BLM

CHAPTER 1: 

 PURPOSE AND NEED 

Miles City Field Office 

Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-1

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED

INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office (MCFO) is revising and combining the Big 

Dry (1996) and Powder River (1985) Resource Management Plans (RMPs), as amended, into one document, the 

Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (RMP). This draft 

version of the RMP was prepared in light of comments from the BLM and other agency staff, the public, 

cooperating agencies, and other collaborators during the planning process.

A notice of intent (NOI) published in the Federal Register on February 4, 2005, formally announced the BLM’s 

intent to revise the existing plans and prepare the associated EIS. This RMP was prepared in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as amended; Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA; the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 

(FLPMA) (43 United States Code [U.S.C.] 1701 et seq.); the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (43 U.S.C. 315); the 

Classification and Multiple Use Act of 1964 (43 U.S.C. 1411–18); the Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 

1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.); and other related regulations.

After considering comments on this Draft RMP and making appropriate changes, the BLM will issue a 

Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). However, the proposed decisions are not 

approved until the Record of the Decision (ROD) is issued. The ROD is the planning document outlining 

management and budget requests for the planning area. It contains multiple use management objectives 

applicable to public lands, including BLM-administered minerals and lands acquired by the BLM through 

withdrawal revocation, exchange, purchase, donation, or jurisdictional transfer. The management decisions will 

be consistent with existing laws, regulations, and policy.

DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Five alternatives for managing public lands in the MCFO, including a No Action Alternative (current 

management), are described in the Draft RMP. The alternatives describe various ways the BLM can address the 

planning issues. Each alternative has a different emphasis, but all would meet the overall vision and 

management goals and the multiple use mandate of FLPMA.

Public involvement will continue following the issuance of this Draft RMP. The BLM will provide a 90-day 

public comment period and host a series of public meetings. Additional information on the public participation 

process is provided in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination.

PROPOSED RMP/FINAL EIS

Following the 90-day public comment period on this Draft RMP, the comments will be analyzed and a 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS will be prepared and released to the public. A 30-day protest period and 60-day 

Governor’s consistency review period will be provided following publication of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

If the governor does not respond within this period, it is assumed that the Proposed RMP/Final EIS decisions 

are consistent. If the governor recommends changes in the proposed plan or amendment that were not raised 

during the public participation process, the State Director shall provide the public with an opportunity to 

comment on the recommendations (see 43 CFR 1610.3-2 [e]). This public comment opportunity will be offered 

for 30 days and may coincide with the 30-day comment period for the notice of significant change. If the State 

Director does not accept the governor’s recommendations, the governor has 30 days to appeal in writing to the 

BLM director (see 43 CFR 1610.3-2[e]).

At the end of the protest period and Governor’s consistency review, the BLM may issue a ROD approving

implementation of any portion of the proposed RMP not under protest. Approval will be withheld on any 

portion of the plan under protest until the protest has been resolved.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-2

After approval of the ROD, any new policies, regulatory changes, or changes in management direction may 

require plan maintenance or a plan amendment to consider their implementation.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR REVISION OF THE RMPS

The purpose of this RMP is to provide a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of 

BLM-administered lands in the MCFO area. This plan provides goals, objectives, land use allocations, and 

management direction for the BLM-administered surface and mineral estate based on multiple use and sustained 

yield, unless otherwise specified by law (FLPMA Sec. 102(c), 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.).

FLPMA defines multiple use as follows:

The term “multiple use” means the management of the public lands and their various resource values 

so that they are utilized in the combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the 

American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or 

related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in use to 

conform to changing needs and conditions; the use of some land for less than all of the resources; a 

combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of 

future generations for renewable and non-renewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, 

range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical 

values; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources without permanent 

impairment of the productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being 

given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that will 

give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output (FLPMA, Sec. 103(c)).

There may be competing resource uses and values in the same area. In addition, conditions have changed since 

the original RMPs were approved. These include:

 changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions;

 new laws, regulations, and policies that supersede previous decisions;

 changing user demands and activities; and

 changing tolerance or acceptance of impacts. 

The BLM is also preparing the plan to identify master leasing plan (MLP) areas. These are areas of majority 

federal interest with medium to high potential for oil and gas occurrence and in which industry has expressed an 

interest in leasing the area. Identification of the areas is being done to ensure orderly, effective, timely, and 

environmentally responsible leasing of federal oil and gas.

The RMP is also being prepared to incorporate consistent objectives and conservation measures for the

protection of sage-grouse and its habitat. These conditions drive the need for an inclusive, comprehensive plan 

that provides updated and clear direction to both the BLM and the public. This RMP revision will also 

incorporate appropriate management actions and practices to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage-grouse

and its habitats on BLM-administered land.

In March 2010, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published its listing decision for the 

greater sage-grouse as “Warranted but Precluded.” Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms was identified as a 

major threat in the USFWS finding on the petition to list the greater sage-grouse. The USFWS has identified the 

principal regulatory mechanism for the BLM as conservation measures in RMPs. Based on the identified threats 

to the greater sage-grouse and the USFWS timeline for making a listing decision on this species, the BLM 

needs to incorporate objectives and adequate conservation measures into RMPs in order to conserve, enhance, 

or restore greater sage-grouse and avoid a potential listing as a threatened or endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA). This RMP revision incorporates specific management 

actions and conservation measures in order to conserve, enhance, or restore greater sage-grouse habitat and 

potentially reduce the need to list the species as threatened or endangered under the ESA.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-3

PLANNING PROCESS

The BLM’s planning system comprises three distinct tiers. 

 The first tier (policy) identifies goals, priorities, and other factors for use in managing the public land 

resources. Policy is established by public laws, regulations, executive orders, court orders, and other 

documents issued by the President of the United States, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the 

BLM, and guidance from the BLM State Director.

 The second tier (RMP) establishes combinations of land and resource uses, related levels of investment 

and production or protection to be maintained, and general management practices and constraints 

covered by the plan. This RMP is part of the RMP tier. The RMP is monitored and evaluated within 5 

years of the ROD.

 The third tier (activity plans) provides for the development of plans more detailed, site-specific, and 

limited in scope than the RMP. Activity plans are the direct result of a developed RMP. Site-specific 

actions attain and fulfill goals and objectives. Examples of activity plans include allotment 

management plans, recreation plans, habitat management plans, cultural RMPs, oil and gas plans of 

development, and use authorizations.

MILES CITY PLANNING AREA

The planning area is all of the land within the MCFO administrative boundary, regardless of jurisdiction. The 

planning area includes Carter, Custer, Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, 

Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, and Wibaux counties as well as portions of Big Horn and 

Valley counties (Table 1-1 and Map 1). 

BLM planning decisions apply only to BLM-administered acres (surface and mineral estate), which includes 

mineral leasing decisions for all United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), State of Montana, military, 

private, and other jurisdictions that overlie federal oil and gas mineral acres. For example, approximately 7.3 

million acres of private land in the planning area overlie BLM-administered oil and gas acres and are subject to 

the fluid mineral leasing decisions in this document. All decisions made in the RMP are subject to valid existing 

rights.

Some of the BLM-administered surface in the planning area is interspersed with other federal, state, and private 

lands. Other federal land management agencies with jurisdiction in the planning area include the United States 

Forest Service (USFS), USFWS, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), BOR, and United States 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). These lands include the Custer National Forest (USFS), Charles M. Russell 

National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), and Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory - USDA. Other 

landowners and land management agencies with significant holdings in the area include the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (MDNRC), which administer state trust lands and mineral 

estate; Fort Peck Tribes (Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes); Northern Cheyenne Tribe; and Turtle Mountain Band 

of Chippewa. The Crow Tribe owns lands immediately adjacent to the planning area.

SCOPING AND ISSUES

Issues identified during scoping drive the preparation of this RMP. Scoping is a public involvement process to 

identify planning issues to be addressed in the RMP. Planning issues are disputes or controversies over existing 

or potential land and resource allocations, level of resource use, production, and related practices.

Issues under consideration in the preparation of this RMP include resource use, development, and protection 

opportunities. These issues may be the result of new information or changed circumstances and the need to 

reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses. These planning issues provide the major focus for the 

development of the alternatives described in Chapter 2, Alternatives.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-4

ISSUES ADDRESSED

Issue 1: Vegetation Communities

How will vegetation be managed on BLM-administered lands to achieve healthy ecosystems while providing for 

a broad range of multiple uses?

This issue highlights concerns over management of vegetation resources and communities. There is 

considerable interest in ensuring that vegetation management provides a range of commodity uses (such as 

timber and forest products, mineral development, and livestock grazing) while maintaining or restoring 

vegetative communities (such as riparian and wetland communities) to provide other resource values, such as 

high quality wildlife and aquatic habitat.

Ecosystems in the planning area evolved over time in response to periodic fire disturbance, and sustainable 

ecosystems are those that are in balance with the inherent frequency, size, and severity of this natural 

disturbance cycle. 

Management of weeds and other nonnative invasive species is a critical part of public land management. A 

history of substantial negative effects on soils, water, habitat, wildlife, and fire cycles and a tendency to spread 

aggressively have made weeds one of the largest threats to maintaining and restoring ecosystem health. They 

can also affect local economies with regard to recreation, grazing, forestry, and mining activities.

TABLE 1-1. 

LANDS IN THE PLANNING AREA

County

Total

Square 

Miles

Total

County 

Acres

BLM-administered

Surface Acres and 

Percentage of Total 

County Surface

Acres

BLM-administered

Mineral Acres and 

Percentage of Total 

County Mineral 

Acres 

Big Horn1 994 636,274 26,968 (1%) 346,819 (3%)

Carter 3,349 2,143,093 506,834 (18%) 1,182,083 (11%)

Custer 3,793 2,427,607 333,467 (12%) 757,869 (7%)

Daniels 1,426 912,751 203 (<1%) 166,827 (2%)

Dawson 2,383 1,525,192 64,312 (2%) 628,903 (6%)

Fallon 1,623 1,038,500 116,082 (4%) 253,892 (2%)

Garfield 4,847 3,102,325 493,706 (18%) 1,785,377 (16%)

McCone 2,683 1,717,078 199,963 (7%) 890,844 (8%)

Powder 

River

3,298 2,110,893 254,278 (9%) 1,499,973 (14%)

Prairie 1,743 1,115,213 449,156 (16%) 605,680 (6%)

Richland 2,102 1,345,067 51,562 (2%) 795,242 (7%)

Roosevelt 2,369 1,516,468 3,873 (<1%) 326,280 (3%)

Rosebud 5,027 3,217,234 230,145 (8%) 732,665 (7%)

Sheridan 1,704 1,090,439 295 (<1%) 821,105 (7%)

Treasure 984 629,854 1,352 (<1%) 27,341 (<1%)

Valley1 1,126 720,382 0 (<1%) 22 (<1%)

Wibaux 888 568,346 26,958 (1%) 211,105 (2%)

Total 40,339 25,816,713 2,759,155 11,032,026

1Valley County is split between the Glasgow Field Office and the MCFO and Big Horn County is split between the 

Miles City and Billings field offices. 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-5

Issue 2: Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, and Special Status and Priority Plant and Animal Species.

How will BLM-administered lands be managed to provide wildlife habitat and conserve and recover special 

status plant and animal species and priority species?

The RMP focuses on a multi-species, ecosystem approach to managing habitat for wildlife, fish, and special 

status plants and animals. Collectively, habitat that supports viable populations of all native species needs to be 

protected; habitat needs to be managed to accommodate natural disturbances such as fire, wind, and insect 

outbreaks; diverse vegetative communities need to be maintained and provided; and human uses need to be 

managed in a manner that conserves and enhances ecological processes. Areas where restoration activities could 

restore or enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitat will also be identified.

Special status species include BLM sensitive species as well as species that are listed, proposed for listing, or 

candidates for listing under the ESA of 1973. The planning area provides habitat for species listed as threatened

or endangered under the ESA.

In addition, the planning area provides habitat for BLM-classified sensitive species. Sensitive species are those 

that the BLM manages in a manner to minimize the risk of future federal listing under the ESA. The RMP

identifies strategies for conservation and recovery of special status species in the planning area in consultation 

with the USFWS, as required by the ESA for listed species.

In March 2010, the USFWS determined that the greater sage-grouse warranted protection under the ESA, but 

that listing the species was precluded by the need to address other, higher priority species first (USFWS 2010a). 

In part, the USFWS decision was based on an identified need for “improved regulatory mechanisms” to ensure 

species conservation, and, because the principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM are RMPs, the BLM is 

using this opportunity to develop long-term and effective management for this species on BLM-administered 

lands (BLM 2011e).

Issue 3: Travel Management and Access

How should the BLM manage motorized public travel to meet the needs for public access and resource uses 

while minimizing user conflicts and impacts to air, soil, watersheds, vegetation, wildlife, and other resource 

values?

Factors affecting travel and access are important to hunters, off-highway recreationists, livestock producers, 

miners, wildlife advocates, non-motorized recreationists, and others.

Travel and access issues are driven by the need to manage for the use and enjoyment of the public lands while 

protecting resource values and providing user safety. Travel management also involves the need to address 

increased conflict between motorized and non-motorized users, particularly at urban-rural interfaces.

Travel planning areas (TPAs) will be prepared during implementation of the RMP, in consideration of the 

public’s interest and demand for motorized and non-motorized travel opportunities.

Issue 4: Recreation

How should recreation management accommodate the full range of recreational uses enjoyed by the public on 

BLM-administered lands?

This issue focuses on the need to set direction for recreation management in light of: 

 increased demands on developed recreation sites and the need for new strategies to improve 

management efficiency, appropriate services, facilities, and public experiences; 

 the need for special recreation permits to better protect natural resources, minimize user conflicts, 

provide opportunities, and ensure fair value returns for both the permittee and BLM; and 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-6

 the need to classify recreation settings using the recreation setting characteristics system and modify 

existing special recreation management areas to provide a wide range of appropriate activities that 

foster beneficial experiences for the public.

Issue 5: Special Designations, including areas of critical environmental concern, national trails, wild and 

scenic rivers, and wilderness study areas

Which areas, if any, should be managed with special designations? How should they be managed to protect 

values that warrant their special designation status?

In the MCFO RMP process, 10 nominated areas were reviewed for designation as areas of environmental 

concern (ACECs). In order to be considered as potential ACECs, nominated areas must meet relevance and 

importance criteria established in BLM regulation. Six areas in the planning area met the relevance and 

importance criteria and are considered in the RMP. Inclusion of particular potential ACECs within specific 

alternatives was based in part on the focus of the alternatives. Each of these potential ACECs has been proposed 

for designation in at least one alternative in accordance with ACEC guidance found in BLM Manual 1613.

According to the FLPMA, priority should be given to the designation and protection of these areas when 

developing land use plans. If it requires special management to protect relevant and important values, a 

potential ACEC would be designated as such in the approved ROD. Management is considered special if it is 

outside of the ordinary or routine requirements of the BLM or if provisions already stipulated in the RMP do 

not cover the area. Special management is unique to the area and includes terms and conditions specifically 

designed to protect the values in the ACEC.

The BLM needs to evaluate management for current ACECs that no longer meet the original relevant and 

important values. 

The RMP provides protective strategies and appropriate uses for the management of national trails to protect 

their resource values and characteristics.

The RMP process reevaluated the suitability of rivers in the planning area for inclusion in the National Wild and 

Scenic River System.

Seven wilderness study areas (WSAs) are located within the planning area. RMP alternatives consider 

management options for WSAs that would take effect if Congress released them from wilderness consideration.

Issue 6: Master Leasing Plan Areas

Which areas, if any, qualify for an MLP? How should they be managed to minimize conflicts between fluid 

mineral development and other resources?

Although no external proposals were received, as part of the BLM’s Oil and Gas Leasing Reform, Washington 

Office instruction memorandum (IM) 2010-117, the BLM needs to evaluate the planning area to determine if 

there are MLP areas. As a land management agency with a multiple-use mission, the BLM makes land use 

decisions that sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and 

future generations. The BLM recognizes that in some cases, leasing oil and gas resources may not be consistent 

with protection of other important resources and values, such as specially designated areas, wildlife habitat, 

cultural, historical, and paleontological values. To that end, areas of oil and gas development potential that have 

not been fully leased need to be identified and evaluated.

Issue 7: Climate Change

How can the BLM incorporate climate change adaptation or responses into its land management practices?

Climate change presents a new challenge to the BLM in its ongoing efforts to address its mission to sustain the 

health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-7

generations. Although the size, scope, and timing of these effects is difficult to predict, this phenomenon is 

expected to affect a wide variety of resources (e.g., water, vegetation, and wildlife) and resource uses (e.g.,

livestock grazing and forest products). Adapting land management practices to address climate change is likely 

to involve three main steps: 

 recognizing resource impacts that are caused by climate change (rather than normal weather 

variability),

 identifying management actions that can reduce impacts to resources and resource uses, and 

 implementing these management actions. 

MANAGEMENT CONCERNS

Management concerns are generally non-controversial topics involving resources, resource management 

activities, or land uses. While these concerns are addressed in the plan, management related to them may or may 

not vary by alternative. However, the concerns described below were raised outside of the issues described 

previously.

Air Quality

Air quality concerns include impacts to public health and the environment, including impacts to air quality 

related values (AQRVs) such as visibility, acid deposition on plants and soil, and lake acidification. Air quality 

concerns include public health impacts from wildfires. 

Air Resources and Climate

Air resource concerns focus on maintaining or improving good air quality and achieving acceptable impacts to 

AQRVs (including acid deposition and visibility impacts). Air quality concerns include public health impacts 

from wildfire and prescribed fires, oil and gas development, mining, recreational vehicle use, and other 

activities. With regard to climate change, climate management concerns include reducing greenhouse gas

emissions, recognizing climate impacts on resources, and developing and implementing management actions 

that add resilience to natural systems.

Soils

Soils management concerns focus on maintaining or enhancing soil potential. Healthy soils sustain water and air 

quality and biotic productivity. In the past, some surface-disturbing activities have resulted in degraded lands 

with insufficient reclamation. Livestock grazing resulting in allotments that failed to meet Standards for 

Rangeland Health has caused accelerated erosion, compaction, and decreased productivity. Departures from 

natural fire regimes have altered soil development. However, soil resource conservation and improvement is an 

essential component of management on lands within the planning area.

Water Resources

Protecting water quality and improving watershed function to support beneficial uses are management concerns

for water resources. Additionally, concerns stem from water rights issues, including management of existing 

water rights and acquisition of new water rights (when feasible and with willing holders) where acquisition of 

the water right meets a management objective or need. Over the next decade, several total maximum daily load 

plans (restoration plans for streams with impaired water quality) will be developed by the State of Montana, 

which will result in new water quality goals aimed at improving water quality where beneficial uses are 

impaired.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-8

Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties, and Paleontological Resources

Cultural resources, traditional cultural properties (TCPs), and paleontological resources concerns include 

compliance with laws, guidelines, and directives to ensure that resources are protected through appropriate 

mitigation and significant cultural, traditional, and paleontological resources are identified and evaluated prior 

to surface-disturbing activities. The alternatives present options for managing of archaeological and historical 

sites and areas of concern to American Indian Tribes. 

Visual Resources

Visual resource management (VRM) concerns focus on the need to establish VRM classifications to guide the 

management of public land based on scenic quality, sensitivity levels, and distance zones.

Lands and Realty

Lands and realty management concerns focus on establishing conditions for disposal, retention, or acquisition of 

land or interests in land. Criteria also need to be developed to assess the impacts of land disposal and acquisition 

when considering land tenure adjustments. 

Hazardous Materials

Hazardous material management concerns consist of the need to protect the public, employees, and environment 

from exposure to hazardous materials in public facilities or on public lands. 

Social and Economic

Social and economic management concerns focus on changes to recreation, forestry, mining, livestock grazing, 

and other land uses as a result of increased population, economic growth, and continuing development in the 

planning area. The planning area includes land within 17 counties. Concerns among residents and potential 

impacts to communities from public land management decisions vary. 

Environmental Justice

Management concerns for environmental justice pertain to the requirement that the BLM evaluate and disclose 

whether or not actions would place a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences on 

populations covered by Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994).

American Indian Concerns

Management concerns identified 

by American Indian Tribes focused

on the ways in which air quality, 

including visibility, will be 

preserved in designated (including 

the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation) and federally 

mandated (including wilderness) 

areas. This concern also addresses 

ways in which the BLM will 

protect resources identified by 

each of the tribes (including air 

and water quality).

Photo of the Terry Badlands 

Wilderness Study Area at sunrise
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-9

DESCRIPTION OF DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS AND MANAGEMENT 

GOALS

ISSUES

Issue 1: Vegetation Communities

The desired future condition is diverse, site-appropriate, and resilient vegetation that has the ability to adapt to 

fluctuations in climate.

Management direction is needed to: 

 maintain or improve ecological health of woodland communities for sustainability and diversity (or 

both); 

 manage dry forest types to ensure healthy stands of site-appropriate species; 

 manage moist forest types to ensure healthy stands that make up a diversity of age classes and 

structure; 

 manage old forest structures in a sustainable manner; 

 minimize infestations of invasive plants and weeds; 

 manage upland vegetation communities by including a full range of herbaceous and shrub species; 

 maintain or enhance communities in priority habitats to provide desired ecological functions and 

values; 

 manage riparian and wetland communities for the appropriate composition, density, and age structure; 

and 

 manage wetland and riparian habitats to support healthy, diverse, and abundant populations of fish and 

associated aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

Management direction for forests and woodlands is needed to restore or maintain the health and productivity of 

public forests in order to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic 

values and provide a balance of forest and woodland resource benefits for present and future generations.

Management direction for livestock grazing is needed to provide a sustained level of local economic benefits 

and protect non-market economic values and maintain, restore, or enhance BLM-administered rangelands to 

meet Rangeland Health Standards.

Direction for wildfire management is needed to:

 provide a strategic wildfire management response to all wildfires, emphasizing firefighter and public 

safety; 

 move toward restoring and maintaining desired ecological conditions consistent with appropriate fire 

regimes; minimize the adverse effects of fire on resources, resource uses, and wildland urban interface 

areas; 

 promote seamless fire management planning across jurisdictions within the boundaries of the MCFO; 

and 

 protect life and property by treating hazardous fuels on BLM-administered lands near wildland urban 

interface areas.

Management direction for mineral development is needed to ensure that federal minerals are available for 

energy and mineral exploration and development, ensure exploration and development are conducted in an 

environmentally sound manner, and, where possible, conserve significant or unique geological features.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-10

Issue 2: Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, and Special Status and Priority Plant and Animal Species 

The desired future condition of BLM-administered lands is a diverse landscape with native vegetation 

communities that provide suitable habitat to maintain viable and well-distributed populations of native wildlife

species on public land.

Management direction is needed to: 

 conserve, enhance, restore, or contribute to the recovery of threatened, endangered, or candidate plant 

or animal species; 

 conserve or enhance habitat of BLM sensitive plant and animal species to prevent the federal listing of 

these species; 

 conserve special status species and habitats across the landscape through collaboration and 

cooperation; 

 provide a variety of well-distributed diverse plant communities to support a diversity of habitats; 

 conserve, enhance, or restore areas of important wildlife habitat such as rare or limited seasonal 

habitats, corridors, blocks of intact functional habitat, areas of low road-density, foraging areas, and 

riparian areas; and 

 conserve, enhance, or restore special habitat features or mitigate or minimize impacts to special habitat 

features including, but not limited to, caves, cliffs, riparian areas, wetlands, snags, and down woody 

material.

Issue 3: Travel Management and Access 

The management goal is to provide, in the present and future, a range of quality motorized and non-motorized 

opportunities and reasonable access while protecting natural resources.

Management direction is needed to:

 provide a balanced approach to travel management that provides a sustained flow of local economic 

benefits and minimizes or mitigates user conflicts, safety concerns, and resource impacts while taking 

into consideration the unique attributes of the various travel management planning areas; and 

 maintain facilities, roads, and trails to provide for public and administrative use and safety while 

mitigating impacts to resources.

Issue 4: Recreation 

The goal of recreation management is to provide a range of quality recreation opportunities, services, and 

appropriate facilities for public use and enjoyment.

Management direction is needed to:

 provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities while maintaining healthy public land resources;

 establish, manage, and maintain quality recreation sites and facilities to meet a broad range of public 

needs (subject to resource constraints);

 manage commercial, competitive, or special events with special recreation permits that eliminate or 

mitigate impacts to resources and conflicts with other users; and

 manage recreation opportunities to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect 

non-market economic values.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-11

Issue 5: Special Designations, including ACECs, national trails, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study 

areas

The goal of Special Designations management is to:

 protect relevant and important ACEC values and manage for appropriate uses;

 protect established national trail values and manage for appropriate uses; 

 protect Outstandingly Remarkable Values in river segments eligible for designation as wild and scenic

rivers, manage for appropriate uses, and protect wilderness characteristics in WSAs.

Management direction is needed to:

 designate ACECs in which special management attention is required to protect relevant and important 

values; 

 manage national trails to promote public enjoyment and protect their designated values; 

 manage eligible river segments so that their suitability for potential national wild and scenic rivers 

system designation is not impaired; and 

 manage WSAs so that their suitability for potential wilderness designation is not impaired.

Issue 6: MLP Areas

The goal of the MLP area is to plan for oil and gas development at the land use planning level.

Management direction is needed to:

 evaluate in-field considerations, such as optimal parcel configurations and potential development 

scenarios;

 identify and address potential resource conflicts and environmental impacts from development;

 develop mitigation strategies; and

 consider a range of new constraints, including prohibiting surface occupancy or closing areas to 

leasing.

Issue 7: Climate Change Adaptation

The goal of climate change adaptation management is to maintain natural resource values currently found in the 

planning area.

Management direction is needed to:

 recognize current climate change impacts on a wide variety of resources,

 identify potential future climate change impacts based on observed trends,

 develop resource-specific plans to reduce other environmental stressors to provide additional resilience 

for these resources,

 identify methods to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and

 ensure that the BLM authorizations and management activities implement feasible GHG emission 

reduction strategies.

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION

Air Resources

The desired future condition is maintenance of good air quality in a condition that protects human health and the 

environment and to prevent unacceptable impacts to AQRVs in sensitive areas.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-12

Management direction is needed to ensure that BLM authorizations and management activities protect the local 

quality of life and sustain economic benefits by complying with tribal, local, state, and federal air quality 

regulations, requirements, and implementation plans.

Climate Change

The desired future condition is maintenance of existing species and ecosystems.

Management direction is needed to identify climate change impacts and identify and implement resource 

management activities to minimize climate change impacts by thorough restoration and building resilience to 

disturbance into ecosystems. 

Soils

The desired future condition is stable soils that contribute to properly functioning watersheds and support 

productive plant communities in a manner consistent with site potential.

Management direction is needed to manage uses to minimize accelerated soil erosion and compaction, maintain 

infiltration based on site-specific conditions, maintain or improve soil health and fertility, and prevent or 

minimize erosion and compaction while supporting multiple use management.

Water Resources

Desired future condition includes groundwater and waterbodies with sufficient water quality to meet state and 

federal standards and support designated beneficial uses.

Management direction is needed to: 

 restore or maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources to protect 

designated beneficial uses and achieve water quality standards; 

 maintain existing or acquire new water rights on BLM-administered land to ensure water availability 

for multiple-use management; 

 minimize erosion and accelerated runoff to streams to improve watershed function; and 

 protect water quality for municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreation, and residential purposes by 

adopting protective measures to meet tribal, state, and local water quality requirements.

Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties, and Paleontological Resources

The desired future condition is minimal loss or degradation of cultural resources and TCPs within the MCFO 

area.

Management direction is needed to preserve and protect eligible cultural resources and TCPs within the MCFO 

area, identify and mitigate impacts to cultural resource sites and TCPs from natural or human-caused 

deterioration, and preserve and protect eligible cultural resources to ensure that they are available for 

appropriate uses by present and future generations.

Visual Resources

The management goal is to provide and manage a spectrum of visual qualities for the public.

Management direction is needed to manage visual resources in accordance with VRM classifications.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-13

Lands and Realty

The goal for lands and realty management is to meet public needs and provide support for all BLM resource 

programs. 

Management direction is needed to look for opportunities to acquire nonfederal land or interest in nonfederal 

land with important resources and resource uses and provide for land use opportunities in order to provide a 

sustained flow of economic benefits and meet local infrastructure needs while protecting or minimizing adverse 

impacts to resources and resource uses.

Hazardous Materials Management

The goal for hazardous materials management is to protect employees, the public, and the environment from 

exposure to hazardous materials in public facilities or on public land.

Management direction is needed to mitigate threats and reduce risks to the public and environment from 

hazardous materials.

Social and Economic

The management goal is to cultivate conservation, stewardship, and partnerships on public land for the use and 

enjoyment of present and future generations.

Management direction is needed to:

 provide opportunities for economic benefits while minimizing adverse impacts to resources and 

resource uses; 

 provide for a diverse array of activities that result in social benefits for local residents, businesses, 

visitors, interested citizens, and future generations while minimizing negative social effects; 

 sustain and, where appropriate, restore the health of BLM-administered forest, rangeland, aquatic, and 

riparian ecosystems to provide a sustained flow of economic benefits within the capability of the 

ecosystem; 

 protect visual quality, wildlife habitats, and recreation opportunities on BLM-administered lands to 

sustain non-market economic values; and 

 make resource commodities available to provide a sustainable flow of economic benefits within the 

capability of the ecosystem.

Environmental Justice

Management direction is needed to identify and remediate, to the greatest extent possible, disproportionate 

negative effects to minority or low-income populations as per Executive Order 12898 (February 11, 1994).

American Indian Tribes

Management direction is needed to identify the ways in which air quality, including visibility, will be protected 

in designated (including the Northern Cheyenne Reservation) and federally mandated Class I areas (including 

wilderness) and identify the ways in which the BLM will protect resources identified by each of the tribes

(including air and water quality) that provided input.

ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED FURTHER

During scoping, several concerns were raised that are beyond the scope of this planning effort or that referred to 

the BLM planning process and implementation. Additionally, several issues were raised that are of concern to 

the public but governed by existing laws and regulations (e.g., water quality). Where law or regulation already 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-14

dictates certain management, alternatives were not developed and management is found in Management 

Common to all Alternatives (see Chapter 2, Alternatives).

The Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement Final Scoping 

Report provides a comprehensive list of issues outside the scope of the RMP or issues addressed through 

administrative or policy action (Parametrix 2005). (The scoping report is available at: http://www.blm.gov/style

/medialib/blm/mt/field_offices/miles_city/rmp/scopingreport.Par.92962.File.dat/Final_RMP_Scoping_Report.p

df.) Some major issues were considered but not analyzed because they were inconsistent with existing laws or 

higher-level management direction or because they were beyond the scope of the purpose and goals of this 

RMP. These issues include those described below.

Issue: The BLM should engage in prairie dog extermination. The numbers of hunting permits issued should 

be changed.

 Response: Decisions regarding the number of hunting permits and other hunting regulations are the 

responsibility of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP). The BLM maintains and manages 

wildlife habitat to help ensure self-sustaining populations and a natural abundance and diversity of 

wildlife, including prairie dogs, on public lands.

Issue: Hunting and fishing should be recognized as historic, and traditional uses in the Upper Missouri 

River Breaks National Monument should be included in current and future management plans.

 Response: The Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument is located within the jurisdiction of 

the BLM’s Lewistown Field Office, which is outside of the planning area.

Issue: Provide equitable distribution of firefighting resources across the state.

 Response: Personnel staffing is an administrative decision, and such decisions are not made in land use 

plans.

Issue: The Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge should be returned to BLM management.

 Response: Any decision regarding the modification or revocation of existing withdrawals that added 

lands to the National Wildlife Refuge System would require an Act of Congress and are outside the 

scope of this RMP.

Issue: Detailed surveys of proposed development areas should be conducted before any development occurs.

 Response: Site-specific analysis will take place during implementation of individual projects.

Issue: Water from Fort Peck Reservoir should remain in Montana.

 Response: Decisions regarding the disposition of water from the Fort Peck Dam and Reservoir are the 

responsibility of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

PLANNING CRITERIA

Developed in 2005, the following planning criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guided and directed

the preparation of the plan. These criteria will be updated with issuance of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

Planning criteria guide the resource specialists in the collection and use of inventory information, analysis of the 

management situation, definition and analyses of the alternatives, and selection of the preferred alternative. 

They focus on the decisions to be made in the plan and achieve the following: 

 provide an early, tentative basis for inventory and data collection needs,
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-15

 enable the manager and staff to develop a preliminary planning base map delineating geographic 

analysis units, and

 stimulate the development of planning criteria during public participation. 

PRELIMINARY PLANNING CRITERIA: 

1. The plan will be prepared collaboratively with federal, local, and state governments. While 

collaborators may recommend a preferred decision to the BLM, the BLM will retain its decisionmaking authority. 

2. The plan will be completed in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws. 

3. The planning process will include an EIS that will comply with NEPA standards. 

4. The scope of analysis will be consistent with the level of analysis in approved plans and in accordance 

with Bureau-wide standards and program guidance. This includes, but is not limited to, the following 

IMs and instruction bulletins (IBs): 

a. IB 2002-056: Recommended Formats for Land Use Plans, Records of Decision, and 

Their Supporting Environmental Impact Statement;

b. IM 2002-100: Review Requirements for Land Use Planning Efforts; 

c. IB 2002-101: Cultural Resource Considerations in Resource Management Plans; 

d. IM 2002-164: Guidance to Address Environmental Justice in Land Use Plans and 

Related National Environmental Policy Act Documents;

e. IM 2002-167: Social and Economic Analysis for Land Use Planning;

f. IM 2002-174: Oil and Gas Leasing Stipulations; 

g. IB 2003-020: Minimum Content for RMP Scoping Reports; 

h. IB 2003-074: Sample Filing Plan for Land Use Planning Records; 

i. IM 2003-233: Integration of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act Inventory 

Results into the Land Use Planning Process; 

j. IM 2004-007: Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan Guidance for Wildland Fire 

Management; 

k. IM 2005-024: National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy;

l. IM 2004 -089: Policy for Reasonably Foreseeable Development (RFD) Scenario for 

Oil and Gas; 

m. IM 2004-079: Land Use Plan Decision, Implementation Decisions, and 

Administrative Remedies; 

n. IM 2004-096: Federal Register Notice of Availability for Records of Decision; 

o. IM 2004-110: Fluid Mineral Leasing and Related Planning and National 

Environmental policy Act; 

p. IM 2004-194: Integration of Best Management Practices into Application for Permit 

to Drill Approvals and Associated Rights-of-Way; and

q. IM 2004-056: Data Standards Development for Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS).

5. The plan will incorporate by reference all analyses, as appropriate from amendments that have been 

made to the RMPs, including the Record of Decision, Oil and Gas Amendment, Billings-Powder RiverSouth Dakota Resource Management Plans/Environmental Impact Statements (BLM 1994b) and the 

Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (BLM, MBOGC, and MDEQ 2003).

6. The RMP revision will incorporate by reference all appropriate prior WSA findings in the planning 

area. 

7. Wild and scenic river values were already evaluated in the Big Dry RMP. Those determinations, 

consistent with existing policy, will be carried forward into this plan. 

8. The plan will incorporate the requirements of BLM Handbook H-1624-1, Planning for Fluid Mineral 

Resources, and the results of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Public Law 94-163) inventories 

and implementing Washington Office IMs. For example, the least restrictive oil and gas leasing 

stipulations that protect the resource will be selected as the preferred alternative for oil and gas leasing. 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-16

9. The plan will incorporate the requirements of the interagency reference guide entitled Reasonably 

Foreseeable Development Scenarios and Cumulative Effects Analysis developed by the Rocky 

Mountain Federal Leadership Forum on NEPA, Oil and Gas, and Air Quality (BLM 2002n). 

10. Best management practices (BMPs) such as oil and gas, road drainage, fire rehabilitation, and other 

activities will be considered as potential mitigation measures. 

11. Resource allocations must be reasonable, achievable, measurable, and within available technological 

constraints.

12. The lifestyles and concerns of area residents will be recognized in the plan. 

13. American Indian Consultation and Coordination: Three Indian Reservations are located within the 

area, including the Crow, Northern Cheyenne, and Fort Peck. The Rocky Boy’s, Turtle Mountain, Fort 

Berthold, Lower Rosebud, and Wind River Reservations have also expressed an interest in the 

planning area. Close coordination will take place to see that the Tribes’ needs are considered and 

analyzed and that the BLM fulfills its trust responsibilities. 

14. The plan will include discussions that yearling cattle are to be authorized at 1 AUM as provided within 

43 CFR 4100 subpart §4130.8-1(c). 

15. The planning process will include early consultation meetings with the USFWS during the 

development of the plan. 

16. The plan will recognize the State's responsibility to manage wildlife populations, including uses such 

as hunting and fishing, within the planning area. 

17. The plan will result in determinations as required by special program and resource specific guidance 

detailed in Appendices C and D of the BLM's Planning Handbook. 

18. Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, 

state, tribal, and federal agencies as long as the BLM decisions are in conformance with legal mandates 

on management of public lands. 

19. The plan will establish new guidance and identify existing guidance upon which the BLM will rely in 

managing public lands and minerals within the MCFO. 

20. Geospatial data will be automated within GIS to facilitate discussions of the affected environment,

alternative formulation, analysis of environmental consequences, and display of the results. 

21. The National Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004i) requires that impacts 

to sagebrush habitat and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species (including greater sage-grouse) be 

analyzed and considered in the BLM’s land use planning efforts for public lands with sage-grouse and 

sagebrush habitats.

22. The BLM will utilize the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) Conservation 

Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly, Knick, Schroeder, Stiver, and 

WAFWA 2004) and any other appropriate resources to identify greater sage-grouse habitat 

requirements and BMPs.

LAWS

The following provide an overview of the direction authorizing activities or guiding management of BLMadministered lands. It is not meant to be a comprehensive list. 

 36 CFR Part 60 

 36 CFR Part 78 

 36 CFR Part 800 

 40 CFR 51 

 40 CFR 52.1370 

 40 CFR 52.29 

 40 CFR 81.327

 40 CFR 81.417 

 43 CFR 2100, 2200, 2300, 2400, 2500 , 

2600, 2700, 2800, 2900, and 9230

 43 CFR 3600

 43 CFR 3715 

 43 CFR 3802 

 43 CFR 3809

 43 CFR 4100 

 43 CFR 4120.3-9 

 43 CFR Group 3100

 43 CFR Group 3200

 43 CFR Group 3400 

 43 CFR Part 3500 

 43 CFR Part 7 

 43 CFR Parts 24, 1610 and 4180

 43 CFR Subpart 3621 

 43 CFR Subpart 8365.1-5 

 43 CFR Subpart 3610 

 43 CFR, Subpart 3622 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-17

 43 CFR Subpart 37 

 43 CFR Subpart 8200 

 43 CFR Subpart 8365 

 43 U.S.C. 1715 

 43 U.S.C. 2

 43 U.S.C. 31 (a) 

 43 U.S.C. 52

 78 Stat. 986

 85-2-360, 85-2-361, and 85-2-362 

Montana Code Annotated (MCA)

 Act of December 22, 1928 (Color of Title) 

(45 Stat. 1069) as amended (43 U.S.C. 

1068, 1068a)

 Act of July 26, 1866 (Lode Act) (14 Stat. 

251) 

 Act of May 24, 1928, as amended (49 

U.S.C. App. 211-213) 

 Airport Grants (43 CFR 2640)

 American Indian Religious Freedom Act 

(42 U.S.C. 1996)

 Annotated Rules of Montana 17.30 

Environmental Quality, Water Quality 

 Antiquities Act of 1906 (Public Law 59-

209; 34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 432, 433)

 Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa et seq.), as 

amended

 Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (42 

U.S.C. 4151 et seq.)

 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 

1940 (16 U.S.C. 668–668d).

 Bankhead Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 

(7 U.S.C. 1010 et seq.) 

 Carey Act Grant (43 CFR 2610), 

 Carey Act of 1894 (43 U.S.C. 641), as 

amended

 Carlson-Foley Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 

1241-1243) 

 Classification and Multiple Use Act of 

1964 (43 U.S.C. 1411–18)

 Clean Air Act (1970, 1977) (42 U.S.C. 

1857) 

 Clean Air Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401, 

7418, 7642), as amended

 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) 

 Color-of-Title (43 CFR 2540)

 Condemnation Act of 1888 (40 U.S.C. 

257), as amended

 Conformity Regulations, Sec 176c of 

Clean Air Act 

 Control of Pollution from Federal 

Facilities of 1970 (33 U.S.C. 1323) 

 Crow Boundary Settlement Act (25 

U.S.C. 1776)

 Declaration of Taking Act of 1931 (40 

U.S.C. 258(a), (e)) 

 Desert Land Act of 1877 (43 U.S.C. 321 

et seq.), as amended

 Desert-Land Entry (43 CFR 2520)

 Eagle Protection Act of 1962 (Public Law

87-884 (76 Stat. 1346)) 

 Emergency Wetland Resources Act of 

1986

 Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.), as amended

 Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 

109-58) (42 U.S.C. 15801 et seq.) 

 Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

(Public Law 94-163)

 Engle Act of February 28, 1958 (43 

U.S.C. 156) 

 Executive Order of November 26, 1884

 Executive Order of March 19, 1900

 Executive Order 11514, Protection and 

Enhancement of Environmental Quality 

(March 5, 1970) 

 Executive Order 11593, Protection and 

Enhancement of the Cultural Environment 

(May 13, 1971) 

 Executive Order 11644. Use of Off-Road 

Vehicles on the Public Lands

 Executive Order 11987, Exotic Organisms 

(May 24, 1977) 

 Executive Order 11988, Floodplain 

Management (May 24, 1977) 

 Executive Order 11989, Off-Road 

Vehicles on Public Lands (May 24, 1977) 

 Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands (May 24, 1977) 

 Executive Order 12088, Federal 

Compliance with Pollution Control 

Standards (October 17, 1978)) 

 Executive Order 12548, Grazing Fees 

(February 14, 1986)

 Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions 

to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations (February 11, 1994)

 Executive Order 12962, Recreational 

Fisheries (June 7, 1995) 

 Executive Order 13007, Providing for 

American Indian and Alaska Native 

Religious Freedom and Sacred Land 

Protections (May 29, 1996)

 Executive Order 13084, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments (May 14, 1998) 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-18

 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species 

(February 3, 1999) 

 Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities 

of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory 

Birds (January 10, 2001)

 Executive Order 13195, Trails for 

America in the 21st Century Antiquities 

Act (16 U.S.C. 433).

 Executive Order 2147: March 16, 1915

 Executive Order 6910: November 26,

1934 

 Executive Order 7960: Reservoir Site 

Reserve No. 20; Tongue River, Montana 

(August 22, 1938)

 Executive Order of April 17, 1926, Public 

Water Reserve 107 (Springs and Water 

Holes) 

 Federal Cave Resource Protection Act of 

1988 (16 U.S.C. 4301) 

 Federal Land Assistance, Management, 

and Enhancement Act of 2009 (Public 

Law 111-88, Title IV, enacted October 30, 

2009)

 Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)

 Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

of 2000 (43 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.)

 Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 (7 

U.S.C. 2814), as amended

 Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing 

Reform Act of 1987 (30 U.S.C. 226 et 

seq.) 

 Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended 

(16 U.S.C. 818) 

 Federal Water Pollution Control Act in 

1956

 Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1958 (23 

U.S.C. 207-209), as amended

 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 

1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901-2911) 

 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 

1958 (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) 

 Flood Control Act of 1954

 Fort Belknap-Montana Compact closure 

(MCA 85-20-100)

 General Allotment Act (or Dawes Act) of 

1887 (24 U.S.C. 388-391), as amended

 General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 

22 et seq.), as amended

 Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 

1001 et seq.), as amended

 Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 (Public Law 103-62, 107 Stat. 

285), as amended

 Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal Governments

(Memorandum signed by President 

Clinton on April 29, 1994).

 Healthy Forests Restoration Act in 2003 

(16 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.)

 Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. 461) 

 Indian Allotment (43 CFR 2530)

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act 

of 1965 (16 U.S.C. 460 et seq.)

 Material Disposal Act of 1947 (Public 

Law 80-291) 

 Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 601-604 

et seq.), as amended

 Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929, 

as amended (16 U.S.C. 715) and treaties 

pertaining thereto 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 

et seq.)

 Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands 

of 1947 (30 U.S.C. 351 et seq.), as 

amended

 Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

181 et seq.), as amended

 Mineral Materials Act of 1947 (July 31, 

1947) (30 U.S. Code 601 et seq.), as 

amended

 Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 

(30 U.S.C. 21a) (30 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 

 Montana Natural Streambed and Land 

Preservation Act (310 Law), Title 75, 

Chapter 7, MCA of 1975

 Montana Noxious Weed Act (MCA 7-22-

2116)

 Montana Stream Protection Act

 Montana Streamside Management Zone 

Law (Title 77-5-301 MCA) 

 Montana Water Quality Act (75-5-301 

MCA)

 Montana’s Water Use Act of 1973 (85-2-

101 et seq. MCA)

 National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as 

amended 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.)

 National Parks and Recreation Act of 

1978 (16 U.S.C. 1242-1243)

 National Trails System Act of 1968 (16 

U.S.C. 1241-1249), as amended

 Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)

 North American Wetland Conservation 

Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.)
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-19

 Northern Cheyenne Water Settlement Act 

(106 Statute 1186) 

 Northern Cheyenne-Montana Compact 

(MCA 85-20-301)

 Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 

U.S.C. 651 et seq.)

 Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 

2009 (16 U.S.C. 7201–7203)

 Paleontological Resource Protection Act 

of 2009 Omnibus Lands Bill, Subtitle D, 

(16 U.S.C. 470aa)

 Protection Act of September 20, 1922 (16 

U.S.C. 594) 

 Public Domain Forest Management Policy 

of 1989 

 Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 

1978 (43 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.)

 Railroad Grants (43 CFR 2630)

 Reciprocal Fire Protection Act of May 27, 

1955 (42 U.S.C. 1856), as amended

 Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 

1926 (43 U.S.C. 869), as amended

 Recreation Fee Demonstration Project (PL 

104-134, HR 3019, Section 315)

 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 504 

(29 U.S.C 791)

 Reservoir Salvage Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 

469), as amended 

 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 

U.S.C. 403 10) 

 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 

1977 (42 U.S.C. 201) 

 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 (42 

U.S.C. s/s 300f et seq.) (1974), as 

amended

 Secretarial Order 3289 (February 22, 

2010)

 Sections 2275 and 2276 of the Revised 

Statutes, as amended

 Sikes Act (or the Act of September 15, 

1960) (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.), as amended

 Soil and Water Resources Conservation 

Act of 1977 (16 U.S.C. 1901 et. seq.) 

 Soil Conservation and Domestic 

Allotment Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 163) 

(Public Law 74-46), as amended

 Soil Information Assistance for 

Community Planning and Resource 

Development Act of 1996 (42 U.S.C. 

3271 et. seq.)

 Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 

et seq.)

 State Grants (43 CFR 2620)

 Stock Raising Homestead Act (30 U.S.C. 

54 and 43 U.S.C. 299)

 Streamside Management Zone Law (77 5-

301 et seq. MCA)

 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.)

 Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C. 315), as 

amended

 Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 

2601 et seq.)

 Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards 

(49 Federal Register 31528) 

 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real 

Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1971 

(42 U.S.C. 4601) 

 Water Pollution Control Act of 1948

 Water Quality Act of 1965

 Water Quality Act of 1987, as amended 

from the Federal Water Pollution Control 

Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251) 

 Water Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 

1962) 

 Watershed Protection and Flood Control 

Act of 1954 (16 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) 

 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 

U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), as amended

 Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 

et seq.)

RELATED PLANS

In accordance with policy described below, plans formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal governments that 

relate to this RMP have been reviewed and no proposed management in this RMP is known to be inconsistent 

with these plans.

CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER PROGRAMS, PLANS, AND POLICIES

BLM RMPs and amendments must be consistent with federal, state, and local plans to the maximum extent 

consistent with federal law, including Federal and State pollution control laws, and the purposes of FLPMA. If 

these other entities do not have officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, then the BLM RMPs 

must, to the extent practical, be consistent with those entities’ officially approved and adopted resource-related 
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-20

policies and programs. This consistency will be accomplished as long as the BLM RMPs incorporate the 

policies, programs, and provisions of federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands and federal and 

state pollution control laws (43 CFR 1610.3-2 [b]).

Plans formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal governments that relate to management of lands and 

resources have been reviewed and considered as the RMP has been developed. 

COUNTY PLANS

The BLM completed a consistency review of existing county plans. The following county plans or growth plans 

or policies that were reviewed in either draft or final form include: 

 Valley County Resource Use Plan (2005), 

 Big Horn County Growth Policy (2002),

 Dawson County/Glendive Growth Policy (2006),

 Fallon County Growth Policy (2006),

 Growth Policy for Richland County, Sidney, and Fairview (2007), and

 Prairie County, Montana Growth Policy (2006).

County and community wildfire protection plans that address hazardous fuels and fire suppression were also 

reviewed and are consistent with the BLM local and national fire plans: 

 Dawson County Community Wildfire Protection and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (2005),

 Wibaux County Community Wildfire Protection and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (2005),

 McCone County Community Wildfire Protection and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (2005),

 Prairie County Community Wildfire Protection and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (2005),

 Richland County Community Wildfire Protection and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan (2005),

 Rosebud County Wildfire Protection Plan (2004),

 Final Carter County Community Fire Plan (2005),

 Custer County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005),

 Treasure County Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005) and,

 Community Wildfire Protection and Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, Fallon County (2005).

STATE PLANS

A number of planning documents, strategies, or policies that guide management activities affect public lands. 

Many of the plans directly impact or otherwise affect BLM-administered lands, agreements, or other partnership 

involvement opportunities. In addition to BLM’s cooperating agency relationship with several state agencies 

(see Collaboration below), ongoing coordination and communication will take place to ensure consistency, as 

appropriate. BLM resource specialists reviewed many of these plans and determined that to the extent possible, 

they are consistent with current management of BLM-administered lands. A list of state plans most pertinent to 

the planning area follows:

 Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (2005),

 Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana-Final (2005),

 Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan (2004),

 Conservation Plan for Black-tailed and White-tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana (2002),

 Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (Second edition) (1994),

 Montana Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: An Addendum to Montana Bald Eagle Management 

Plan (2010),

 ROD for the Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (2004),

 Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan (2007),

 Montana Statewide Elk Management Plan (2004),

 Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2008 to 2012 (2008),
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-21

 Montana Bighorn Sheep Conservation Strategy (2010),

 Draft Redwater River Nutrient and Salinity TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan

(2010),

 State of Montana Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (2010),

 Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan (2007),

 Montana Piping Plover Management Plan (2006), and

 Montana Interior Least Tern Management Plan (2006).

The 2005 Montana Sage-grouse Work Group’s Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse 

in Montana-Final is designed to provide biological information, identify information gaps, and facilitate data 

collection required for future resource management decisions. It establishes a process to achieve sage-grouse

management objectives and provides a framework to guide local management efforts. Regional or local groups 

will adapt the statewide plan to develop and implement strategies in respective geographic areas that will 

improve or maintain the sagebrush steppe and reduce or mitigate factors that may further reduce habitats or 

populations.

OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY PLANS

 Custer National Forest and National Grasslands Record of Decision (1987), as amended; and

 Crow Indian Reservation Natural, Socioeconomic, and Cultural Resources Assessment and Conditions 

Report (2002), and

 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan for Management and Use (NPS 1982).

OTHER RELATED PLANS

FLPMA requires that the BLM, when developing or revising land use plans, shall:

...to the extent consistent with the laws governing the administration of the public lands, coordinate 

the land use inventory, planning, and management of activities of or for such lands with the land use 

planning and management programs of other Federal departments and agencies and of the States and 

local governments within which the lands are located...and assure that consideration is given to those 

State, local and tribal land use plans for public lands [and] assist in resolving, to the extent practical,

inconsistencies between Federal and non-Federal Government plans... (43 U.S.C. S 1712 (c) (9)).

The BLM must keep apprised of the many ongoing programs, plans, and policies that are being

implemented in the planning area by other federal, state, local, and tribal governments. The BLM will seek to be 

consistent with or complementary to other management actions whenever possible. 

A number of plans have been developed by the BLM that relate to or otherwise govern management in the 

decision area. Some of these plans amended the Powder River and Big Dry RMPs while others, although they 

have not been formally adopted through the land use planning process, are considered by the BLM when 

implementation-level planning is conducted or other specific actions are analyzed. These major plans and other 

major management guidance are listed below and provide a perspective of the many management 

considerations pertinent to the planning area. 

Land Use Plans and Amendments

Amendments and land use plans specific to the Powder River RMP include:

 Record of Decision Powder River Resource Management Plan Powder River Resource Area (1985),

 Decision Record for Coal Suitability Redesignations Amendment to the Powder River Resource 

Management Plan (1992),

 Record of Decision, Oil and Gas Amendment, Billings-Powder River-South Dakota Resource 

Management Plans/Environmental Impact Statements (1994),
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-22

 Record of Decision for Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management Final Environmental Impact Statement for Montana and North and South Dakota (1997), 

and

 Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Decision Record and Approved Amendment of the Billings, 

Powder River, and South Dakota Resource Management Plans (1999).

Amendments and land use plans specific to the Big Dry RMP include:

 Record of Decision and Approved Big Dry Resource Area Management Plan (1996),

 Record of Decision and Approved Calypso Trail Management Plan (1997),

 Record of Decision for Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management Final Environmental Impact Statement for Montana and North and South Dakota (1997), 

and

 Record of Decision for the Makoshika State Park Amendment to the Big Dry RMP (Makoshika 

Amendment) (1999).

Amendments and land use plans specific to the both the Powder River and Big Dry RMPs include:

 Final Vegetation Treatments on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Report (2007),

 Record of Decision, Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2007),

 Record of Decision, Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota (2003),

 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States (2008),

 Record of Decision for the Final Supplement to the Montana Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental 

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

Plans (2008), and

 Record of Decision for the Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and 

Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans (2003).

OTHER NATIONAL, STATEWIDE, AND FIELD OFFICE PLANS INCLUDE:

 Record of Decision Environmental Impact Statement for Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Thirteen Western States (1991);

 Record of Decision, Implementation of a Wind Energy Development Program and Associated Land 

Use Plan Amendments (2005);

 Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report (Volume II), Wilderness Study Area Specific 

Recommendations (1991);

 Review and Update of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2001);

 Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (2009);

 National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2004);

 Bighorn Basin Resource Management Plan Revision Project Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (2011);

 Draft Dillon Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (2004),

 BLM Strategic Plan FY 2000–2005 (2000);

 Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendments for the Powder River Basin Oil and 

Gas Project (2003);

 Bureau of Land Management Prairie Stream Surveys: Study Plan. BLM Eastern Montana-Dakotas 

District: Miles City (MCFO), North Dakota (NDFO), & South Dakota (SDFO) Field Offices; Billings 

Field Office (BiFO) (2010);

 Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the 

Dakotas (2003);
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-23

 Nongame Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Plan. Fish and Wildlife 2000 (1992);

 Draft North Dakota Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (1986);

 Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (1987);

 Access: Supplement to State Director Guidance for Resource Management Planning in Montana and 

the Dakotas (1989);

 Recreation 2000: A Strategic Plan (1989);

 State Director’s Guidance on Access (Final) (1989);

 Noxious Weed Control in the Butte District (1986);

 Recreation 2000 Tri-State Strategy (Three volumes) (1990);

 Judith-Valley-Phillips Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (1992);

 Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Casper Field 

Office Planning Area (2007);

 Recreation and Visitor Services Strategy, Montana/Dakotas (2010); and

 Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the 

Dakotas (2003).

The BLM’s National Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2004) serves as guidance for managing, 

restoring, and enhancing sagebrush habitat on BLM-administered lands. The guidance is designed to support 

and promote the range-wide conservation of sagebrush habitats for sage-grouse and other sagebrush-obligate 

wildlife species.

RELATED PLANS

Plans formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal governments that relate to the RMP have been reviewed and 

considered, including:

 Draft International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane. Ottawa: Recovery of Nationally 

Endangered Wildlife (RENEW) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2005),

 Montana Wildlife Services Animal Damage Management Work Plan and Fiscal Year 2009 Summary 

Report for the Bureau of Land Management Including the Miles City Field Office, Billings Field Office

(2010),

 Conservation Assessment and Conservation Strategy for Swift Fox in the United States (1997),

 Greater Sage-grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (2009),

 Final Recovery Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) (1993),

 Revised Recovery Plan for Piping Plovers, Charadrius melodus, Breeding on the Great Lakes and 

Northern Great Plains (1994),

 Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex (2007),

 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (2007),

 Custer National Forest Management Plan (1986),

 Northern Great Plains Management Plans Revision (2002),

 National Rangeland Reform Environmental Impact Statement (1994),

 Recreation and Visitor Services Strategy, Montana/Dakotas (2010),

 Recovery Plan for Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) of the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains

(1988), and

 Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (1988).

POLICY

No proclamations or legislative designations that would influence decisions or constrain the alternatives have 

been issued within the planning area.

Decisions in the RMP will be implemented in conjunction with the BLM budgeting process. An implementation 

schedule will be developed and provide for the systematic completion of decisions in the approved RMP.
CHAPTER 1

PURPOSE AND NEED

1-24

COLLABORATION

There are 27 formally designated cooperating agencies for the RMP planning process. These include federal, 

state, and local agencies and tribal governments:

 Fork Peck Tribes,

 Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,

 BIA,

 USEPA Region 8,

 USFWS,

 Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality,

 MDNRC,

 MFWP,

 Big Horn County,

 Carter County Conservation District,

 Carter County,

 Custer County,

 Daniels County,

 Fallon County,

 Garfield County Conservation District,

 Garfield County,

 McCone County,

 McCone County Conservation District,

 Powder River County,

 Prairie County Conservation District,

 Prairie County Cooperative State Grazing 

District,

 Richland County,

 Richland County Conservation District

 Rosebud County,

 Sheridan County,

 Treasure County, and

 Wibaux Conservation District.