1967 versus 2006

1967 2006

Vegetation - Riparian and Wetland

Riparian and wetland communities are the transition zones between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Riparian areas 

may be associated with lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, potholes, springs, bogs, wet meadows, and ephemeral, intermittent, or 

perennial streams. Because of the high productivity of riparian areas, they are very important resources for wildlife and 

livestock. The lush vegetation in riparian communities provides valuable food and cover.

BLM Manual 1737 defines wetlands as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency 

and duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands include marshes, shallows, swamps, bogs, muskegs, wet 

meadows, estuaries and riparian areas.”

Jurisdictional wetlands, those that are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404, must 

exhibit all three characteristics: hydrology, hydrophytes, and hydric soils (COE 1987). It is important to understand that 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland 359

some areas which function as wetlands ecologically, but exhibit only one or two of the three characteristics, do not 

currently qualify as COE jurisdictional wetlands; thus activities in these wetlands are not regulated under the Section 404 

program. Such wetlands, however, may perform valuable functions. 

The typical prairie pothole on the glaciated plains is a wetland by the above definition because it supports vegetation 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. The typical pothole does not get flooded every year and often has water for 

only a short time, but when flooded it will support wetland vegetation.

Vegetative species common to riparian areas vary widely from site to site. Common species which occur in riparian 

areas are listed in Riparian Dominance Types of Montana (Hansen, et.al. 1988). Riparian communities along the 

perennial drainages and larger intermittent streams are often dominated by cottonwood and willow with occasional 

stands of green ash and box elder. The understory often consists of woody plants such as buffaloberry, snowberry, and 

Woods’ rose, and grasses and forbs. The higher terraces adjacent to the floodplains are often dominated by silver sage or 

greasewood with a grass understory.

The West HiLine RMP/EIS (BLM 1992b), Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP/EIS (BLM 1994a), Rangeland Reform ’94 EIS 

(BLM 1994b), and the grazing regulations (CFR 4100) provided extensive guidance on managing riparian areas in the 

early 1990s. Standards pertaining to riparian areas were identified in the grazing regulations and were further defined by 

the Standards and Guidelines (BLM 1997a) as Proper Functioning Condition (PFC). Riparian standard assessments have 

been accomplished through the watershed planning and permit renewal process that has occurred continuously since 

1997.

Extensive riparian habitat inventory and vegetation monitoring has occurred within the planning area since the early 

1990s. The areas were assessed using the Montana Wetland Riparian Association (MWRA) form developed by Hansen, 

et al. at Ecological Solutions Group. All riparian habitats are dependent on a balanced combination of physical (stream 

bank, channel, and soil characteristics), hydrologic (regular occurrence of surface water), and vegetative (hydrophytic 

communities) components. If any of those three components are negatively affected, the functional capacity of a riparian 

habitat may be degraded.

Riparian-wetland areas are properly functioning when adequate vegetation, landform, or large woody debris is present to 

dissipate stream energy associated with high water flows and flooding, thereby reducing erosion and improving water 

quality. Vegetation filters sediment and aids in floodplain development, improving floodwater retention and 

groundwater recharge. Deep soil-binding root masses stabilize stream banks against erosion. Stream channels develop 

to provide diverse ponding and channel characteristics that support enhanced water quality, fish production, waterfowl 

breeding, and greater biodiversity.

Riparian areas are invaluable to the function of other resources in the planning area. These areas support the highest 

densities and diversity of breeding birds, including bald eagle, great blue heron, Swainson’s hawk, waterfowl, and 

numerous migratory birds. They also provide crucial habitat for furbearers such as beaver, white-tailed deer, red fox, 

and coyote. Riparian and wetland areas are especially important to the livestock industry, in that they often produce 10-

15 times the amounts of forage compared to drier upland sites. Riparian areas are also critical for stabilizing stream

banks and shading to reduce water temperatures of streams that support trout and other cold water species.

Approximately 962 miles of lotic (flowing water) riparian habitat and approximately 53,667 acres of lentic (standing 

water) wetland habitats are currently identified on BLM land in the planning area. The estimated miles and acres of the 

functional condition of streams and wetlands in the planning area are displayed in Table 3.49.

Source: BLM data (2007) and National Wetlands Inventory 1987.

Table 3.49

Functional Condition of Streams and Wetlands in the HiLine Planning Area

Streams in

Proper Functioning 

Condition (miles)

Streams

Functioning at Risk

(miles)

Streams

Nonfunctioning

(miles)

Wetlands in

Proper Functioning 

Condition (acres)

Wetlands

Unknown Condition

(acres)

621 309 32 6,785 47,844
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

360 Vegetation – Riparian and Wetland

It has been determined that an average of about 20% (68 miles) of the Functioning at Risk (FAR) and Nonfunctioning 

(NF) riparian zones along streams exhibited less than PFC at the time of assessment due to improper livestock grazing. 

As the functioning condition of riparian zones along streams improves or declines, which has occurred during the current 

RMP process, the reportable mileage varies. The BLM has implemented actions including riparian fences, livestock 

reductions, and updated grazing plans on 100% of the lotic riparian areas where the riparian zones were not meeting 

standards due to improper livestock grazing. Where trend information is available for lotic riparian areas that previously 

exhibited FAR, the trend is either improving or the riparian zones are moving towards or are now at PFC. Long-term 

trend is documented in the updated watershed reports and grazing permit renewal environmental assessments.

The lotic riparian miles that are FAR due to causes other than livestock grazing, which is roughly 80% of all FAR stream 

miles, are not meeting the riparian standard due to soils, weeds, road crossings, water control structures, and/or drought. 

Weed control measures have been taken over a large portion of the FAR riparian miles but little long-term trend 

information is available. The naturally occurring reasons for FAR riparian areas, such as soils and drought, are occurring 

in areas that will require extensive monitoring and science-based control measures that can be feasibly implemented by 

management.

Riparian areas can be impacted through natural processes or human activities. Natural processes include such things as 

drought, flood, fire and wildlife use; human-caused activities include livestock grazing, mineral extraction, oil and gas 

development, farming, and recreation. Improper grazing of riparian areas can affect the streamside environment by 

changing and reducing riparian vegetation. Roads within or close to riparian areas can also have negative effects on the 

riparian vegetation. They adversely affect these areas by vegetation removal, dust generation, sediment delivery to 

streams and associated wetlands, fragmentation by preventing channel migrations, and by increasing human activities 

such as camping and OHV use.

Vegetation – Special Status Plants

Special status species of plants require particular management attention due to rarity and habitat concerns and include: 

• federally listed threatened or endangered species and designated critical habitats

• federally proposed species and proposed critical habitats

• federal candidate species

• Montana BLM sensitive species

The HiLine planning area has no federally listed threatened or endangered special status plant species or federally 

proposed species.

Federal Candidate Species Plants

The USFWS added whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) to their candidate species list on July 19, 2011. The primary threat 

to the species is from disease in the form of the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other threats. 

Whitebark pine is also threatened by significant mortality from predation by the native mountain pine beetle. Past and 

ongoing fire suppression is also negatively impacting populations of whitebark pine through direct habitat loss. 

Environmental effects resulting from climate change also threaten the species through direct habitat loss and by 

exacerbating the effects of some of the other threats (USFWS 2011). 

Whitebark pine is known from Glacier, Chouteau, Liberty and Toole Counties in the planning area. The only 

documented occurrences of whitebark pine on BLM land are in the Sweet Grass Hills. Kendall (1998) found both 

whitebark (five individuals) and limber pine (7 individuals) trees with dead, rust infection, and crown kill at similar rates. 

A subsequent, preliminary visit by the BLM to East Butte in September 2012 found dead, rust infection, and crown kills 

in both whitebark and limber pines. Two individual trees, one whitebark and one limber, were found to be living with 

rust infections and have been identified for cone collection and genetic testing for rust resistance. Future visits are 

planned to continue inventory and evaluation of both whitebark and limber pine on both East and West Buttes of the 

Sweet Grass Hills.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Vegetation – Special Status Plants 361

The Sweet Grass Hills population is currently the most northeastern known population of whitebark pine in the lower 48 

states and occurs at lower elevations than other known populations through the U.S.

Montana BLM Sensitive Species Plants

Montana BLM sensitive species occurring in the planning area include five plant species. Table 3.50 shows the species 

and their general habitat association.

Table 3.50

Montana BLM Sensitive Species Plants

Occurrence in the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Status* General Habitat

Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis Candidate Subalpine and treeline habitats

Longsheath waterweed Elodea bifoliata Sensitive Wetland

Dwarf woolyheads Psilocarphus brevissimus Sensitive Wetland

Slender bulrush Schoenoplectus heterochaetus Sensitive Wetland

Slender-branched popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys leptocladus Sensitive Wetland

Source: MT IM-2009-039.

* Candidate – USFWS Federal Candidate ; Sensitive – BLM Sensitive Species 

Four BLM sensitive plant species are found in and around water and riparian areas. Not much is known of the status of 

these species in the planning area. General condition and trend of these habitats could be used to estimate the habitat

conditions until the sites can be revisited and site-specific data collected. Effort is needed to inventory for these species 

and document habitat and trend conditions.

Long-sheath waterweed is known in the planning area from two sites in Phillips County. Six occurrences are known 

statewide. The aquatic habitat of this species is affected by drought and wetland modification to the lakes and ponds it 

occupies.

Dwarf woolyheads is found on two sites in the planning area, both in Phillips County, and six sites statewide.

Slender bulrush is known in the planning area from one site in Phillips County. Statewide, it is only known from two 

sites, the one in Phillips County and a second site in Sheridan County. Surveys in Sheridan County in 2000 failed to find 

the species. It had been observed as abundant in Sheridan County in the 1940s (Heidel, et al. 2000).

Slender-branched popcorn-flower is known in the planning area from one site in Phillips County. Five occurrences are 

known statewide.

Visual Resources

Visual resource inventories for the planning area were completed during the development of the Missouri Breaks 

Grazing Environmental Statement (BLM 1979) and the Prairie Potholes Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1982). 

These inventories evaluated the visual features of land, water surface, vegetation, and structures. The evaluations were 

then used to determine visual resource management (VRM) classes for the planning area.

Visual Resource Management Classes

No VRM Class I ratings are currently assigned to the planning area. This class preserves the existing character of the 

landscape. It provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude limited management activity. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. All VRM classes for 

the planning area are shown on Map 2.16.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

362 Water Resources

Approximately 417,334 acres of BLM land (17%) are rated as VRM Class II and include the Bitter Creek and Burnt 

Lodge WSAs, Little Rocky Mountains, Frenchman Creek area, portions of the Milk River, Sweet Grass Hills, portions of 

the Marias River, portions of the Missouri Breaks north of the Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge and the Upper Missouri River Breaks 

National Monument, and small acreages within the Bears Paw Mountains. 

This class retains the existing character of the landscape. The level of change 

to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be 

seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes 

must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color and texture found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

Approximately 58,213 acres of BLM land (slightly more than 2%) are rated as 

VRM Class III. This includes small acreages in and around the Milk River, 

areas south of the Sweet Grass Hills, Kevin Rim, and the Lonesome Lake 

area. This class partially retains the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape could be moderate. 

Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view 

of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.

The remaining 1,961,928 acres of BLM land (81%) are rated as VRM Class 

IV. This class provides 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 the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the 

impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance and repeating the basic elements.

Water Resources

The BLM manages water resources for resource values (e.g., watershed health, wildlife, riparian) and resource uses (e.g., 

recreation and water supply) within the framework of applicable laws, regulations, and agency policies. Water resources 

traverse BLM lands and are affected by BLM management activities.

Hydrology and Watershed

This section addresses both surface water and groundwater quality and 

quantity. Watershed management is the protection, conservation, and use of 

natural resources of a specific watershed in a manner that keeps the soil 

mantel in place and productive. The BLM manages watersheds to ensure that 

water yield and quality are not degraded and meet the desired uses. Natural or 

human-caused vegetation and soil disturbance can ratify undesirable 

watershed responses (e.g., severe flooding or erosion). Surface-disturbing 

activities could affect watershed health by increasing sedimentation and 

erosion rates which can affect water quality.

Portions of the middle Missouri, Marias River, and Milk River basins are 

located within the planning area. Within these basins are 23 subbasins, or 

fourth order watersheds (Table 3.51). These watersheds are defined by a 

hydrologic unit code (HUC) that identifies the specific hydrologic unit and 

consists of a two-digit sequence for each specific level within the delineation hierarchy. Perennial streams, intermittent 

and ephemeral drainages, and glacial lakes, ponds and pits make up the primary surface water resources within the 

planning area. The fourth-order watersheds are shown in Figure 3.15.

Visual Resource Inventory Classes

and

Visual Resource Management 

Classes

Visual resource inventory classes are 

assigned through the inventory process. 

Class I is assigned to those areas where 

a management decision has been made 

previously to maintain a natural 

landscape. Classes II, III, and IV are 

assigned based on a combination of 

scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and 

distance zones.

Visual resource management classes

are assigned through the resource 

management plan. The assignment is 

based on management decisions 

considering visual values, actions that 

may result in surface disturbances, and 

impacts on the visual values.

Surface Water Resources

Perennial Stream: A stream that 

normally has water in its channel at all 

times.

Intermittent Stream: A stream that 

flows only when it receives water from 

rainfall runoff or springs, or from some 

surface source such as melting snow.

Ephemeral Stream: A stream or part 

of a stream that flows only in direct 

response to precipitation; it receives 

little or no water from springs, melting 

snow, or other sources; its channel is at 

all times above the water table.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Water Resources 363

Critical watershed areas include soils that have a high potential for salt yield, are subject to severe water and wind 

erosion when disturbed, have high runoff potential during storm events, are subject to frequent flooding, or have a 

potential for loss of vegetation productivity under high rates of wind and water erosion. For more discussion on soils 

susceptible to wind and water erosion within the planning area, refer to the Soils section.

Table 3.51

Fourth Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)

Watersheds in the HiLine Planning Area

Basin/Sub-Basin Name Hydrologic Unit Code

Total Watershed Area

(sq. mi.) BLM Land in Watershed (%)

Marias

Two Medicine 10030201 1,320 < 1.0

Cut Bank 10030202 1,230 < 1.0

Marias 10030203 3,680 1.7

Willow 10030204 985 < 1.0

Teton 10030205 1,960 1.6

Middle Missouri

Bullwhacker-Dog 10040101 1,930 18

Fort Peck Reservoir 10040104 5,350 29

Milk

Milk Headwaters 10050001 520 0.0

Upper Milk 10050002 1,040 < 1.0

Wild Horse Lake 10050003 91 19.8

Middle Milk 10050004 3,390 10.7

Big Sandy 10050005 851 2.7

Sage 10050006 1,050 < 1.0

Lodge 10050007 244 6.0

Battle 10050008 485 29.8

Peoples 10050009 735 2.8

Cottonwood 10050010 926 24.8

Whitewater 10050011 536 48.5

Lower Milk 10050012 1,740 42.0

Frenchman 10050013 286 32.0

Beaver 10050014 1,750 35.8

Rock 10050015 878 54.2

Porcupine 10050016 750 5.0

Source: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2007, modified by BLM 2007.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

364 Water Resources

Figure 3.15

Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC) Fourth Order
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Water Resources 365

Factors Affecting Water Availability and Use

Water use in the planning area is affected by human factors that relate to water demand and natural factors associated 

with water availability. The supply of water is extremely variable from place to place across the planning area and can 

be highly variable from year to year. Average annual precipitation across most of the planning area ranges from less 

than 10 inches, to more than 20 inches in the Bears Paw Mountains and the westernmost portion of the planning area 

near Glacier National Park (USGS 2004). The annual precipitation that falls within the planning area is largely 

consumed by plant transpiration and evaporation from land and water surfaces. Average annual runoff ranges from one 

inch for Valley, Phillips, Blaine (excluding the southwest corner of the county), and the northern portions of Hill, Liberty 

and Toole Counties; to 1-5 inches for portions of Blaine, Hill, Liberty, Toole, Chouteau, and Glacier Counties. Average 

annual runoff for the higher elevation areas of Glacier County ranges from 10 inches to greater than 30 inches. Figure 

3.16 depicts average annual runoff in Montana as reported from 1951-1980 (USGS 2004).

Groundwater availability is determined in a large part by the unconsolidated deposits and different rock types that 

compose the diverse geology of the planning area (described in detail in the Geology section). Large areas of the 

planning area are underlain by shale and fine grained sandstone of the Cretaceous and Tertiary age that yield small 

amounts of water, or yield water that is not regularly administered for many beneficial uses due to excess mineralization. 

Many of the rocks that form the distinct island mountain ranges (Little Rocky Mountains, Bears Paw Mountains and the 

Sweet Grass Hills) typically yield small amounts of water but do not form principal aquifers. Unconsolidated deposits of 

the Quaternary (or Tertiary and Quaternary) age, including course-grained glacial deposits, alluvium, and basin fill, 

generally are the most productive and utilized aquifers in the planning area. Many stock, domestic, irrigation, and public

supply wells are completed in these productive aquifers that underlie the narrow river and stream valleys of the planning 

area. Figure 3.17 depicts other unconsolidated deposits across the planning area such as till and fine-grained glacial lake 

deposits of the Quaternary age that generally yield small quantities of water to wells (USGS 2004).

The population of the planning area is concentrated along the Burlington-Northern rail line and the Milk, Marias and 

northern margin of the Missouri River valleys. The 2005 population of the planning area was 60,304, a decrease of 4.9%

since 2000 (for more detailed discussion of demographics, refer to the Social and Economic sections). Water demand for 

most non-agricultural uses is closely tied to this population distribution. Agriculture is one of the planning area’s largest 

industries, with farms and ranches making up approximately 80% of the planning area (USDA Agricultural Facts 2008). 

The most prevalent off-stream water uses in the planning area, due to the large agricultural industry and relatively dry 

climate, are pasture irrigation and irrigation of crops (primarily hay production). Table 3.52 depicts the planning area’s 

total population and water withdrawals by county for 2000 (excerpt from USGS 2004).

Table 3.52

Total Population and Water Withdrawals in the HiLine Planning Area by County, 2000

Demographics Withdrawals by Category (Mgal/d) Totals

County

Population 

of County Irrigation

Public 

Supply

SelfSupplied

SelfSupported 

Industrial Livestock

Total 

Withdrawals 

(Mgal/d)

Total 

Withdrawals 

(acre-ft/yr)

Blaine 7,009 326.90 .78 .15 0 1.10 328.94 369,470

Chouteau 5,970 44.46 1.21 .18 0 .69 46.54 52,280

Glacier 13,247 111.18 1.92 .21 0.30 .66 114.26 128,340

Hill 16,673 10.85 1.61 .22 0.01 .47 13.15 14,770

Liberty 2,158 30.48 .38 .04 0 .32 31.22 35,070

Phillips 4,601 276.22 .39 .12 0 1.20 277.93 312,170

Pondera 6,424 253.86 1.04 .08 0 .54 255.52 287,010

Toole 5,267 10.74 .88 .03 0.22 .39 12.26 13,780

Valley 7,675 201.53 1.40 .13 0.06 .98 204.11 229,260

Total 69,024 1,266.22 9.61 1.16 0.59 6.53 1,283.93 1,442,150

Source: Modified from USGS 2004.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

366 Water Resources

Figure 3.16

Average Annual Runoff in Montana 1951-1980

Figure 3.17

General Extent of Unconsolidated Deposits that Yield Water to Shallow Wells
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Water Resources 367

Water in the planning area is used for agricultural, municipal, industrial and recreation purposes. Table 3.53 shows the 

types and number of water developments located on BLM lands. 

Table 3.53

Water Developments on BLM Lands

Type of Improvement

Glasgow

Field Office

Malta

Field Office

Havre

Field Office Total

Reservoirs (number) 1,690 2,292 754 4,736

Wells (number) 22 42 29 93

Pipelines (miles) 66 16 46 128

Springs (number) 26 44 12 82

Water spreaders (acres) 5,755 0 3 5,758

Water savers (number) 0 4 0 4

Source: BLM 2011.

Instream uses of water for recreation and fish and wildlife habitat are important to the planning area’s expanding tourism 

industry. Rivers and reservoirs in the planning area are popular vacation destinations for float trips, fishing, and wildlife 

viewing. Guided river trips (floats and fishing) are popular on the Missouri and Marias Rivers. Nelson and Fort Peck 

Reservoirs are prime fishing destinations while the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge is a premier bird watching 

destination due to the combined presence of uplands, open-water, and wetland-riparian habitats.

Factors Affecting Water Quality

Several factors affect water quality; however, the probable sources for impairment fall under two categories: human 

activity or natural occurrences. Metals are the number one cause of water quality degradation in the planning area, 

followed by nutrients, stream alteration, and sediment (Montana 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report, 2008). Water quality 

is negatively impacted by any activity that destroys or removes the vegetative buffer along stream channels. Resource 

extraction, livestock grazing, recreation, energy development, and natural events are the main causes of water quality 

impairment.

Vegetation holds soil in place, absorbs the impact from precipitation, and decelerates overland water flow. Erosion rates 

are accelerated when fires, grazing, and other activities induce the removal of vegetative cover. The condition of the 

drainage, streambed characteristics, and channel geometry reflect rates of erosion. Stable channels tend to have 

consistent streambed grade and well vegetated banks that are neither steep nor deeply incised. Unstable drainages show 

evidence of downcutting, gullying, and excessive sedimentation and erosion.

Surface Water (Quality)

Surface water quality can be affected by either point or nonpoint source pollution. Point sources (direct discharges of 

pollutants into surface waters) are regulated by the State under the Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(MPDES). Nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution is Montana’s single largest source of water quality impairment. NPS 

pollution is contaminated runoff from the land surface generated by agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban 

development, mining, and other land use activities that cannot be tied to an exact discharge point. Common NPS 

pollutants include sediment, nutrients, temperature, heavy metals, pesticides, pathogens, and salt.

The Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan (MDEQ 2007) informs the state’s citizens about NPS pollution 

problems and establishes goals, objectives and both long-term and short-term strategies for controlling NPS pollution on 

a statewide basis.

The goal of Montana’s NPS Management Program is to protect and restore water quality from the impacts of nonpoint 

sources of pollution in order to provide a clean and healthy environment. The Memorandum of Understanding 

Regarding Water Quality Management on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Montana (BLM and MDEQ 2010) is 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

368 Water Resources

an important component of the Montana NPS Program. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was developed to 

clarify the process for cooperatively controlling and abating water pollution from BLM lands in Montana. The MOU 

also provides the mechanism for ensuring project consistency with the State’s NPS Management Program.

The 2008 Montana 305(b)/303(d) Integrated Report identifies the known conditions of surface waters across the 

planning area. Table 3.54 identifies those waters impaired by either point or nonpoint source pollution. It also identifies 

probable causes of impairment and the probable sources of the pollutant. The HiLine District manages 3,464 miles of 

perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams. Seven percent of this total (232 miles) has been designated as impaired 

by the State of Montana and EPA. The primary pollutants affecting these streams are riparian alterations, nutrients, 

metals, sediment, mercury, flow alterations, and habitat alterations. The primary sources are hydrologic and stream bank 

modifications, riparian and rangeland grazing, natural causes, and crop production. Heavy metals and mercury are the 

contaminants most associated with unknown and natural pollutant sources. Heavy metal contamination has been 

generated by local sources such as past resource extraction in the Little Rocky Mountains.

Of the twelve potential water quality impairment sources, only four can be directly related to BLM management: (1) 

resource extraction, (2) rangeland grazing, (3) historical mining, and (4) riparian grazing. Grazing has been identified as 

a source of impairment to the Milk River (020), but the only identified pollutant (mercury) would not be caused by 

grazing. Table 3.55 identifies the primary causes and sources of stream impairments within the planning area.

Five segments in the Little Rocky Mountains (Middle Missouri watershed) are covered under a reclamation plan 

approved by the BLM and Montana DEQ (BLM and MDEQ 2002). Two segments, Teton River (Marias Watershed) 

and Lone Tree Creek (Milk River watershed), are covered by existing Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). 

Conditions are expected to improve as pollutant levels are reduced through the implementation of reclamation and 

management plans.

Various portions of the 12 BLM segments that are potentially impacted by grazing have been assessed for PFC 

(Table 3.56). The use of PFC as a first tier water quality assessment tool is supported by the Montana Nonpoint Source 

Management Plan (Objective 6.1) and assists in defining appropriate lotic reaches to apply management actions. PFC 

indicates that BLM-managed segments are in good condition and suggests that the actual source of impairment may be 

located off of BLM lands. Upward trends suggest that current management may be appropriate for conditions to 

improve. When last assessed, nearly all of the segments that were FAR expressed an upward trend, except for 0.91 miles 

of Cottonwood Creek, which exhibited a static trend.

Table 3.54

Impaired Water Bodies by Fourth Level Hydrologic Unit Code

Fourth Level Hydrologic

Unit Code

Stream Segment

within BLM Land

Miles within 

BLM Land

(% of total stream 

miles)

Probable 

Impairment 

Type(s)A

Probable 

Impairment 

Source(s)B

Marias Watershed

Cut Bank (10030202) Cut Bank Creek 1.64 (7%) 2, 6, 12 2, 9, 10

Marias (10030203) Marias River 1.82 (2.6%) 14 5

Pondera 

Creek/Coulee* 0.75 (0.6%) 3, 5, 10 2, 3

Corral Creek 0.66 (3.4%) 2 2

Teton (10030205) Teton River 0.86 (0.8%) 6, 7 2, 6, 10, 11

Middle Missouri Watershed

Ft. Peck Reservoir (10040104)

Alder Gulch** 2.75 (92%) 1, 3, 4, 8 1, 7

Montana Gulch** 1.64 (82%) 1, 8, 9 1, 7

Rock Creek** 4.9 (13%) 1, 3, 4, 8, 14 1, 3

Ruby Gulch** 2.04 (73%) 1, 4, 8 1
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Water Resources 369

Table 3.54

Impaired Water Bodies by Fourth Level Hydrologic Unit Code

Fourth Level Hydrologic

Unit Code

Stream Segment

within BLM Land

Miles within 

BLM Land

(% of total stream 

miles)

Probable 

Impairment 

Type(s)A

Probable 

Impairment 

Source(s)B

Sullivan Creek** 0.48 (68%) 3, 5, 6 1

Milk River Watershed

Middle Milk (10050004) Milk River (010) 3.61 (1.3%) 4 2, 3, 5, 6 

Milk River (020)* 0.19 (0.5%) 1, 2, 3, 6 2, 3, 5, 10

Little Box Elder 

Creek*

0.05 (0.1%) 2, 7, 12 3, 4, 5

Lodge (10050007) Lodge Creek 3.67 (4.5%) 2, 4, 6, 10 2, 4, 6, 9

Battle (10050008) Battle Creek* 5.01 (7.1) 3, 5, 7, 11, 14 8

Peoples Creek (10050009)

Lodge Pole Creek** 3.56 (70%) 1, 3, 4, 14 1, 4

King Creek** 0.16 (22%) 1, 3, 5 1

Big Horn Creek** 1.17 (68%) 1, 9 1, 7

Cottonwood (10050010) Cottonwood Creek* 11.76 (21%) 1, 3, 7 4, 5, 8

Whitewater (10050011) Whitewater Creek 26.61 (43%) 4 4

Lower Milk (10050012) Milk River* 0.92 (0.7%) 1, 4, 13 2, 3, 5, 6 

Buggy Creek 13.52 (32%) 1 5

Cherry Creek 1.16 (3%) 1 5

Lone Tree Creek* 19.32 (100%) 2,3 6, 8, 11

Willow Creek* 39.72 (64%) 3, 5, 6, 7 3, 6, 8, 11

Little Beaver Creek * 11.43 (78%) 1, 2, 3, 7 3, 5, 6

Frenchman (10050013) Frenchman Creek* 8.26 (11%) 3, 6, 11 3, 4, 6, 8 

Beaver (10050014) Beaver Creek (011)** 4.62 (96%) 1 1, 4

Beaver Creek (012) 21.19 (14%) 2, 4 4

Beaver Creek (020)* .54 (0.7%) 2, 3, 5, 15 2, 3, 4

Big Warm Creek* 2.06 (3.8%) 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10 2, 6, 8, 11 

Flat Creek 15.26 (46%) 1, 2, 7, 9, 10 4, 5

Larb Creek 20.03(27%) 1, 2, 3, 10 2, 4, 5, 12

Porcupine (10050016) Porcupine Creek 1.88 (4%) 2, 10 2

Reservoirs

Fresno Reservoir (100500208) 5, 6 6

Nelson Reservoir (10050014) 2, 6 2, 6

Source: Montana 303(d)/ 305(b) Integrated Report, 2008.

A

Impairment Type: 1 = Metals; 2 = Nutrients-Phosphorus/Nitrogen; 3 = Alt. of Streamside Veg.; 4 = Mercury; 5 = Habitat 

Alterations; 6 = Flow Alteration; 7 = Sedimentation; 8 = pH; 9 = Arsenic; 10 = Oxygen Depletion; 11 = Algae; 12 = 

Temperature; 13 = Coliform; 14 = Impairment Unknown; 15 = Uranium.

B

Impairment Source: 1 = Resource Extraction; 2 = Crop Production; 3 = Rangeland Grazing; 4 = Unknown Source; 5 = Natural 

Sources; 6 = Hydromodification; 7 = Historical Mining; 8 = Riparian Grazing; 9 = Urban Runoff; 10 = Water Diversions; 11 = 

Streambank Modification; 12 = Feedlot.

* Segment potentially impacted by grazing (including hydrologic modifications such as reservoirs and pits).

** Segment potentially impacted by resource extraction (oil and gas, mining, timber).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

370 Water Resources

Table 3.55

Primary Causes and Sources of Stream 

Impairments

Miles % of Total

Pollutant

Alt. of Streamside 

Veg.

127.92 55

Nutrients 97.92 42

Metals 95.11 41

Sediment 88.15 38

Mercury 66.25 28

Flow Alterations 55.88 24

Habitat Alterations 48.82 21

Oxygen Depletion 43.65 19

Arsenic 18.07 8

Unknown 15.29 7

pH 11.33 5

Algae 9.43 4

Temperature 1.69 1

Coliform .92 <1

Uranium .54 <1

Source

Unknown 115.55 50

Hydrologic 

Modifications

89.85 39

Riparian Grazing 86.13 37

Natural 79.75 34

Rangeland Grazing 70.37 30

Streambank 

Modification

61.96 27

Crop Production 36.81 16

Resource Extraction 21.32 9

Feedlots 20.03 9

Historic Mining 5.56 2

Urban Runoff 5.31 2

Diversions 2.69 1

Source: Montana 303(d)/ 305(b) Integrated Report, 2008.

Rock Creek, Phillips County BLM Photo

Table 3.56

Condition Assessments for Stream Segments

Potentially Impacted by Grazing

Stream

Proper 

Functioning 

Condition

(miles)

Functioning

at Risk 

(miles)

Nonfunctioning

Condition

(miles)

Battle 

Creek* 4.15 0.21

Beaver 

Creek All

Big Warm 

Creek 2.06

Cottonwood 

Creek 1.08 7.8 1.43

Frenchman 

Creek 1.27 7.2

Little Beaver 

Creek 11.43

Little Box 

Elder 

Creek**

NA NA NA

Lone Tree 

Creek All

Milk River 

(020) in Milk 

River 

Watershed

0.19

Milk River in 

Lower Milk 

Watershed

0.92

Pondera 

Creek/Coulee 0.74

Willow 

Creek 26.13 11.53

* 0.14 miles of Battle Creek was removed from BLM 

management in a land exchange.

** The 0.05 mile long segment of Little Box Elder Creek has 

not had a conditional assessment completed by the BLM.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Water Resources 371

Inasmuch as the primary management-related sources of water quality impairment are grazing and riparian-related, the 

BLM should continue utilizing the upland and riparian Standards for Rangeland Health as primary indicators of BLM’s 

contribution to water quality. Relevant indicators of water quality for the HiLine District (identified in the Standards and 

Guidelines for Rangeland Health, BLM 1997a) include: pH, sediment, turbidity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, fecal 

coliform, color, and toxins. Manageable streams should be evaluated at least every five years to ensure that conditions 

are maintained or moving toward desired conditions. Site-specific BMPs should be designed to improve water quality

where current management actions do not appear to be producing desired results.

Groundwater (Quality)

Groundwater in the planning area occurs in unconsolidated materials (alluvium, glacial outwash, or terrace deposits) and 

in consolidated rocks such as sandstones, shaley sandstones, coal, limestone, or igneous rocks.

Shallow groundwater, where present, can be found in alluvial deposits along the larger stream valleys and in buried preglacial alluvial channels. These unconsolidated, shallow aquifers are generally 20-40 feet below the surface. Yields 

range from 1-100 gallons per minute (gpm); however, average reported yields are approximately 2-5 gpm. According to 

EPA drinking water standards, the groundwater quality of these unconsolidated, alluvial deposits exceeds the 

recommended level of 500 milligrams per liter (mg/L) of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Therefore, groundwater use is 

not recommended for domestic purposes without treatment, but is deemed suitable for agricultural use, including but not 

limited to watering of livestock. TDS concentrations are usually in the 1,000 to 5,000 mg/L range.

The Judith River formation underlies most of the eastern portion of the planning area and is a widely used source of 

groundwater with TDS levels generally ranging from 800 to 2,000 (mg/L). The Judith River formation consists of 

approximately 500 feet of grayish-white sandstone and light to dark gray sandy shale and clay. These sandstones 

constitute the water-bearing horizons. The depth to water in the Judith River formation decreases in a northward 

direction. Wells range from approximately 1,000 feet deep near the Missouri River to 200 feet deep in the northernmost 

portion of the planning area approaching the Canadian border.

The structural attitude of the Judith River formation dips to the southeast. Most wells artesian flow at the surface in the 

UL Bend region. Static water levels decrease to the north and can be located 200 feet below the surface in the 

Whitewater area. Yields range from 2-20 gpm, but most yield 3-4 gpm. Wells near the Canadian border are generally 

200-250 feet deep with yields of 3-4 gpm and static water levels reported at 150 to 200 feet below the surface.

The Bearpaw Shale outcrops over a large portion of the planning area. The Bearpaw Shale is 1,100 feet thick on average 

and is composed essentially of dark, lead-gray or almost black, clayey shale which forms an infertile, alkaline, “gumbo” 

soil. The Bearpaw formation contains thin, widely scattered, and isolated sandstone stringers, which seldom yield 

significant quantities of water to wells. Several springs and seeps occur in the deeply dissected drainages in the planning 

area. Yields are low, generally less than 1 gpm. Water quality is poor, with TDS levels precluding both livestock and 

domestic use; however, wildlife occasionally use these springs when other water sources are unavailable.

Aquifers are occasionally present at the contact between terrace gravel deposits and the underlying Bearpaw shale. 

These aquifers usually appear as low yield springs and seeps (less than 2 gpm) on hillsides above drainages. Water 

quality is generally suitable for livestock, but not for domestic use.

Other shallow aquifers occur in the area such as those residing in the Eagle Sandstone, but their extent is so limited that 

they cannot be considered major sources of groundwater.

Groundwater of better quantity is available from deeper aquifers, such as those found in the Madison formation, but the 

costs associated with development preclude exploitation by anything other than large commercial interests or 

municipalities.

If current trends continue there will be negligible increases in rural development and in industrial water demand. 

Historical meteorological data, as well as evidence from the geologic record, suggest that climate conditions have been 

highly variable in the region and that prolonged cycles of drought are possible.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

372 Water Resources

Increased public demand for recreation may result in a small increased demand for water resources. Current 

development of potable water facilities for recreational use is negligible due to the high maintenance cost and monitoring 

requirements.

Improved management of watersheds is expected to lead to gradual and widespread improvements in water quality and 

watershed condition. Strategies for managing water resources involve multidisciplinary approaches. For example, water 

quality is expected to improve as impacts of surface-disturbing activities on vegetation cover are reduced through 

implementation of BMPs in riparian areas. The primary management-related sources of water quality impairment are 

grazing and riparian degradation. Utilizing BMPs for grazing and surface-disturbing activities, such as energy 

development and road construction, will protect riparian vegetation, which in turn will provide a buffer between overland 

flow and the stream channel. Prevalent riparian vegetation would protect stream banks, prevent excess erosion, and 

increase sediment delivery to surface water channels.

Floodplains

Floodplains are those land areas in and adjacent to streams and watercourses subject to continuous or periodic inundation 

from flood events with a 1% chance of occurrence in any given year (i.e., the 100-year flood frequency event). When 

stream banks overflow during or after a storm, the floodplain provides natural storage for the excess water. The 100-

year frequency storm is used to determine the limits of the floodplain.

Floodplains receive special protection under Executive Order (EO) 11988 (1977), which directs federal agencies 

(including the BLM) to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, 

health and welfare, and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. EO 11988 directs 

each agency to take floodplain management into account when formulating or evaluating any water and land use plans 

and requires that land and water resources be appropriate to the degree of hazard involved. Regulations and operating 

procedures for the licenses, permits, and loan or grants-in-aid programs that agencies administer are to include adequate 

provision for the evaluation and consideration of flood hazards. Agencies are to encourage and provide appropriate 

guidance for applicants to evaluate the effects of their proposals in floodplains prior to submitting applications for 

federal licenses, permits, loans or grants.

Although available since 1987, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps have not been 

evaluated to determine the acreage defined within the 100-year floodplain demarcation. Therefore, the extent (in acres) 

of defined 100-year floodplains occurring on BLM lands within this planning area is unknown. 

Water Rights

The BLM will apply for water rights to water sources on BLM land under the same regulations as all other appropriators. 

The State of Montana began adjudicating water rights in the early 1980s. The BLM filed claims on all existing water 

developments and natural sources (reservoirs, springs, potholes, etc.) occurring on BLM land. The BLM manages the 

land for multiple uses and files water rights to protect these uses. The BLM holds water rights for such beneficial uses as 

livestock, fisheries, waterfowl, and wildlife. Many BLM reservoirs have more than one water right attached to them so 

the varying uses listed above will be protected. The current BLM water rights (by purpose) in the planning area are 

summarized in Table 3.57. 

John Retention Reservoir in Valley County BLM Photo
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics 373

Table 3.57

BLM Water Rights in the HiLine Planning Area

Purpose

Glacier

County

Toole

County

Liberty

County

Chouteau

County

Hill

County

Blaine

County

Phillips

County

Valley

County

Total 

Water 

Rights

Agricultural 

Spraying 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8

Commercial 0 0 0 2 0 0 16 15 33

Fish and 

Wildlife 0 0 0 33 0 1 43 22 99

Fishery 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 4

Flood Control 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 177 187

Irrigation 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 52 58

Lawn and 

Garden 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Multiple 

Domestic 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Recreation 0 0 0 33 0 0 12 0 45

Stock 0 15 2 40 2 1,617 5,677 2,405 9,758

Wildlife 0 6 2 32 2 1,393 4,830 1,502 7,767

Wildlife/

Waterfowl 0 3 0 2 0 71 350 78 504

Source: Natural Resource Information System and the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 2009.

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. Also, consistent with FLPMA and other applicable authorities, the BLM will consider the wilderness 

characteristics of BLM land when undertaking its multiple-use land use planning.

The existing inventory of BLM land in the HiLine planning area was updated and evaluated to determine whether 

additional lands other than the existing WSAs have wilderness characteristics. The inventory update process began in 

early 2011 in response to Secretarial Order 3310. This work continued until Congress passed and the President signed 

the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2011 that included a provision prohibiting the use of 

appropriated funds to implement, administer, or enforce Secretarial Order 3310. All work on updating the inventory 

ceased until additional guidance was received from the Secretary of the Interior on June 1, 2011. The inventory update 

resumed shortly thereafter and was completed under guidance contained in Instruction Memorandum No. 2011-154. 

Throughout the inventory update, the criteria for analyzing and determining the presence of wilderness characteristics 

remained unchanged. 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. 

The inventory update identified 26 areas meeting the criteria for wilderness characteristics. These areas include 386,462

acres of BLM land and vary in size from 4,118 to 49,564 acres. The locations of these areas are shown on Map W.9, 

which is available on the internet at http://blm.gov/8qkd. These 26 areas have been combined into five groups based on 

location, topography, habitat types, and similarity of wilderness characteristics. Following is a brief description of the 

groups.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

374 Wilderness Characteristics

Eastern Breaks and Badlands: Areas 49B and 53

Located in southeast Phillips and southwest Valley Counties (10,714 acres), the Eastern Breaks and Badlands areas lie 

between one and six miles north of the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. The Plum Creek Road forms the 

southern boundary of Area 49B and separates it from the Burnt Lodge Wilderness Study Area.

Topography of these two areas is diverse with breaks, rolling hills, sandstone capped uplands and badlands. Major types 

of vegetation are a mixture of short- and mid-grasses, sagebrush, conifers, greasewood and bare soil. Two-track vehicle 

routes and pasture fences are the most common anthropogenic features present in these areas, but during field reviews 

conducted in the summer of 2011 these features were considered substantially unnoticeable and did not detract from the 

apparent naturalness of the areas. The areas appear to be in a natural condition.

The broken topography and scattered timber create outstanding opportunities for solitude. A variety of primitive and 

unconfined recreation activities are available including hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, and 

sightseeing for botanical, zoological and geological features. Big game hunting is currently the most popular 

recreational use occurring in these areas and elk hunting opportunities are considered outstanding for those fortunate 

enough to draw a permit.

Mule deer, pronghorn and elk are year-long residents. Other values include paleontological resources and prehistoric

cultural resources. Prehistoric features include sites such as subsistence gathering and processing areas, rock alignments, 

spiritual locales, and numerous habitation sites. Historic cultural resources such as the physical remains of sites 

associated with farming, ranching, mining, and the homestead era are also present in many of these areas.

No inholdings are located in either area. Livestock grazing is the principal commercial use of these lands.

Intact Prairie Grasslands: Areas 32A, 32B, 33, 84, 90, 91A, 91B, and 93

The Intact Prairie Grasslands areas are located north of the Milk River in northern Blaine, Phillips and Valley Counties 

(139,654 acres). These large tracts of BLM land are part of a relatively unfragmented landscape dominated by a mix of 

native cool and warm season grasses intermixed with grasslands, badlands and riparian systems. These areas provide 

excellent examples of glaciated short- and mid-grass prairies that stand out as some of the most extensive naturally 

functioning glaciated plains grasslands in North America (Cooper, et al. 2001).

Portions of some of these areas have been cultivated in the past, but all have reverted back to native vegetation. Barely 

visible linear piles of rock along some old field edges are the only remaining evidence of the previous farming activity. 

All of these areas contain additional evidence of human impacts such as reservoirs, fences and two-track vehicle routes. 

During field reviews conducted in the summer of 2011, it was determined that these man-made features were for the 

most part substantially unnoticeable and did not detract from the apparent naturalness of the areas. The areas appear to 

be in a natural condition.

Hunting is currently the most popular and prevalent recreational use occurring, with many of these areas offering

outstanding opportunities to hunt big game animals and upland birds. Outside of the hunting season, visitor use in most 

of these areas is extremely light. Unexploited primitive and unconfined recreation activities possible in these areas 

include hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, photography, bird watching, and 

sightseeing for botanical, zoological and geological features.

The size and remoteness of these areas combined with their rolling topography provide outstanding opportunities for 

solitude. Most private lands directly adjacent are either native range or have been seeded or reverted back to grass and 

are no longer farmed. With the possible exception of big game hunting season, vehicle use of routes in these areas and 

on adjacent lands is infrequent.

The diversity of native grasses provides excellent grassland bird and waterfowl nesting habitat. Other values include 

paleontological locations and prehistoric cultural resources such as subsistence gathering and processing areas, rock 

alignments, spiritual locales, and numerous habitation sites. Historic cultural resources such as the physical remains of 

sites associated with farming, ranching, railroads, and the homestead era are also present in many of these areas.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wilderness Characteristics 375

Livestock grazing on private and state inholdings is managed in conjunction with adjacent BLM grazing allotments. 

Existing oil and gas leases may limit the BLM’s ability to manage wilderness characteristics in some areas.

Intact Sagebrush Grasslands: Areas 19A, 19B, 19C, 20A, 20B, 49A, 49C, 54, 55, 

56, 62, and 94

The Intact Sagebrush Grasslands areas are located south of the Milk River in southern Phillips and Valley Counties 

(203,715 acres). These large tracts of nearly level to rolling grasslands are sporadically dissected with intermittent 

streams, coulees and break lands. Large expanses of upland habitat are dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush while 

terraces adjacent to riparian areas support stands of silver sagebrush. Salt-affected soils in similar landscape positions 

support black greasewood communities. Scattered cottonwood, willows, boxelder, silver buffaloberry and common 

chokecherry can be found in major drainages.

All of these areas contain some evidence of human impacts such as reservoirs, fences and two-track vehicle routes. A 

few plugged and abandoned oil and gas wells are scattered throughout. During field reviews conducted in the summer of 

2011, it was determined that these man-made features were for the most part substantially unnoticeable and did not

detract from the apparent naturalness of these units. From some of the higher vantage points the view stretches on for 

miles with very little evidence of man’s work, even on adjacent ownerships. The areas appear to be in a natural 

condition.

The rolling grasslands, breaks and coulees provide sufficient topographic screening for visitors to avoid the sights, 

sounds, and evidence of other people. The size and remoteness of these areas combined with their rolling and broken 

topography provides outstanding opportunities for solitude.

A variety of primitive and unconfined recreation activities are available, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

horseback riding, snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, photography, and sightseeing for botanical, zoological and 

geological features. These areas offer outstanding opportunities to photograph and/or hunt native species of grassland 

and sage-grasslands-obligate grouse in Montana.

Greater sage-grouse strutting grounds are found in all areas and most of them also contain sharp-tailed grouse dancing 

grounds. The diversity and cover of native grasses in most of the areas provide quality grassland bird and waterfowl 

nesting habitat while some of the more open habitat supports black-tailed prairie dogs. Pronghorn and mule deer are 

year-long residents in all areas, and elk winter range is present in the southern portion of the grassland landscape. Other 

values include paleontological locations and prehistoric cultural resources such as subsistence gathering and processing 

areas, rock alignments, spiritual locales, and numerous habitation sites. Furthermore; this area of the intact sagebrush 

grassland was part of a longstanding tradition of the open range cattle industry, followed by an influx of homesteaders 

from the 1910s to 1930s. Historic cultural resources reflect this history and are represented by the remains of corrals, 

livestock activities, and homesteads.

A total of 1,160 acres of private inholdings are located in Area 49C, and 10 sections (6,400 acres) of state land 

inholdings are scattered throughout the rest of the areas. Livestock grazing on the private and state inholdings is 

managed in conjunction with adjacent BLM grazing allotments. Existing bentonite mining claims may limit the BLM’s 

ability to manage wilderness characteristics on the surface of portions of Area 62.

Island Mountain Range: Area 1

The Island Mountain Range area is located in northwestern Liberty County and includes about 4,118 acres of BLM land. 

Undulating mid-grasslands ascend to steep timbered ridges dotted with course talus slopes, which makes this area stand 

out from the surrounding rolling prairies. While the area is relatively small (i.e., <5000 acres), the majority of the 

surrounding private and state lands are being managed in a manner that complements current BLM management that is 

adequate to protect wilderness characteristics. The entire area is closed to use by motorized vehicles. Vehicle use of 

routes on adjacent private lands is infrequent and is controlled by private landowners.

The area contains several abandoned mine sites and reclaimed vehicle routes. While some of the reclamation work is 

still visually evident when viewed from the opposing ridge tops, the reclaimed sites are not visible after dropping into the 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

376 Wilderness Characteristics

timber, nor are they visible from the many drainage bottoms. Communication towers on top of Mount Royal can readily 

be seen from outside the area, but for the most part are substantially unnoticeable from within due to topographic and 

vegetative screening. The area appears to be in a natural condition.

Despite the relatively small size of the area, multiple coniferous forest types combined with steep canyons that drain in 

different directions provide excellent opportunities to find solitude. Current usage by Native American religious 

practitioners is indicative of this area’s solitude.

A variety of primitive and unconfined recreation activities are available, including hiking, backpacking, hunting, 

horseback riding, snowshoeing, photography, and sightseeing for botanical, zoological and geological features. Devil’s 

Chimney Cave is a popular hiker’s destination in the summer months. In the fall, hunters can pursue upland game birds 

and deer during the general hunting season. Opportunities to hunt moose and bull elk with firearms are limited, but 

would be considered outstanding if one was fortunate enough to draw a permit.

Livestock grazing on adjacent private and state lands is managed in conjunction with adjacent BLM grazing allotments. 

Existing mining claims may limit the BLM’s ability to manage wilderness characteristics on a small portion of this area.

The most common big game animal in the Sweet Grass Hills is the mule deer. Densities as high as 22 deer per square 

mile have been recorded. Mule deer can be found in most areas throughout the year, but tend to prefer similar 

windswept exposures as elk during the winter with heaviest concentrations at the prairie timber edges. Approximately 

350 elk inhabit the Sweet Grass Hills, with about half using East Butte. The management goal for the Sweet Grass Hills 

is 350 +/- 20%.

Western Breaks and Badlands: Areas 3A, 3B, and 4

Three areas identified as the Western Breaks and Badlands (see Map W.9, which is available on the internet at 

http://blm.gov/8qkd) are located in southeast Chouteau and southwest Blaine Counties (28,262 acres). They contain 

vegetation and topography typical of the Missouri River breaks region. Barren clay and sandstone outcrops (badlands) 

and gumbo soils (shale) with little or no plant cover are common features over portions of these areas. Upland benches 

are scattered throughout with mid-grasses as the dominant plant community. Nearly level to slightly sloping upland 

areas support sagebrush grasslands dissected by steep timbered coulees.

Plugged and abandoned wells provide evidence of past oil and gas exploration, but only the wells marked with a metal 

standpipe could be relocated during the field inspection. Numerous reservoirs and several miles of vehicle routes and 

pasture fence are scattered across these areas. All reservoirs observed during the field inspection were full of water and 

appeared to be natural components of the landscape, even though the straight line of the dam was noticeable from some 

angles. The remaining man-made features were considered to be substantially unnoticeable and did not detract from the 

apparent naturalness of these areas. Most private lands directly adjacent are either native range or have been seeded back 

to grass and are no longer farmed. The areas appear to be in a natural condition.

Vehicle use on routes is infrequent and controlled by the adjacent private landowners. Public access to Areas 3A and 3B 

is non-motorized only from the Cow Island Trail (county road) across state lands. Public access to Area 4 is limited to 

the very southern tip and could be reached traveling by foot from the Missouri River overland for about 2 miles. The 

remoteness of these areas combined with the broken topography and scattered timber creates outstanding opportunities 

for solitude.

A variety of primitive and unconfined recreation activities are available including hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, 

snowshoeing, and sightseeing for botanical, zoological and geological features. The areas offer outstanding 

opportunities to view, photograph, film or hunt antelope, mule deer and bighorn sheep. All three areas lie within bighorn 

sheep hunting district 680, which is known for producing world-class trophy rams. Cross-country skiing is possible 

across the benches and along broad ridges, and would offer outstanding panoramic views of the badlands and breaks 

topography that is unique to the Missouri River breaks.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 377

Portions of these areas provide year-long habitat for greater sage-grouse, mule deer and pronghorn. Other values include 

numerous paleontological sites and prehistoric cultural resources such as subsistence gathering and processing areas, 

rock alignments, spiritual locales, and numerous habitation sites.

Historic cultural resources such as the physical remains of sites associated with farming, ranching, and the homestead era 

are also present. The Western Breaks and Badlands have a diverse and colorful history unique to the area, which also 

lends to a unique and diverse cultural landscape. It is important to note that physical manifestations associated with 

prehistoric and historic cultural resources are rarely apparent or visually dominating to the overall landscape.

Livestock grazing on private inholdings is managed in conjunction with adjacent BLM grazing allotments. Existing oil 

and gas leases may limit the BLM’s ability to manage wilderness characteristics. Area 3A and the northern third of Area 

4 are categorized as having “high” oil and gas development potential. Area 3B and the remainder of Area 4 are 

categorized as having “low” and “very low” development potential.

Wildlife

Wildlife Habitat

The BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitat on BLM lands. State and federal wildlife management agencies 

are responsible for managing wildlife species populations. MFWP manages resident wildlife populations and migratory 

game birds in two regions which encompass the planning area (portions of MFWP Regions 4 and 6). The USFWS

provides regulatory oversight for all species that are listed, proposed for listing, or are candidates for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act. The USFWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protects migratory bird 

species whether hunted or not, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which protects these eagle species from 

take without a permit.

Large blocks of native vegetation in Blaine, Phillips, and Valley Counties and southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, 

Canada have been noted by conservation organizations and others as providing some of the best remaining prairie in 

northern Great Plains (Licht 1997, Sieg, et al. 1999, TNC 1999, Cooper, et al. 2001, Predator Conservation Alliance 

2005). These assessments note that, in addition to the large blocks of native habitat, these areas also possess relatively 

large populations of native prairie wildlife including a large black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) complex. 

This complex has provided recent opportunities to reintroduce black-footed ferrets. Other areas host some of the largest 

populations of grassland associated birds in the world (Hendricks, et al. 2007, 2008).

Reintroduction efforts for swift fox (Vulpes velox) in the western portion of the planning area, on the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation, and in southern Canada have resulted in the re-establishment of swift fox throughout much of the northern 

portion of the planning area and populations appear to be expanding (Moehrenschlager and Moehrenschlager 2006).

Portions of the planning area in southern Phillips and Valley Counties also support a large population of greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (Connelly, et al. 2004).

Grasslands and sagebrush shrublands are the dominant vegetative types, with grasslands generally more abundant to the 

north and sagebrush more abundant to the south. Grasslands and shrublands cover 8,726,000 acres (55% of the planning 

area and 92% of BLM land). Sagebrush provides crucial winter range for big game and is essential for greater sagegrouse and other sagebrush associated species such as the Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri) and sage thrasher 

(Oreoscoptes montanus). Many other species utilize the sagebrush vegetative type, including a number of reptiles and 

invertebrates. Other shrubs such as greasewood, chokecherry and wild rose provide important forage, hiding, or thermal 

cover for a variety of wildlife, including deer and elk (Cervus elaphus), sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus), 

migratory birds, and small mammals. The grasslands habitats, particularly those north of the Milk River, provide 

important habitat for a suite of grassland birds including Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spraguii) and Baird’s sparrow 

(Ammodromus bairdii). These grasslands are also important habitat for recently reintroduced swift fox (Vulpes velox) 

and pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) as well as a variety of small mammals. Grassland and shrubland 

habitats also provide important foraging and breeding habitats for many raptor species such as golden eagles and 

ferruginous hawks.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

378 Wildlife

Forests and woodlands are less abundant; however, they add structural and biological diversity to the landscape. About 

640,000 acres of forests and woodlands in the planning area (includes all ownerships) are located mostly in the isolated 

mountain ranges (approximately 4% of the planning area and 2% of BLM land). Forests are mainly dry-mesic montane 

mixed conifer forests of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine with scattered birch and aspen groves. Forest 

and woodlands provide summer cover for big game and are prime habitats for dusky grouse (Dendragapus obscures) and 

northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis). Veery (Catharus fuscescens), red-headed woodpecker (Melanerpes 

erythrocephalus), and ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus) are also species of interest.

Riparian and wetland vegetative types occur on less than 1% of BLM land; however, it is estimated that 70-85% of the 

wildlife use riparian habitats for at least a portion of their life cycles. Many amphibian species, as well as muskrat 

(Ondatra zibethicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), mink (Mustela vison), and various waterbirds and waterfowl, occur in 

riparian or wetland areas only. Songbirds are attracted to the structural and vegetative diversity for both nesting and 

migration habitat. Riparian areas are also important for bald eagles.

Montana Partners in Flight has categorized riparian habitats as a top priority for conservation of neotropical migrant 

birds (birds that breed in the United States and Canada and winter in Latin America) (Montana Partners in Flight 2000). 

The Prairie Potholes region, which is the most important waterfowl producing area in North America, includes the 

northern portion of the planning area. Wetland habitat continues to be lost to agriculture and drainage in the Prairie 

Potholes region. This loss increases the importance of wetland habitat on public lands in Montana, even though they 

make up less than 1% of the potholes region in North America.

Historic Habitat Reduction and Fragmentation

Historical conditions for biological resources are a function of the interaction of physical factors (e.g., climate, soils, 

geology, and elevation), and disturbance factors (e.g., fire, grazing, drought). These physical and natural factors 

combined to produce the biological diversity present in the planning area prior to wholesale changes as a result of EuroAmerican settlement. Wildlife resources were noted as 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% 

of native grasslands in the Great Plains 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. Under the Homestead Act, nearly 

1.5 million people acquired and plowed over 309,000 sq. mi. (800,000 km2) of land, primarily in the Great Plains 

(Samson, et al. 2004). The impacts of land 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% remaining in native vegetation 

(Samson, et al. 2004).

Currently, native vegetation covers about 59% of the planning area, with approximately 25% of the remaining native 

vegetation managed by the BLM. Much of the direct habitat loss from conversion to agriculture has occurred in the 

western portion of the planning area. The conversion of native habitats continues throughout the area and may increase 

as other crops are modified to grow in more arid environments and the demand for bio-fuels grows.

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 and/or 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 dissected into smaller blocks, 

they became more isolated from one another by dissimilar habitats and land uses. Over the last 40 to 50 years, range 

conditions have improved due to improved grazing management practices and livestock operations. Since 1997, the 

BLM has applied Standards for Rangeland Health to enhance sustainable livestock grazing and wildlife habitat while 

protecting watersheds and riparian ecosystems.

As blocks of habitat are repeatedly dissected into smaller blocks, adverse impacts including isolation 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. Actions that result in habitat loss are 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 379

exacerbated when fragmentation reduces the size and/or isolates remaining habitat patches below size thresholds 

necessary to support particular species. Individual species have different thresholds of fragmentation tolerance. Large 

birds (golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos)) have large territorial requirements and may be able to utilize habitat fragments 

smaller than their territory, while smaller birds (Sprague’s pipit (Anthus spragueii)) favor habitat areas that are larger 

than their territory (Davis 2004).

Linear features including roads, railroads, trails, irrigation systems, and rights-of-way fragment the planning area. 

Interstate 15 and a network of state highways, county roads, local roads on private and public lands, and the Burlington 

Northern Railroad dissect much of the planning area. The development of irrigation and flood control reservoirs such as 

Tiber, Fresno, Nelson and Fort Peck reservoirs and their associated water distribution systems has also contributed to 

habitat fragmentation in and along the borders of the planning area. Some fences can also fragment habitats by blocking 

migration routes for some wildlife species such as pronghorn.

Changes in vegetation can also fragment native habitats. Irrigation water has supported the conversion of native plant 

communities to hay fields, pasture, and cropland, thereby fragmenting habitats for some native species. Roads and OHV 

use can promote the spread of noxious weeds through vehicular traffic, and noxious weed 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. Recent 

interest in bio-fuel production on private lands has resulted in an increase in the conversion of lands formerly enrolled in 

the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) or native grasslands to cropland, further emphasizing the importance of BLM 

lands and associated private ranch lands for the maintenance of large blocks of native grasslands and shrublands. Habitat 

fragmentation is most obviously due to the linear features identified in the previous discussion; however, fragmentation 

also occurs at population centers and other developments where humans live, work, and recreate. Developing private 

parcels and subdivisions or smaller ranchettes and associated buildings, roads, fences, and utility corridors has also 

contributed to habitat loss and fragmentation. 

The 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 impacted native wildlife 

associated with grassland habitats.

Large numbers of bison (Bos bison) formerly moved nomadically through the planning area 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 one to eight years (Malainey and Sherriff 1996). The number of bison 

estimated to inhabit the Great Plains prior to Euro-American settlement is 30-60 million animals, but by 1890, only a few 

thousand animals remained (Knapp, et al. 1999). The last wild bison in the planning area were probably killed in 1885.

Rocky Mountain locusts (Melanoplus spretus) often erupted in swarms numbering in the billions and their impact on 

vegetation was also presumed to be extensive. Managed livestock grazing (mostly cattle) have replaced these grazers 

and their impact on grassland habitats is much different in scale and duration. Rocky Mountain locusts became 

functionally extinct by 1900 (Lockwood 2004).

Large fires often occurred, and fire regimes were probably highly variable depending on rainfall and subsequent grass 

growth (Umbanhowar 1996). The 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 grazing by bison and/or locusts (Umbanhowar 1996). Only about 4,000 acres of the planning area burn per 

year and fire is no longer a major disturbance factor in this landscape.

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: 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

380 Wildlife

 improper grazing management which has changed vegetation composition and increased soil compaction or 

erosion;

 oil and gas well and associated infrastructure development, which has disturbed soil for well pad and road 

development;

 increased human activity levels contributing to soil erosion, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife disturbance;

 fire suppression, which has depleted or completely removed the natural fire regime with which habitats evolved;

 improper OHV use, which has spread invasive weeds and disturbed wildlife;

 recreation activities, which have disturbed wildlife; and

 road placements, which 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 widespread decline of any group of birds in 

North America (Knopf 1994). Black-tailed prairie dogs have been reduced to about 2% of their former numbers 

(Kotliar, et al. 1999 and references therein), and the associated black-footed ferret was thought extinct until a small 

population was found in Wyoming in 1981. Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) and gray wolves (Canis lupus) have also been 

extirpated throughout the Great Plains, but remain in the forested western portions of the planning area. Swift fox were 

also extirpated in the northern Great Plains, but have recently been reintroduced.

The historic impacts to wildlife habitat mentioned above have occurred to various degrees. Consequently, some areas 

contain habitats which function well and other areas no longer function very well for wildlife habitat. Some areas 

contain large, contiguous blocks of native habitats and other areas are composed of small, fragmented patches of native 

habitats.

The changes to native habitats noted above have also benefited some species of wildlife. Ring-necked pheasants 

(Phasianus colchicus), gray partridge (Perdix perdix), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) have been introduced and 

have responded positively to the changes in habitat. They 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 they presumably 

were in the past.

Habitat management challenges include:

 the maintenance of heterogeneity in habitat composition and structure for grassland and shrubland communities;

 habitat fragmentation;

 invasion and spread of exotic species and noxious weeds;

 lack of a natural historic fire regime;

 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 land.

Wildlife Species

The variety of animals present is high and includes 63% of the total amphibian species, 88% of the total bird species, 

80% of the total mammal species, and 68% of the total reptile species common to Montana. See Appendix M for a

complete list of wildlife species.

Mammals

The planning area provides habitat for nearly 100 species of mammals. Although many of these are small mammals 

(bats, mice and shrews) which play important ecological roles in their associated habitats, the larger mammals (deer, 

bighorn sheep, elk and pronghorn) are the most economically important group of animals because of the interest in 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 381

hunting these species. Large predators such as gray wolves, mountain lions (Puma concolor), and grizzly bears are 

limited in their distribution.

Big Game

Pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), white-tailed deer, and elk (Cervus 

elaphus) are the most common big game animals. Pronghorn and deer occupy much of the planning area in the summer, 

but spend their winter in distinct areas (Figures 3.18 and 3.19). Two of these important winter range areas in Phillips 

County are the Frenchman Creek area and the vicinity of the Burnt Lodge WSA. The Bitter Creek WSA in Valley 

County and the Sweet Grass Hills ACEC in Liberty and Toole Counties are also important big game winter range areas.

The pronghorn population was estimated at 2.5 million at its peak prior to the settling of Montana. Populations have 

since declined, primarily due to loss of habitat. Originally, pronghorn were found throughout the plains, foothills and the 

broad intermountain valleys of Montana. By 1924, it was estimated that only about 3,000 pronghorn were surviving in 

central and southwestern Montana. By 1965, the population was estimated to have reached 75,000 animals.

Pronghorn are now found throughout the state where adequate habitat remains. The optimum habitat for pronghorn 

consists of open, rolling sagebrush grassland, as free from human disturbance as possible. Browse, primarily sagebrush, 

is vital in the pronghorn diet. Pronghorn utilize the sagebrush grassland habitats almost exclusively during the winter. 

Pronghorn from Canada and north of the Milk River migrate along major drainages to winter concentration areas along 

the Milk River during severe winters. Periodic pronghorn winter die offs have been recorded over the last 40 years due 

to severe winter conditions. The estimated mortality was nearly half during the 1977-78 winter, with most deaths 

attributed to malnutrition. Pronghorn residing south of the Milk River will migrate south of the Missouri River in severe 

winters. Most populations of pronghorn are currently stable and near management goals, although there are concerns for 

pronghorn in northern Blaine and Phillips Counties due to recent population declines.

Mule and white-tailed deer are the most numerous big game animals. Mule Deer typically inhabit drainage bottoms; 

rough, broken side slopes; upland areas where sagebrush is common; wooded breaks; and mountain foothills.

White-tailed deer habitat is relatively rare on BLM land, with most habitats occurring along drainage bottoms with tall 

brushy vegetation such as those along the Milk, Marias, and Missouri rivers and smaller tributaries. They are often 

associated with private croplands. White-tailed deer are expanding their range, probably in response to the continued 

conversion of native rangelands to agriculture.

Populations of both deer species are currently high. During winters of heavy snowfall, sagebrush is often the only 

available forage plant and becomes crucial to the survival of many mule deer herds. In severe winters deer also 

congregate on private agricultural lands and can cause severe haystack damage. Deer in the mountains may move to 

lower elevations during severe winters. Mule deer populations are also impacted by drought and white-tailed deer 

populations may also fluctuate due to epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD).

Elk distribution across Montana has changed dramatically, from statewide distribution at the time of pre-settlement, to 

small, remnant herds in remote mountainous areas by the turn of the century. Elk are currently found throughout the 

state in areas where suitable habitat remains. Elk distribution in habitat along the Missouri River today is the result of 

transplant efforts and big game management (Figure 3.20). Elk populations are currently above desired levels because of 

healthy reproductive success and lack of adult mortality.

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) were originally found in mountainous areas and along the Missouri River. 

Overhunting and disease soon restricted bighorn sheep populations to rugged mountain habitat in the western portion of 

the planning area. MFWP reintroduced bighorn sheep in the Missouri River Breaks between 1950 and 1980 and in the 

Little Rocky Mountains in the 1970s. These populations have increased and currently support limited hunting within the 

Missouri River Breaks area (Figure 3.21). The Little Rocky Mountains population has fluctuated, but meadow 

restoration projects and reclamation of the Zortman/Landusky Mine are improving habitat conditions.

Other big game species include moose (Alces alces), mountain goat (Oreamnos americanus), mountain lion, and black 

bears (Ursus americanus). Moose and mountain goat primarily occur in the western portion of the planning area.

Mountain lion and black bears occur in suitable habitat throughout the planning area. Moose sightings are on the rise, 

especially in the Sweet Grass Hills and from wandering individuals in northern Phillips and Valley Counties.
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

382 Wildlife

Figure 3.18

Pronghorn Antelope Winter Range
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 383

Figure 3.19

Mule Deer Winter Range and Crucial Winter Range
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

384 Wildlife

Figure 3.20

Elk Distribution and Winter Range
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 385

Figure 3.21

Bighorn Sheep Distribution and Lambing Areas
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

386 Wildlife

Management of big game populations occurs through regulated hunting by MFWP. The distribution and populations of 

big game species may be affected by the ability of hunters to access areas where the animals are located.

Seasonal and spatial protective stipulations are currently applied by the BLM around identified seasonal habitat use areas 

to afford big game and their habitat a level of protection from human disturbance and industrial activities.

Habitat management challenges for big game include:

 habitat degradation (particularly browse forage), fragmentation, and loss;

 incompatible land use practices (land conversion, industrial activities, intensive recreational activities);

 incompatible stock (domestic sheep grazing in or near bighorn sheep habitat); and

 impacts from human disturbance during sensitive periods and barriers to animal migration.

Birds

About 370 species of birds have been observed in the planning area. A variety of habitats provide important breeding, 

wintering, and migration habitats for many of these species, although some species are rarely found. Grasslandassociated species are declining in most other parts of their range and are included in a number of special status species

lists at the state and national levels.

Nearly all species of birds in the planning area are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Further 

emphasis on migratory birds was enacted by Executive Order 13186 which, in part, instructed federal agencies to 

consider migratory birds, especially special status species, in any environmental review process. In addition, intact 

grassland and sagebrush environments provide habitat for a variety of upland game birds which are economically 

important as hunted species.

A number of management plans related to birds have been developed. The Montana Bird Conservation Plan (Montana 

Partners in Flight 2000) contains conservation actions for Montana’s birds. The North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan (NAWMP) was developed in 1988 because of the decline of waterfowl production in the United 

States and Canada. The NAWMP plan has been divided into various joint ventures for implementation, with the Prairie 

Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) encompassing most of the planning area. A number of bird-associated projects related to 

waterfowl have been implemented with this joint venture. The BLM is a partner in the PPJV Implementation Plan 

(PPJV 2005). This plan addresses the conservation needs of four species groups: waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and 

landbirds (each with their own national level plan); and outlines goals and objectives for bird conservation that the BLM 

can integrate into programmatic and site-specific management decisions.

Colonial Waterbirds

Colonial waterbirds nesting in the planning area include black-crowned night-herons (Nycticorax nycticorax), doublecrested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritis), great blue herons (Ardea herodias), eared grebes, (Podiceps nigricollis), 

ring-billed gulls (Larus delawarensis), California gulls (Larus californicus) and common terns (Sturna hirundo).

In addition, black terns (Chlidonias niger), Franklin’s gulls (Larus pipixcan), American white pelicans (Pelecanus 

erythrorhynchos), and white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) are colonial waterbird BLM species of concern found in the 

planning area. These birds are important because they nest in large colonies in limited areas and are highly vulnerable to 

habitat changes and disturbances to the breeding colonies.

Current management actions focus on protecting colonial waterbird colonies from human disturbance. The wetland/ 

water-associated habitats upon which they depend are maintained through wetland-specific management.

Habitat management challenges for colonial waterbirds include protecting habitat from degradation and loss, and 

minimizing human disturbance.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 387

Game Birds

The greater sage-grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, ring-necked pheasant, gray partridge, mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) 

and wild turkey are the most popular game birds, with established hunting seasons and limits. Dusky (formerly Blue) 

grouse and Ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) occur in mountain forests and are also hunted.

Greater sage-grouse populations are dependent on sage habitats. See the Special Status Species section below for further 

discussion on greater sage-grouse.

Sharp-tailed grouse occur in grassland, shrub, riparian and woodland habitat types and often use agricultural lands where 

they coincide with native vegetation. Woody draws and woodlands containing buffaloberry, snowberry, juniper, and 

wild rose are used extensively for food and cover during the winter. Sharp-tailed grouse continue to be of concern due to 

increasing fragmentation of habitat, habitat changes due to loss of buffaloberry shrubs, and disturbance from resource 

uses.

Mourning doves are common and adaptable to a wide variety of habitat disturbances.

Ring-necked pheasants and gray partridge were introduced into Montana in the 1800s and have done well. Ring-necked 

pheasants primarily occur where there are grain crops for food, shrub and trees for cover, and cattail and bulrush in 

wetland areas for winter cover. Gray partridge occur throughout the planning area and are associated with most 

vegetation types and agricultural lands. They feed primarily on small grain crops, but do consume forbs during the 

summer.

Wild turkeys are native to North America, but not to Montana, and all populations in Montana are the results of 

introductions. The establishment and maintenance of wild turkey populations is dependent on the presence of mast crops 

for food adjacent to areas with large roosting trees.

Populations of all of these species fluctuate, primarily in response to weather events. The large blocks of habitat in the 

planning area support large populations of these species, which allow them to rebound in response to negative weather 

events. Populations are generally healthy and provide good hunting opportunities with associated economic input to the 

local economies during hunting season.

Current management actions focus on avoiding disturbance to game bird species and the habitats upon which they 

depend. Seasonal and spatial protective stipulations are currently applied around identified lek sites and seasonal 

habitats to afford protection from human disturbance and industrial activities.

Habitat management challenges for game birds include habitat degradation (loss of important forage shrubs, nesting 

cover, and invasive, exotic vegetation), fragmentation, and loss; human disturbance during sensitive periods; and 

incompatible land use practices (land conversion, industrial activities, and intensive recreational activities).

Migratory Birds

In addition to the sensitive species already mentioned, many species of migratory birds occur throughout the planning 

area and breed along the riparian corridors and forested landscapes. The planning area provides important stopover 

habitat for others, including many special status species migrating through the area in the spring and fall on their way to 

and from breeding habitats.

Current management actions focus on avoiding destruction and disturbance of breeding habitats and nesting locations, 

primarily from surface-disturbing activities. Other management actions such as the implementation of standards and 

guidelines (BLM 1997a) have benefited a variety of migratory birds, particularly those species associated with 

grasslands and shrublands (see a further discussion in the Sensitive Species section below).

Management challenges for migratory birds include habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss from exotic and 

invasive plants; lack of riparian structure and diversity; and incompatible land use practices (e.g., land conversion, snag 

removal, industrial activities, and intensive recreational activities). Other challenges include impacts from human 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

388 Wildlife

disturbance during sensitive periods, collision with powerlines and tower guy lines, and avoidance of and collision with 

wind turbines.

Raptors

The open grassland, sagebrush, and shrubland vegetative types are home to many raptor species. Raptors are attracted to 

the abundant prey, including upland game birds, small game, and numerous rodent species. Sixteen diurnal raptor 

species and fourteen owl species are known to occur, eight of which are BLM sensitive species (see the Special Status 

Species section below).

Seasonal and spatial protective stipulations are currently applied around identified nest sites and communal roost areas to 

afford raptors a level of protection from human disturbance and industrial activities.

Habitat management challenges for raptors include habitat degradation, fragmentation, and loss; lack of cottonwood 

regeneration; collision with and/or electrocution from powerlines; collision with wind turbines; and incompatible land 

use practices (land conversion, snag removal, industrial activities, intensive recreational activities, removal of burrowing 

mammals). Other challenges include impacts from contaminants such as lead poisoning and rodent control chemicals, 

and human disturbance during sensitive periods.

Waterfowl

Most species of North American waterfowl have been 

found in the planning area and many of these species 

are common migrants. Common nesting species are 

the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas 

platyrhynchos), Northern pintail (Anus acuta), gadwall 

(Anas strepera), American wigeon (Anas americana), 

Northern shoveler (Anas clypeata), blue-winged teal 

(Anas discors), cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), 

green-winged teal (Anas crecca), redheads (Aythya 

americana) and lesser scaup (Aythya affinis).

Natural potholes and reservoirs are crucial for nesting 

waterfowl with reservoirs becoming increasingly 

important during dry years. Waterfowl depend 

primarily on cover in the upland areas and on islands 

in the spring for successful nesting. Quality breeding 

habitat for most waterfowl species includes dense 

nesting cover for breeding success sufficiently close to 

water bodies which support emergent vegetation and an abundant food supply of aquatic insects for ducklings. Manmade islands that provide security from predators during nesting have been constructed in many reservoirs and are 

important to Canada geese, some duck species and many other wetland-associated birds. Diving ducks, such as scaup 

and redheads, also require open and deep water that supports fish and aquatic insects. Dabbling ducks, such as mallards 

and teal, require migration and winter habitats with a mix of open water for loafing and emergent vegetation for food and 

cover.

Major rivers such as the Milk and Marias also provide waterfowl habitat. Canada geese, mallards, common mergansers 

(Mergus merganser), American wigeon, wood ducks (Aix sponsa), and common goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula) are 

the primary species nesting on the rivers. Canada geese primarily nest on river islands. The largest number and variety 

of waterfowl occur during fall and spring migrations when the birds utilize harvested grain fields and marshes away from 

the rivers and return to the rivers for roosting and cover.

Current and past management actions have focused on creating and enhancing reservoirs and nesting islands. Annual 

waterfowl production has increased due to the construction and enhancement of these reservoirs and nesting islands. 

Other management actions such as the implementation of standards and guidelines (BLM 1997a) have benefited 

waterfowl, primarily through the increase in residual cover in nesting areas.

Canada Goose Photo by Craig Miller
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 389

The current emphasis for waterfowl management is centered on wetland restoration. Management challenges for 

waterfowl include habitat degradation through the loss of upland cover surrounding breeding areas and habitat 

fragmentation and loss. Many productive waterfowl wetlands are frequently dry, but can produce large numbers of 

waterfowl when water conditions are favorable. Maintaining the hydrology of these areas is a challenge.

Amphibians and Reptiles

Little is known of most reptiles and amphibians in the planning area, but they constitute a significant portion of the 

wildlife found therein. Ten species of amphibians and 13 reptile species are currently known to inhabit the planning area

(Maxell, et al. 2009).

Current management for reptiles and amphibians is limited to habitat protection through broad-scale management actions 

such as standards and guidelines (BLM 1997a) and riparian and aquatic habitat management.

Habitat management challenges for reptiles and 

amphibians include maintaining populations; minimizing 

wetland habitat degradation, loss, and impacts from 

contaminants; controlling exotic and invasive species 

such as predatory fish and noxious weeds that degrade 

wetland habitats; minimizing the impacts of diseases; and 

maintaining natural hydrologic regimes. Western 

rattlesnake hibernacula have been identified in the 

planning area. Amphibian larvae may be sensitive to 

contaminants and adults may bioaccumulate toxic 

pollutants from insect prey. Some amphibian populations 

in Montana have recently undergone, or are currently 

undergoing, declines and extirpations. Impacts from a 

variety of human activities may affect the viability of 

reptile and amphibian populations.

Wildlife Special Status Species

Special status species are animals that require particular management attention due to population or habitat concerns and 

are:

• federally listed threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitats;

• federally proposed species and proposed critical habitats;

• federal candidate species;

• state listed threatened or endangered; or

• Montana BLM sensitive species.

The BLM accomplishes its threatened and endangered species management through coordination with 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 (MOA) and subsequent implementation guidance for Section 7 consultations are utilized to 

provide collaborative opportunities in the consultation process. The BLM has entered into an MOA with the USFWS to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of RMP-level Section 7 consultation processes under the ESA. Through this 

MOA, the BLM agrees to promote the conservation of candidate, proposed, and listed species, and to informally and 

formally consult 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 can have critical habitat identified as crucial to species viability. For those species that are listed 

and have not had critical habitat designations identified for them, the BLM cooperates with the USFWS to determine and 

manage habitats of importance. Protective measures for migratory birds are provided in accordance with the Migratory 

Western Rattlesnake Photo by Craig Miller
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

390 Wildlife

Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Other fish and wildlife resources are considered under 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (1934).

Special status species indicators reflect population levels, distribution, and quantity and quality of preferred and suitable

habitat and the prey needed to support them. This includes critical breeding, wintering grounds, and corridors needed to 

support migrations and a healthy genetic pool needed for adaptability to future circumstances and conditions. Indicators 

are detected through allotment evaluations, stream and vegetation monitoring, population surveys, the Natural Heritage 

Program database, field observations, and USFWS data.

Montana BLM Sensitive Species

Montana BLM sensitive species are those species designated by the BLM State Director, usually in cooperation with the 

state agency responsible for managing the species and State Natural Heritage programs. BLM sensitive species are those 

species that:

• could become endangered in or extirpated from a state, or within a significant portion of its distribution;

• are under status review by the USFWS and/or National Marine Fisheries Service;

• are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 

species’ existing distribution;

• are undergoing significant current or predicted downward trends in population or density such that federal 

listed, proposed, candidate, or state listed status may become necessary;

• species that have been delisted within the last five years;

• typically have small and widely dispersed populations;

• inhabit ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats; or

• are state-listed, but which may be better conserved through application of BLM sensitive species status.

Over half of the vertebrate animal species considered sensitive by the Montana BLM occur within the planning area and 

include 8 mammal species, 34 bird species, 4 amphibian species, and 4 reptile species. Table 3.58 shows the species 

occurring on BLM land and their general habitat association. The planning area contains a large proportion of the global 

breeding range for many of these species. The Montana BLM will review and update the Bureau sensitive species list 

once every five years in coordination with state agencies responsible for fisheries, wildlife, and botanical resources 

(BLM 6840 – Special Status Species Management Manual).

For most special status species, comprehensive data on population numbers and distribution within the planning area are 

not available. Occurrence data from the Montana Natural Heritage Program identify the presence and location for some 

special status wildlife species in the planning area; however, these data reflect observations from opportunistic or 

project-specific surveys rather than a complete inventory of the planning area.

Species added to the sensitive species list will have management actions developed to conserve, enhance and protect the 

species in accordance with applicable BLM guidance.

The special status species in the planning area are primarily associated with grasslands and sagebrush habitats. Many of 

the sensitive species are fairly common because of the relatively intact large areas of habitat still remaining compared to 

other parts of their range. See the Wildlife Habitat section above for a more detailed discussion of changes throughout 

the Great Plains which have led to designating many of the species discussed below as special status species.

Most management actions will be directed at maintaining habitat and the processes that provide habitat diversity in the 

planning area. Where species-specific management can improve individual special status species habitats or populations, 

those actions will be considered as long as they are also compatible with long-term persistence of other habitats and 

species.

If species which occur on BLM lands in the planning area are added to the T&E list in the future, management actions 

will be developed to conserve, enhance and protect the species in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 391

Table 3.58

Montana BLM Sensitive Species

In the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern

MFWP

Tier Level* General Habitat

Mammals

Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes SOC 2 Shrubland/Forest

Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii SOC 1 Shrubland

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Cynomys ludovicianus SOC 1 Grassland

Swift Fox Vulpes velox SOC 2 Grassland

North American Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus SOC 2 Forest

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis 2 Forest

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans 2 Forest

Gray Wolf Canis lupus 1 Forest

Birds

American Three-toed 

Woodpecker

Picoides dorsalis PSOC 2 Forest

Baird's Sparrow Ammodramus bairdii SOC 2 Grassland

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus SOC 1 Forest

Black-crowned Night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax SOC 3 Wetland

Black Tern Chlidonias niger SOC 1 Wetland

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus SOC 1 Forest

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus SOC 3 Moist Grassland

Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri SOC 2 Shrubland

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia SOC 1 Grassland

Chestnut-collared Longspur Calcarius ornatus SOC 3 Grassland

Common Loon Gavia immer SOC 1 Lake

Dickcissel Spiza americana SOC 2 Grassland

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis SOC 2 Grassland

Franklin's Gull Larus pipixcan SOC 2 Grassland/Wetland

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos 2 Shrubland

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa SOC 2 Forest

Greater Sage-Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus SOC 1 Shrubland

Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus SOC 1 Forest/Stream

Le Conte's Sparrow Ammodramus leconteii SOC 2 Grassland/Wetland

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus SOC 2 Shrubland

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus SOC 1 Grassland

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa 2 Grassland/Wetland

McCown's Longspur Calcarius mccownii SOC 2 Grassland

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus SOC 1 Grassland

Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni SOC 1 Grassland/Wetland

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis SOC 2 Forest

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus SOC 2 Forest

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus SOC 2 Forest
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

392 Wildlife

Table 3.58

Montana BLM Sensitive Species

In the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name

State of MT 

Species of 

Concern

MFWP

Tier Level* General Habitat

Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus SOC 3 Shrubland

Sprague's Pipit Anthus spragueii SOC 2 Grassland

Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni SOC 2 Grassland

Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator SOC 1 Wetland

Veery Catharus fuscescens 2 Forest

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi SOC 2 Wetland

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus 3 Grassland/Wetland

Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor 3 Grassland/Wetland

Amphibians and Reptiles 

Great Plains Toad Bufo cognatus SOC 2 Grassland/Wetland

Greater Short-Horned Lizard Phrynosoma hernandesi SOC 2 Grassland

Milksnake Lampropeltis triangulum SOC 1 Shrubland

Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens SOC 1 Wetland

Plains Spadefoot Spea bombifrons SOC 2 Grassland/Wetland

Snapping Turtle Chelydra serpentina SOC 3 River/Stream

Spiny Softshell Turtle Apalone spinifera SOC 1 River/Stream

Western Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon nasicus SOC 1 Grassland

Western Toad Bufo boreas SOC 1 Forest/Wetland

*Tier 1: Greatest conservation need. MFWP has a clear obligation to use its resources to implement conservation actions that 

provide direct benefit to these species, communities, and focus areas.

Tier 2: Moderate conservation need. MFWP could use its resources to implement conservation actions that provide direct 

benefit to these species, communities, and focus areas.

Tier 3: Lower conservation need. Although important to Montana’s wildlife diversity, these species, communities, and focus 

areas are either abundant and widespread, or are believed to have adequate conservation already in place.

See MFWP State Comprehensive Wildlife Plan (2005).

Sensitive Species – Mammals

Eight species of mammals in the planning area are designated as Montana BLM sensitive species (see Table 3.58). The 

wolverine normally occurs in the western portion of the planning area, but not on BLM land.

Bats

Four of the species are bats and there is limited knowledge of their distribution and habitat needs in the planning area. 

Three species, Townsend’s big-eared bat, long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis, have been found in and around 

Azure Cave in the Little Rocky Mountains. Azure Cave has been designated an ACEC because of their presence as well 

as the large number of other bat species that hibernate in the cave. The status of populations for these species is 

unknown.

While no specific management actions exist for bats, management actions associated with standards and guidelines 

(BLM 1997a) are thought to maintain or improve habitats for most bat species. Water tanks located on BLM lands have 

been fitted with escape ramps to minimize drowning by bats and other species. Future management actions specifically 

for bats will require more information on bat distribution and habitat use in the planning area.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 393

Black-tailed Prairie Dogs

Black-tailed prairie dogs exist throughout the planning area, with large concentrations in southern Phillips County

(Figure 3.22). Prairie dog towns provide habitat for numerous vertebrate species, including other sensitive species such 

as the burrowing owl, swift fox, mountain plover, and black-footed ferret (Kotliar, et al. 1999). In 1988, approximately 

253 black-tailed prairie dog towns covered over 22,789 acres. The Fort Belknap Indian Reservation and Charles M. 

Russell National Wildlife Refuge contain about 26,500 acres of black-tailed prairie dog towns. Acreage figures have 

fluctuated greatly since 1992, when sylvatic plague was discovered in the black-tailed prairie dog population of southern 

Phillips County. Plague continues to be the primary factor in determining prairie dog populations in the planning area.

Figure 3.22

Black-tailed Prairie Dog Habitat
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

394 Wildlife

A statewide conservation plan for black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dogs was approved in 2002, and the Final MFWP

Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives Plan (which encompasses all the prairie dogs in the 

planning area) was finalized in April 2006. MFWP is currently mapping prairie dog distribution in the planning area to 

determine how the current status matches with the plan, and management actions will be proposed to help meet the 

objectives outlined in the plan, including one complex of at least 5,000 acres of active prairie dog towns within 1.5 km of 

each other (MFWP 2005).

Gray Wolves

Gray wolves were formerly abundant throughout the planning area, but were exterminated from the eastern plains by 

1900 and from the rest of Montana by the 1930s. Wolves from Canada began to re-colonize the Glacier National Park 

area in 1979, and the first wolf den in the western U.S. in over 50 years was documented there in 1986. The wolf 

population in northwest Montana grew as a result of natural reproduction and dispersal and in May, 2009, gray wolves 

were removed from the endangered species list.

Montana’s first fair chase wolf hunting season occurred in 2009 with a statewide quota of 75 wolves. A total of 72 

wolves were taken and the season was closed November 16 when quota numbers were nearly met in Wolf Management 

Units (WMUs) 1 and 2, and exceeded in WMU 3. The Planning Area is entirely within Wolf Management Unit 1. The 

wolf quota in WMU 1 was 41. Thirty-eight wolves were harvest prior the November 16 season closure.

A U.S. District Court decision formally reinstated federal Endangered Species Act protections for wolves in the Northern 

Rockies on August 5, 2010. In May 2011, the USFWS once again removed gray wolves in Montana from the Federal 

List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Wolves will be managed under Montana’s federally approved Gray Wolf 

Conservation and Management Plan. To avoid relisting, Montana will comply with federal regulations to manage 

wolves in a manner that will guarantee that the state maintains at least a minimum of 150 wolves and 15 breeding pairs. 

The line separating Montana in the northern Endanger Area and southern Experimental Area no longer exists and the 

wolf is reclassified under Montana law as a “species in need of management” statewide.

Swift Fox

The swift fox was extirpated in Montana and the northern Great Plains by the late 1930s. Reintroduction efforts initiated 

in 1983 in southern Canada have been successful and swift fox populations have established within the planning area. 

Populations of this fox are increasing and recent surveys estimate the northern Great Plains population to be over 1,000, 

with about 500 occurring in the planning area on open shortgrass and mixed-grass prairie (Moehrenschlager and 

Moehrenschlager 2006). The swift fox was removed from the USFWS candidate species list in 2001.

Current management is limited to the application of standards and guidelines (BLM 1997a) for maintaining and 

improving habitat. Habitat management opportunities could include options for reducing fragmentation to maintain 

currently intact priority grasslands, limiting the spread of invasive and exotic plants, reducing direct mortalities, and 

reducing disturbances at den sites.

Sensitive Species – Birds

A majority of the 34 BLM sensitive bird species (see Table 3.58) are associated with the extensive grassland and sage 

habitats of the planning area. This area is highly important to these species because of large and relatively intact tracts of 

land allowing for robust bird populations in contrast to the rest of their breeding range, which is much more fragmented 

and where populations appear to be declining. See the Wildlife Habitat section above for a broader discussion on 

grassland and sagebrush habitats in the planning area.

The following discussion represents a few key species and species groups in the planning area.

Grassland Birds

The planning area provides habitat for a suite of sensitive bird species associated with grassland habitats. These species 

include willet, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, Wilson’s phalarope, Sprague’s pipit, dickcissel, Brewer’s sparrow, 

Baird’s sparrow, Le Conte’s sparrow, Nelson’s sharp-tailed sparrow, McCown’s longspur, and chestnut-collared 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 395

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse 

Priority Areas

Areas containing substantial and high 

quality grasslands that support large 

populations of a suite of special status 

grassland bird species. This suite of 

species includes the following species 

of concern: Sprague’s pipit, chestnutcollared longspur, McCown’s longspur, 

Baird’s sparrow, and long-billed 

curlew. Management actions would 

emphasize the conservation and 

enhancement of sustainable grassland 

bird habitats. Areas are delineated by 

using survey results, predictive models 

of species distributions, and land 

ownership patterns.

These areas also include core area for 

greater sage-grouse identified by 

MFWP. Sage-grouse core areas are 

habitats associated with 1) Montana’s 

highest densities of sage-grouse, based 

on male counts and/or 2) sage-grouse 

lek complexes and associated habitat 

important to sage-grouse distribution.

longspur. This suite of species has exhibited a steep decline in numbers throughout their range (Knopf 1994) related to 

the changes in the Great Plains as noted in the Wildlife Habitat section above.

In addition to being special status species, Sprague’s pipits have been petitioned for listing as threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act in the United States. The USFWS determined that the petition presented substantial 

information indicating that listing Sprague’s pipit may be warranted and initiated a status review in December 2009 

(USFWS 2009). Baird’s sparrow is a former USFWS Category 2 candidate for review for possible addition to the

threatened and endangered species list (USFWS 1991) until Category 2 list was discontinued (USFWS 1996). Both 

species are associated with relatively dense grass patches in large, intact grassland areas.

Large blocks of remaining native grasslands provide some of the best remaining habitat in the world for this group of 

birds. The number of grassland and shrub grassland bird species currently breeding in the planning area is probably 

quite similar to that of prehistoric times, but their relative and overall abundance may be quite different. This suite of 

species occupies a range of environmental conditions in grassland habitats, primarily related to grass height and density, 

and the relative abundance of these species is determined by the frequency and extent of disturbance factors in grassland 

systems such as grazing, fire, and weather events. Grazing intensity and fire frequency were probably greater and the 

abundance of species that respond to shorter vegetation structure may have been greater in prehistoric times. See the 

Wildlife Habitat section above for a greater discussion on grassland habitats.

Recent studies have demonstrated that these declining species are some of the most common birds across the northern 

part of the planning area, and the planning area supports healthy populations of the entire suite of grassland associated 

species, ranging from short grass associated species such as the McCown’s longspur to species associated with taller, 

denser grass such as Sprague’s pipit and Baird’s sparrow (Hendricks, et al. 2007, 2008). Grasslands in northern Valley 

County have been identified as a Globally Important Bird Area (Audubon 2007) because of the density and number of 

grassland bird sensitive species, and the remaining grasslands in the planning area are highly important for these species 

(Hendricks, et al. 2007, 2008).

Impacts to grassland birds on BLM lands include habitat loss and 

fragmentation from disturbances related to energy exploration, development 

and production (primarily oil, gas, and wind), and roads.

Current grazing management on many allotments, which have stocking rates 

and pasture sizes that promote a range of vegetative structures across the 

landscape, appear to support large populations of a wide range of grassland 

bird species. Future management should preserve a variation in vegetative 

structure in large blocks of native grasslands, minimize fragmentation of the 

remaining large blocks of habitat, and control the spread of noxious weeds. 

The management challenge associated with grassland birds is to maintain a 

dynamic grassland that provides specific habitats for a wide range of 

grassland species and to avoid management actions for one species which 

might be detrimental to other special status species.

Greater Sage-Grouse

The greater sage-grouse is an important game bird in Montana. They are 

primarily associated with the big and silver sagebrush communities in 

grassland-shrub and shrub vegetation types (Figure 3.23). Greater sagegrouse prefer sagebrush for nesting cover throughout their range, probably 

because of the concealment sagebrush provides, and nest success has been

positively correlated with cover. Leks are key activity areas for populations 

and are most often located in open areas surrounded by sagebrush cover.

Most populations of greater sage-grouse have declined during the past 50 years (Connelly, et al. 2004). Population 

declines throughout their range are largely attributed to the loss and degradation of sagebrush habitats. Changes in land 

use and land development are the primary causes of habitat loss. Habitat degradation is a complicated interaction among

many factors, including drought, grazing management, changes in natural fire regimes, and the invasion of invasive 

exotic plant species (Connelly, et al. 2004).
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

396 Wildlife

Figure 3.23

Greater Sage-Grouse Distribution and Winter Range
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 397

Greater Sage-Grouse

Protection Priority Area

An area with limited impacts containing 

substantial and high quality greater 

sage-grouse habitat that supports high 

density greater sage-grouse populations. 

Management actions would emphasize 

the conservation and enhancement of 

sustainable greater sage-grouse habitat. 

The area is delineated by using “key,” 

“core” and connectivity data/maps, land 

ownership patterns, and other resource

information.

Greater sage-grouse are distributed throughout the eastern portion of the planning area, and approximately 154 known 

leks are located on BLM lands, primarily in Valley and Phillips Counties, with the highest densities of leks occurring in 

larger tracts of sagebrush shrublands.

The BLM and MFWP have surveyed and monitored greater sage-grouse leks annually since the 1950s. Male attendance 

on leks is utilized by MFWP to provide an index of relative change in population abundance. Increased survey efforts 

have located additional leks in the planning area. The number of males observed per lek has remained relatively steady 

with a peak in the mid-1960s, although this may be an artifact of the number of leks surveyed and actual changes may be 

less pronounced. Survey efforts varied by year and numbers prior to 1998 are based on less than 20 leks.

Habitats in the western and northern portions of the planning area are fragmented by changes in habitat type and land use 

practices. Large, contiguous blocks of sagebrush and grassland in the western portion of the planning area have for the 

most part been eliminated. Occupied habitat is fairly contiguous throughout much of southern Valley, Phillips, and 

Blaine Counties. Sage-grouse populations in the planning area are thought to be non-migratory; however, recent studies 

have confirmed some movement from populations in the northern part of the planning area and Canada into areas south 

of the Milk River (Tack 2009). Sage-grouse occurring north of the Milk River in predominantly silver sagebrush

habitats remain at lower densities than sage-grouse south of the Milk River. Many areas north of the Milk River have 

also experienced a reduction of sage-grouse from historic distributions, including areas south of the Alberta and 

Saskatchewan boundaries. Some of these areas may still facilitate dispersal into or exchanges with Canadian 

populations, although it is likely that such movements have been greatly reduced (Bush, et al. 2010). Small 

subpopulations in this region may be dependent on connectivity with larger core populations.

Sage-grouse habitat south of the Milk River is dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush with silver sagebrush in riparian 

areas. Sage-grouse habitat in the South Valley/Phillips area is in generally good condition primarily due to maintaining 

large tracts of big sagebrush habitat. Livestock ranching is the predominant land use in this area, which has conserved 

large blocks of native sagebrush grassland habitat on private and public lands. The 20-year trend for male lek attendance 

is slightly increasing in the South Valley/Phillips area.

The BLM HiLine District is conducting habitat inventories and evaluation studies of sagebrush habitat near greater sagegrouse leks to evaluate habitat as well as determine localized standards for greater sage-grouse habitat condition 

assessments. The BLM has also co-sponsored a number of research projects related to greater sage-grouse in southern 

Phillips and northern Valley Counties. Specific wintering concentration areas of greater sage-grouse within the planning 

area are not well documented to date.

Several petitions to list greater sage-grouse as threatened were submitted to USFWS in 2002. In January 2005, the 

USFWS determined that listing under the ESA was not warranted, but recent court actions have instructed the USFWS to 

reconsider that decision. Sage-grouse conservation is a priority for the BLM, and emphasis has been placed on planning 

efforts throughout their range in North America and in Montana. On March 5, 2010, the USFWS announced that the 

greater sage-grouse was warranted for listing under the ESA but precluded by other higher priority species. The USFWS 

will evaluate this decision on a yearly basis to determine if conditions leading to this decision have changed enough to 

adjust the priority for listing.

In 2000, the Montana Sage-Grouse Working Group was formed to develop a 

statewide, multi-agency strategy for the conservation of the greater sagegrouse. This group prepared the Management Plan and Conservation 

Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana – Final (MSGWG 2005) to provide 

for coordinated management and direction across the state. In 2004, local 

greater sage-grouse working groups were formed to develop and implement 

local conservation plans. The only working group in the planning area is 

located in Glasgow and the BLM participates with this group. The area 

covered by this group includes much of the BLM land in Phillips and Valley 

Counties.

Impacts to greater sage-grouse include sage habitat fragmentation, 

disturbances related to energy (oil and gas, and wind) exploration, 

development and production, pathogens (West Nile virus), and overhead 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

398 Wildlife

powerlines. Current management of greater sage-grouse focuses primarily on protection of greater sage-grouse leks and 

habitats surrounding leks through seasonal and spatial stipulations for surface-disturbing activities. Management 

opportunities include protecting large blocks of existing habitat from further loss and fragmentation, reducing the 

disturbance from surface-disturbing activities, and controlling invasive and exotic plants.

Greater Sage-Grouse Management Zone 1

The range of the greater sage-grouse in North America has been divided into seven sage-grouse management zones 

based on populations within floristic provinces (Stiver, et. al. 2006). The floristic provinces are areas within which 

similar environmental factors influence vegetation communities (Knick and Connelly 2011). Management Zone 1 

(MZ1) includes central and eastern Montana, northeastern Wyoming, southwestern North Dakota, and northwestern 

South Dakota. Greater sage-grouse habitats in MZ1 were historically a function of the interaction of physical factors 

(e.g., climate, soils, geology, and elevation), and natural disturbance factors (e.g., fire, grazing, 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 sage-grouse habitat in MZ1 is primarily Wyoming big sagebrush. Other 

shrubs present may include silver sagebrush, greasewood, saltbush, rubber rabbitbrush, green rabbitbrush, and overall 

shrub cover is less than 10% (Montana Field Guide 2011). 

Perennial herbaceous components typically contribute greater than 25% vegetative cover and consist mostly of 

rhizomatous and bunch-form grasses, with a diversity of perennial forbs (Montana Field Guide 2011). The dominant 

grass in this system is western wheatgrass and sites may include other species such as Indian ricegrass, blue grama, 

Sandberg’s bluegrass, or bluebunch wheatgrass (Montana Field Guide 2011). Dryland sedges such as threadleaf sedge 

and needleleaf sedge are very common and important in the eastern distribution of this system in Montana and Wyoming 

(Montana Field Guide 2011). Common forbs include Hood’s phlox, sandwort, prickly pear, scarlet globemallow, purple 

prairie clover, dotted gayfeather, and milkvetch (Montana Field Guide 2011). 

Big sagebrush is easily killed by fire at all intensities, and when exposed to fire, plants do not resprout (Wright et al. 

1979). In southwestern Montana, Wambolt and others (2001) found that fire in big sagebrush is stand replacing, killing 

or removing most of the aboveground vegetation, and that recovery to pre-burn cover (of sagebrush) takes 50 to 120 or 

more years (Baker 2006). In Montana, Wyoming big sagebrush may require a century or longer to recover from fire 

(Lesica, et al. 2005). 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 (Montana Field Guide 2011).

Silver sagebrush is fairly resistant to fire and will resprout vigorously following a fire event (Aldridge and Brigham 

2002). White and Currie (1983) stated that burning of silver sagebrush under favorable spring moisture conditions 

resulted in low plants kill rates and vigorous sprouting with brush cover returning to original, preburn conditions quickly.

Land ownership throughout MZ1 is predominantly private (70%). However, ownership of the remaining range of the 

greater sage-grouse in MZ1 is 61% private and 13% state or other federal ownership (not including the Fort Peck and 

Fort Belknap Indian Reservations), with 26% on BLM-managed lands.

Greater sage-grouse populations have declined in portions of MZ1 through wholesale loss of habitat as well as through 

impacts to birds on the remaining habitat through disturbance and direct mortality. The most pervasive and extensive 

change to the sagebrush ecosystems in MZ1 is the conversion of nearly 60% 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 sq. 

mi. (800,000 km2) of land, primarily in the Great Plains (Samson, et al. 2004). The impacts of land conversion in the late 

1800s and early 1900s were probably greatest for sagebrush habitats nearest perennial water sources in MZ1. 

Currently, native vegetation covers about 59% of the management zone, with approximately 25% 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 cover 

nearly 19% of the MZ and 91% of the MZ is within 6.9 km of cropland (Knick, et al. 2011).
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 399

Recent interest in biofuel production and high prices for small grains has resulted in an increase in the conversion of 

native grasslands or lands formerly enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to cropland, further 

emphasizing the importance of BLM lands and associated private lands managed for grazing to maintain large blocks of 

native grassland and shrubland habitats.

Greater sage-grouse are a landscape-scale species, requiring large expanses of sagebrush to meet all seasonal habitat 

requirements. The loss of habitat from fragmentation and conversion decreases the connectivity between seasonal 

habitats potentially resulting in the loss of the population (Doherty, et al. 2008). 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 and/or 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 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 also 

fragment remaining habitat for sagebrush-dependent species, such as the greater sage-grouse. Roads and OHV use can 

promote the spread of noxious weeds through vehicular traffic and noxious weed infestations can further exacerbate the 

Greater Sage-Grouse Photo by Craig Miller
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

400 Wildlife

fragmentation effects of roadways. Irrigation water has also supported the conversion of native plant communities to 

hayfields, pasture, and cropland, thereby fragmenting sagebrush habitats. Excessive grazing can result in the demise of 

the most common perennial grasses in this system and lead to an abundance cheatgrass or Japanese brome (Montana 

Field Guide 2011).

The remaining sagebrush habitats in MZ1 are mostly managed as grazing lands for domestic livestock. Domestic 

livestock function as a keystone species in the MZ through grazing and management actions related to grazing. These 

actions do not preclude wildlife and vegetation, but they do influence ecological pathways and species persistence (Bock,

et al. 1993). The effects of grazing on sagebrush habitats in this management zone are much different than effects noted 

in the Great Basin since the landscape throughout MZ1 is adapted to withstand grazing disturbance (Knick, et al. 2011). 

Historically large numbers of bison (Bos bison) moved nomadically through the MZ 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 one to eight years (Malainey and Sherriff 1996). Bison were replaced with 

domestic livestock in the late 1800s. 

The intensity and duration of grazing in the MZ increased as domestic livestock numbers and annual grazing pressure 

increased. 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 due to improved grazing management practices and 

livestock operations related to decreased livestock numbers and the annual duration of grazing. In addition, 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 sagegrouse habitats throughout the MZ is the construction of fencing and water developments (Knick, et al. 2011). 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 the MZ. Additional habitat modifications 

associated with grazing management include mechanical and chemical treatments to increase grass production, often by 

removing sagebrush (Knick, et al. 2011). 

Other major land uses in the MZ include energy development (primarily oil and gas development) and infrastructure. 

Oil and gas development in the MZ has occurred throughout the MZ but is concentrated in the southern portions (Powder

River Basin) the north (Bowdoin Field) and the south and east (Williston Basin). Oil and gas development includes 

direct loss of habitat from well pad and road construction as well as indirect disturbance effects from increased noise and 

vehicle traffic. Oil and gas developments directly impact greater sage-grouse through avoidance of infrastructure, or 

when development affects survival or reproductive success. Indirect effects include changes to habitat quality, predator 

communities, or disease dynamics (Naugle, et al. 2011).

Currently nearly 16% of the MZ is within 3km of oil and gas wells, a distance where ecological effect is 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. 

Infrastructure development in MZ1 has also impacted greater sage-grouse habitat. Roads, fences, and utility corridors 

have also contributed to habitat loss and fragmentation in portions of the MZ. Infrastructure development effects to 

greater sage-grouse habitats in MZ1 are primarily related to highways, roads, powerlines and communication towers, 

with nearly 92% of the MZ within 6.9km of a road, 32% within 6.9km of a powerline and 4% within 6.9km of a 

communication tower (Knick, et al. 2011). 

The cumulative and interactive impact of multiple disturbances and habitat loss has influence the current distribution of 

greater sage-grouse in MZ1. The cumulative extent of human caused changes, the human footprint, on sage-grouse 

habitat in MZ one is highest at the northern edge of the MZ but occurs throughout the MZ (Leu and Hanser 2011). 

Population centers for greater sage-grouse in MZ1 (Doherty, et al. 2011) generally correspond to areas lacking a high 

human footprint and some of these areas have been designated as core areas by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(MFWP 2010). Greater sage-grouse range in MZ1 is overall very similar to portions of the range where sage-grouse 

have been extirpated i.e. areas with high human footprints, mostly because of the abundance and distribution of 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 401

sagebrush in the MZ (Wisdom, et al. 2011) suggesting that sage-grouse in MZ1 are more vulnerable to declines than 

other portions of the sage-grouse range.

Mountain Plover

The mountain plover is a migratory species of the shortgrass prairie and shrub-grassland ecoregions of the arid West. 

The planning area provides a high proportion of their breeding habitat in Montana, and is of global importance for the 

continued existence of this species. The number of mountain plovers is thought to be about 1,028 individuals in southern 

Phillips and Valley Counties (Childers and Dinsmore 2008). More individuals may be found in the rest of the planning 

area but the number is not known. Breeding habitat for the mountain plover is characterized by short vegetation, bare 

ground, and flat topography common to prairie dog towns, open plains, and bentonite flats. Unlike other plovers, 

mountain plovers are rarely associated with water.

Mountain plovers migrate into the planning area in late 

April to breed and typically leave by early September. 

Mountain plovers on BLM land in Phillips and Blaine 

Counties are often associated with black-tailed prairie 

dog towns (see Wildlife Habitat section above); while 

in Valley County they are found in hardpan locations 

around Little Beaver Creek. The Little Beaver Creek 

area is considered a Globally Important Bird Area 

because of the numbers of mountain plovers breeding 

there (Audubon 2007). The mountain plover was 

proposed for listing as threatened, but was removed 

from consideration for listing in 2003. However, 

concern for this species remains high.

Current mountain plover management is closely related 

to black-tailed prairie dog management in much of the 

planning area because of the close association of 

plovers and the low structure habitat created by prairie 

dogs. The Mountain Plover ACEC was established in 

2003 in south Valley County to protect habitat associated with bentonitic soils in the area. Management opportunities 

for mountain plovers include habitat enhancement in areas away from prairie dog towns, other types of vegetative 

treatments, seasonal limitations on road maintenance in mountain plover habitat, minimizing disturbances during critical 

time periods, control of noxious and invasive plants, and maintenance of large blocks of habitat where plovers occur.

Raptors

Six raptor sensitive species breed in the planning area on BLM lands. Four raptor species, Swainson’s hawk, ferruginous 

hawk, golden eagle, and burrowing owl, breed in grassland and sagebrush-grassland habitats, while the Northern 

goshawk and bald eagle require forested areas.

The bald eagle occurs year-round in Montana and has made significant gains in breeding numbers throughout its range. 

Historical and active nest sites occur across the planning area along the Missouri and Milk rivers. A number of pairs also 

nest in the forested western portion of the planning area, but not on BLM lands. Bald eagle nests are increasing in the 

planning area as the population in Montana continues to expand eastward. The planning area is also heavily used during 

spring and fall migration by eagles that winter to the south and breed in the boreal forests of Canada. They are often 

present near open water during winters.

Bald eagles were recently removed from the threatened and endangered list. However, bald eagles remain protected 

under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. This act protects bald eagles and similar looking Golden Eagles from take 

without a permit. Current management focuses on seasonal and spatial limits on surface-disturbing activities around 

raptor nests which vary somewhat, depending on which species is addressed. Important roost areas and other seasonal 

use areas may also be protected with similar management actions.

Mountain Plover Photo by John Carlson
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

402 Wildlife

Sensitive Species – Amphibians and Reptiles

Four amphibian species and five reptile species are listed as Montana BLM sensitive species in the planning area (see 

Table 3.58). A few key species in the planning area are described below.

Northern leopard frog populations have been extirpated in all known sites west of the Continental Divide in Montana, 

prompting their listing as a BLM sensitive species. Populations in the planning area still appear to be healthy, but there 

is concern that the unknown factors that caused the extinction of the species west of the divide may begin to affect 

populations in the planning area.

Spiny softshell turtles inhabit large rivers with adequate areas of slack water and sand bars. These turtles lay their eggs 

in sandy soil or sand and gravel bars near water and impacts to the nesting habitat include invasive and exotic vegetation, 

livestock concentrations, and changes in water flow patterns due to dams and water diversions. Recent interest has been 

shown in the spiny softshell turtle on the Upper Missouri and Marias Rivers because this population is a disjunctive 

population, separate from spiny softshell turtles on the Yellowstone and Lower Missouri rivers.

The Western hognose snake inhabits well-drained, sandy soils in the planning area and specializes in feeding on 

salamanders, frogs, and especially toads. This species is seldom seen or can be easily overlooked and there are few 

recent records showing where they probably occur in the planning area in greater numbers than have been recorded in 

the past. They appear to be declining in other portions of their range.

No current management actions are directed at specific reptile or amphibian species in the planning area, but 

management actions directed at improving broad-scale habitat conditions through standards and guidelines (BLM 1997a) 

are expected to maintain and improve habitat.

Management opportunities include increased surveys to determine presence and habitat associations for sensitive species 

reptiles and amphibians in the planning area, and minimizing impacts to known habitats caused by invasive and exotic 

species, decreased water quality, and disease. Improvements to specific habitats important to some species may also be 

considered.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Threatened and Endangered Species – Mammals

Three mammal species, listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, are presently known to 

occur in the planning area (see Table 3.59):

 black-footed ferret – (Endangered and Experimental)

 Canada lynx – (Threatened)

 Grizzly bear – (Threatened)

The black-footed ferret was listed as endangered on March 11, 1967, and is now considered the rarest mammal in North 

America. The historic range of the ferret in Montana corresponds to the range of the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys 

ludovicianus), and the presence of black-footed ferrets is highly dependent on the size and extent of areas occupied by 

prairie dogs. Historical records exist of black-footed ferrets in the planning area.

The black-footed ferret was thought extinct by 1980, but was rediscovered at Meeteetsee, Wyoming, in September 1981. 

A successful black-footed ferret captive breeding program has provided animals for reintroductions throughout their 

former range, including prairie dog towns in south Phillips County. Black-footed ferrets were reintroduced into south 

Phillips County in 1994, on the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge as an experimental population. 

Reintroductions began on BLM land in 2001 and continued through 2005. However, viable self-sustaining populations 

of black-footed ferrets have not become established, likely due to the presence of plague affecting the overall size of the 

prairie dog prey base and the ferrets themselves. BLM participation in reintroduction efforts has declined in recent years 

as reintroduction efforts have not succeeded. No reintroduction efforts have taken place in the area since 2005.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 3, Affected Environment

Wildlife 403

Table 3.59

Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species

in the HiLine Planning Area

Common Name Scientific Name Global Rank State Rank Species Status

Mammals

Black-footed Ferret Mustela nigripes G1 S1 Listed Endangered and 

Experimental non-essential 

(portions of Phillips County)

Canada Lynx Lynx canadensis G5 S3 Listed Threatened

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos horribilis G4 S3 Listed Threatened

Birds

Least Tern Sterna antillarum G4T2Q S1B Listed Endangered

Piping Plover Charadrius melodus G3 S2B Listed Threatened

Whooping Crane Grus americana G1 S1M Listed Endangered

BLM management opportunities will focus on maintenance and enhancement of the prairie dog habitat in the planning 

area, primarily through the MFWP Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives Plan (MFWP 2006a). 

As alternative or improved reintroduction techniques are developed, maintenance of habitat in the planning area may 

enable those efforts to proceed. 

No potential Canada lynx habitat has been identified on BLM land in the planning area. Some parcels of BLM land are 

adjacent to Canada lynx habitat on U.S. Forest Service land, but the primary forest cover on these BLM parcels 

(ponderosa pine and dry Douglas-fir) is not considered lynx habitat.

Grizzly bears occur only on the western periphery of the planning area and entirely within Glacier National Park and the 

Blackfeet Reservation. They were formerly abundant throughout the planning area, but were exterminated from the 

eastern plains by 1900. Current populations appear healthy in the portions of the planning area adjacent to Glacier 

National Park and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation.

The Canada lynx and grizzly bear may occur on a very limited or sporadic basis within the planning area, but are not 

known to occur on BLM lands.

If any of these species are added to the T&E list in the future, or are found to occur more regularly on BLM lands in the 

planning area, management actions will be developed to conserve, enhance and protect the species and their habitat in 

accordance with the Endangered Species Act.

Threatened and Endangered Species – Birds

Three bird species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (Table 3.59) are known to occur 

in the planning area:

 least tern – (Endangered)

 piping plover – (Threatened)

 whooping crane – (Endangered)

The least tern occurs on a very limited or sporadic basis, and the potential for breeding on BLM lands in the planning 

area is low, although breeding is known to occur on Fort Peck Reservoir. The least tern has been observed at 

Whitewater Lake and Nelson Reservoir, but is not known to breed or occur there on a regular basis. They nest primarily 

on barren to sparsely vegetated riverine sandbars, dike field sandbar islands, sand and gravel pits, and lake and reservoir 

shorelines from late April to August. Threats to the survival of the species include the actual and functional loss of 
Chapter 3, Affected Environment HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

404 Wildlife

riverine sandbar habitat. Recovery actions to protect and restore least tern populations are outlined in the 1990 Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1990), and the 2006 Montana Interior Least Tern Management Plan (MFWP 2006b).

The piping plover was listed as threatened in 1986. Piping plovers breed on barren sand and gravel beaches in the 

planning area, and low water levels expose appropriate shoreline breeding and nesting habitat. Nesting success is often 

dependent on subsequent water level fluctuations and flooding is often a major source of nest mortality. Piping plovers 

are known to occur on Fort Peck Lake, Dry Lake and Lakeside units of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, 

Whitewater Lake, and Nelson Reservoir. Water levels at Fort Peck Reservoir are regulated for navigation and recreation, 

and those at Nelson Reservoir for irrigation purposes. In 2002, portions of the Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and 

Fort Peck Lake were designated as critical habitat for the piping plover. A portion of Nelson Reservoir was also 

proposed as critical habitat, but not designated due to current conservation agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation.

Piping Plover Shading a Nest Photo by Fritz Prellwitz

Recovery actions to protect and restore piping plover populations are outlined in the 1988 Recovery Plan (USFWS 

1988b) and the 2006 Montana Piping Plover Management Plan (MFWP 2006b). Nelson Reservoir is the only breeding 

habitat managed by the BLM (which manages the subsurface) in the planning area, and current management for piping 

plovers is focused on minimizing disturbances to breeding birds from surface-disturbing activities tied to mineral leasing 

through timing and spatial stipulations. Management opportunities include habitat creation in areas where disturbances 

may be less or modifying disturbances to minimize impacts to breeding birds.

The whooping crane was listed as endangered in 1970. No known whooping crane stopover, roosting, or nesting habitat 

occurs within the planning area, nor is the area within the whooping crane’s principal migration corridor. However, 

migration of the Canadian population occasionally results in sightings in northeastern Montana, as noted with three 

sightings since 1990 in a small area southwest of the town of Whitewater in Phillips County. This wetland area habitat 

can be utilized by migrating whooping cranes, and management opportunities include maintaining or enhancing the 

wetland habitat for migratory stopovers.

Threatened and Endangered Species – Amphibians and Reptiles

No amphibian or reptile species in the planning area are currently listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species.