United States Department of the Interior 

 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

 Miles City Field Office

 111 Garryowen Road

 Miles City, Montana 59301-0940

 http://www.mt.blm.gov/mcfo/

February 1, 2013

Dear Reader:

Enclosed for your review and comment is the Miles City Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Miles City Field Office (MCFO). The resource management 

plan/environmental impact statement (RMP/EIS) has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

and the following cooperating agencies: Big Horn, Carter, Custer, Daniels, Fallon, Garfield, Powder River, 

Richland, Rosebud, Sheridan, Treasure, and McCone counties; Carter, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, Richland, and 

Wibaux conservation districts; Prairie County Cooperative State Grazing District; Montana Department of 

Natural Resources and Conservation; Montana Department of Environmental Quality; Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks; United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); United States Fish and Wildlife Service; 

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the Lower Brule and Fort Peck Tribes. In addition, the BLM 

collaborated with the Little Beaver Conservation District, United States Forest Service, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, and Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council in preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS.

The Draft RMP/EIS considers and analyzes five alternatives that address future management of approximately 

2.8 million acres of federal surface and 11.0 million acres of federal mineral estate in eastern Montana 

administered by the BLM’s MCFO. Alternative E is identified as the agency’s Preferred Alternative. Although

a Preferred Alternative has been identified, a final decision has not been made. The final decision, which will be 

documented in a record of decision, will be made after consideration of the comments received on the 

Draft RMP/EIS and after a Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (Proposed RMP and Final 

EIS) has been released. Compact disc copies of the document may be obtained through the MCFO or at the 

MCFO RMP website: http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_office/rmp.html.

The Draft RMP/EIS consists of four volumes: Volume I includes an Executive Summary and Chapters 1, 2, 3, 

and part of Chapter 4; Volume II includes the rest of Chapter 4, Chapter 5, the Bibliography, Glossary, and 

Index; Volume III includes all appendices; and Volume IV contains the maps.

References to “sage-grouse” throughout the document refer to greater sage-grouse.

You are invited to review and comment on the Draft RMP/EIS. The public review period for the Draft 

RMP/EIS is 90 calendar days from the publication date of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by

the USEPA. Information regarding public meeting dates and times to discuss the plan and provide comment 

will be released through the news media and MCFO RMP website after the publication of the USEPA notice. 

Written comments need to be sent to: MCFO RMP Comments, 111 Garryowen Road, Miles City, MT 59301-

0940. Email comments may be submitted to this email address: BLM_MT_MCFO_RMP@BLM.gov. 

Comments will be fully considered and evaluated in the preparation of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, and all

substantive comments will be addressed.

Comments will be most useful if they are specific, mention particular pages where appropriate, and address one 

or more of the following:

 inaccuracies or discrepancies in information;

 identification of new information relevant to the analysis;
 identification of new impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures; or

 specific suggestions for improving management direction.

Comments, including name and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the 

MCFO during regular business hours between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. You may request confidentiality if you are commenting as an individual but you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by 

law. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All 

submissions from organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives of 

officials, organizations, or businesses will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look forward to your continued interest and participation. 

For additional information or clarification regarding this document, please contact Mark Jacobsen, Public 

Affairs Specialist, at (406) 233-2800.

Sincerely,

Todd D. Yeager

Miles City Field Manager
ABS-1

MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE

DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Responsible Agency: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Draft (X) Final ( ) 

Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( ) 

Abstract: The Miles City Field Office Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

(RMP) describes and analyzes five alternatives for managing the public lands and resources in the planning 

area. The planning area consists of BLM-administered lands and minerals in eastern Montana in Carter, Custer, 

Daniels, Dawson, Fallon, Garfield, McCone, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sheridan, 

Treasure, and Wibaux counties and portions of Big Horn and Valley counties.

To assist the agency decision maker, cooperating agencies, and the public in focusing on appropriate solutions 

to planning issues, the Draft RMP considers five alternatives. Alternative A is a continuation of current 

management (No Action Alternative). Under this alternative, use of public lands and resources would continue 

to be managed under the two existing RMPs, as amended. Alternative B emphasizes more protection of 

physical, biological, and heritage resources while providing for the lowest level of development. Alternative C 

emphasizes resource development while protecting physical, biological, and heritage resources. Alternative D 

maximizes revenue and economic opportunities through natural resource development while meeting legal, 

environmental, and cultural requirements. Alternative E is the BLM’s Preferred Alternative, which is not a final 

agency decision but instead an indication of the agency’s preliminary preference for management that reflects 

the best combination of decisions to achieve BLM program goals and policies, meet the purpose and need, 

address the key planning issues, and consider the recommendations of cooperating agencies and BLM 

specialists.

Major RMP issues include livestock grazing; energy development; wildlife habitat management, including 

sage-grouse; special designations, including areas of critical environmental concern; special recreation 

management areas; national trails; and wilderness study areas. The alternatives present a range of management 

actions to achieve goals and desired future conditions for the Miles City Field Office (MCFO). When 

completed, the record of decision for the RMP will provide comprehensive, long-range decisions for managing

public resources in the MCFO and identifying allowable uses on the BLM-administered public lands and 

federal mineral estate. 

Comments on the Draft RMP will be accepted for 90 days following publication of the Notice of Availability by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register. The comment period will be

announced in news releases, newsletters, and at http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/miles_city_field_office.html,

the RMP website.

For further information, contact: 

Mary Bloom, RMP Project Manager

Bureau of Land Management, 

Miles City Field Office 

111 Garryowen Road

Miles City, MT 59301 

(406) 233-2800
This page intentionally left blank.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The goal of the Miles City Field Office Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement

(RMP) is a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of lands and minerals administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Miles City Field Office (MCFO) area. Conditions in the planning 

area have changed since the approval of the Big Dry and Powder River RMPs, necessitating a plan update. 

These conditions include new laws, regulations, and policies that supersede previous decisions and changed 

ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, and regulatory conditions; and user demands and activities.

The Draft RMP will be reviewed by the public and then reissued as a Proposed RMP/Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS); proposed decisions are not approved until the BLM issues the record of decision 

(ROD). The ROD is the planning document outlining management decisions for the MCFO planning area. 

Land use plan decisions are made on a broad scale and guide subsequent site-specific implementation decisions. 

The land is managed for multiple uses and activities. The RMP makes the following types of decisions for the 

planning area:

 establishes resource goals, objectives, and desired future conditions; 

 describes actions to achieve goals, objectives, and desired future conditions;

 makes land use allocations and special designations; and

 identifies land adjustment categories.

PREPARERS AND COLLABORATORS

The BLM is the agency responsible for the preparation of this Draft RMP. Included in the planning process are 

27 formally designated cooperating agencies, which include tribal governments and federal, state, and local 

agencies. 

PLANNING AREA 

The planning area is all of the land within the MCFO administrative boundary, which 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. In addition to BLMadministered lands, the planning area contains state, private, United States Forest Service (USFS), United States 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Bureau of 

Reclamation, and United States Bureau of Indian Affairs lands. These lands include the Custer National Forest 

(USFS), Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS), and Fort Keogh Livestock and Range 

Research Laboratory (USDA). Landowners and land management agencies with significant holdings in the area 

include the BLM, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (which administers state trust 

lands and minerals), Fort Peck Tribes, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa. The 

Crow Indian Reservation borders the planning area. However, the decision area is composed only of those lands 

administered by the BLM (surface and mineral estate). 

PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process has three tiers of planning: policy, RMP, and activity plans. This document is part of the 

RMP process, which includes scoping and drives the preparation of the RMP. Issues identified during scoping 

for the draft RMP include those described below.

 Issue 1: Vegetation Communities

o How will vegetation be managed on BLM-administered lands to achieve healthy ecosystems 

while providing for a broad range of multiple uses?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii

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

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

recover special status plant and animal species and priority species?

 Issue 3: Travel Management and Access

o How should 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?

 Issue 4: Recreation

o How should recreation management accommodate the full range of recreational uses enjoyed 

by the public on BLM-administered lands?

 Issue 5: Special Designations, including areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), national 

trails, wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness study areas (WSAs)

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

managed to protect values that warrant their special designation status?

 Issue 6: Master Leasing Plan Areas

o Which areas, if any, qualify for a master leasing plan? How should they be managed to 

minimize conflicts between fluid mineral development and other resources?

 Issue 7: Climate Change

o How can the BLM incorporate climate change adaptation or responses into its land 

management practices?

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 greater sage-grouse and its habitats on 

BLM-administered land.

The BLM has developed management alternatives to address these planning issues and concerns.

BLM regulations require that the RMP be consistent with related local and state resource plans as long as they 

are consistent with federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. Similar plans in the area were 

reviewed during the preparation process.

MANAGEMENT GOALS, CONCERNS, AND DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS 

The following are goals for the management of BLM-administered lands in the planning area. Within the 

capability of the resources, the BLM strives to: 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iii

 sustain and, where necessary, restore the health and diversity of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian 

ecosystems;

 support a sustainable flow of benefits in consideration of the social and economic systems of Eastern 

Montana; and

 provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities.

Desired future conditions, management goals, visions, and management concerns pertaining to resources, 

resource management activities, or land uses include the following: air quality, soil, water, cultural resources, 

traditional cultural properties (TCPs), paleontological resources, visual resources, lands and realty, hazardous 

material management, social and economic environments, environmental justice, and American Indian Tribes.

ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED FURTHER

Several issues raised during scoping and considered but not analyzed include those described below.

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

be changed.

 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.

 Provide equitable distribution of firefighting resources across the state.

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

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

 Water from Fort Peck Reservoir should remain in Montana.

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

The goal of alternative development is to prepare different combinations of management to address issues and 

resolve multiple use conflicts. Alternatives must be reasonable and respond to the issues; meet the purpose and 

need; provide a mix of resource protection, use, and development; and meet established planning criteria. Each 

alternative is a complete land use plan that provides a framework for multiple use management of the full 

spectrum of resources, resource uses, and programs present in the planning area. Under all alternatives, the 

BLM will manage the public lands in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, BLM policy and 

guidance, and the Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health. 

Five alternatives are presented in the RMP. Alternative A, a continuation of current management (also known as 

the No Action Alternative) was developed using existing planning and management documents, policies, and 

decisions; available inventory data; and established land use allocations. Alternatives B, C, and D were 

developed with participation and recommendations from the BLM interdisciplinary teams, collaborating 

agencies, cooperating agencies, the Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council, and public input collected 

during scoping workshops. Alternative E is the BLM’s Preferred Alternative and is based on collaborator input 

and impacts from Alternatives A, B, C, and D. The alternatives are limited to those that are executable and 

those that employ reasonable methods for managing public lands and federal minerals while still offering a 

broad range of management scenarios to be evaluated. 

ALTERNATIVE A

Alternative A would abide by all new laws and BLM policies implemented since the completion of the Powder 

River and Big Dry RMPs while continuing present management direction and activities. The current levels, 

methods, and mixes of multiple use management of public lands in the planning area would continue and 

resource values would receive attention at current levels. Three existing special recreation management areas 

(SRMAs) would continue to receive focused management. In general, most activities would be analyzed on a 

case-by-case basis, and few uses would be limited or excluded as long as land health standards were met.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

iv

ALTERNATIVE B

Alternative B would enhance resource protection by minimizing resource development and land use. This 

alternative would emphasize active measures to enhance resource values and fish and wildlife habitats. Products 

from vegetation management in all habitats would be secondary to restoring healthy upland forest and riparian 

areas. In some cases and in some areas, uses would be prohibited to protect sensitive resources. Under this 

alternative, restrictions would more frequently be applied to broad habitats rather than focusing on specific 

sensitive resources in individual geographic areas. An MLP has been identified for an area in Carter County. 

Special designations would create eight new SRMAs and six new ACECs. Each of these special designation 

areas would receive focused management. 

ALTERNATIVE C

Alternative C would enhance the public’s use of the land and resources in a long-term, environmentally 

sustainable manner while emphasizing local economic interests. This alternative would recommend a moderate 

level of protection, use, restoration, and enhancement of resources. Alternative C represents a mix and variety 

of actions that would resolve the issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs. 

Restrictions to protect resources would be implemented and monitoring and consultation with state agencies 

would be used to adjust restrictions for surface-disturbing activities. An MLP has been identified for an area in 

Carter County. Special designations would create eight new SRMAs and six new ACECs. Each of these special 

designation areas would receive focused management.

ALTERNATIVE D

Alternative D would provide the least restrictive resource management. This alternative would maximize 

revenue and economic opportunities through natural resource development while meeting legal, environmental, 

and cultural requirements. Restrictions to protect resources would be implemented only to the extent necessary 

to meet legal requirements. Alternative D would not create any new SRMAs, but six new ACECs would be 

designated. The existing SRMAs would be managed as part of the extensive recreation management area 

(ERMA) along with one existing ACEC (Howrey Island). This alternative contains the least restrictive oil and 

gas stipulations. An MLP has been identified for an area in Carter County.

ALTERNATIVE E (PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE)

Alternative E would enhance the public’s use of the land and resources in a long-term, environmentally 

sustainable manner while emphasizing local economic interests. This alternative would recommend a moderate 

level of protection, use, restoration, and enhancement of resources. Alternative E represents a mix and variety of 

actions that would resolve the issues and management concerns in consideration of all values and programs. 

Restrictions to protect resources would be implemented and monitoring and consultation with state agencies 

would be used to adjust restrictions for surface-disturbing activities. An MLP has been identified for an area in 

Carter County. Special designations would create eight new SRMAs and six new ACECs. Each of these special 

designation areas would receive focused management.

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The affected environment in the planning area (including resources, resource uses, special designation areas, 

and social and economic conditions) is described in this chapter.

The MCFO planning area includes all or portions of 17 counties, approximately 2.8 million BLM-administered 

surface acres, and 11.0 million BLM-administered acres of mineral estate. Primary uses of public lands in the 

planning area include livestock ranching, agriculture, and mineral development. A complex history of 

homestead and railroad land grants has resulted in fragmented surface and subsurface mineral ownership across 

the majority of the planning area. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

v

The planning area is characterized as a semi-arid continental regime of the Great Plains grasslands. Average 

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

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

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

exceeds precipitation, the total supply of moisture is low. The effects of climate change include changes in 

climate indicators, such as temperature and precipitation, as well as effects on many natural resources, including 

air quality, water quality, flora, fauna, and many other resources on local, regional, national, and global scales.

Climate change also affects human health and economic resources. 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. Increases in average summer temperatures 

and earlier spring snowmelt in the planning area are expected to increase the risk of wildfires by increasing 

summer moisture deficits (Karl, Melillo, and Peterson 2009). Climate change also poses challenges for many 

resource uses on BLM-administered lands. 

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

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

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

planning area. With the exception of a particulate matter (PM10) nonattainment area near Lame Deer within the 

Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation, air quality throughout the planning area is good. Despite increases in 

population and resource extraction, recent monitored air pollutant concentrations remain well below National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in all portions of the planning area (including the Lame Deer area). 

Good air quality is expected to continue.

Derived mainly from sedimentary rock, soils in the planning area have diverse physical, chemical, and 

biological properties. Soils are commonly calcareous, poorly developed, and contain few coarse fragments. 

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

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

Irrigation is the predominate use of surface water, composing approximately 95 percent of the total surface 

water withdrawn. Groundwater is extremely important in the planning area.

Six general land classes occur in the planning area: agriculture or urban areas, grassland, shrubland, forests, 

riparian areas, and barren lands. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, limber pine, Rocky Mountain juniper, green ash, 

quaking aspen, boxelder, and bur oak forest habitat types occur in the planning area. Forestlands occur in six

distinct geographic and geologic areas in the planning area: the Missouri Breaks in Garfield County, areas south 

of the Yellowstone River, Ekalaka Hills-Chalk Buttes in Carter County, Cedar Creek Anticline, the Terry 

Badlands, and areas north of the Yellowstone River. The primary invasive species targeted for control in the 

planning area include Russian knapweed, spotted knapweed, diffuse knapweed, leafy spurge, Canada thistle, 

common hound’s-tongue, field bindweed, and salt-cedar.

Vegetation in the planning area includes rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs that provide habitat for a variety 

of wildlife (including fish, aquatic arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, and bivalves) and riparian communities. 

Big game, game birds, non-game wildlife, and special status wildlife species occur in the planning area. Some

special status wildlife species are transient species while others reside and breed in the planning area, including 

greater sage-grouse. 

Expanding energy development in western North America poses a major new challenge for sage-grouse

conservation. Primary ongoing threats to sage-grouse include habitat loss, fragmentation, and deterioration 

resulting from factors including the spread of invasive species, infrastructure development, rapidly expanding 

energy development, wildfire, conversion of sagebrush habitats to nonnative species or agriculture, and conifer

invasion (USFWS 2005d), which occurs throughout the planning area. (See the Minerals section for current 

numbers of oil and gas wells.) There are approximately 16.9 million acres of sage-grouse habitat in the planning 

area, including approximately 2.5 million acres (15 percent) on BLM-administered lands. As part of the BLM’s 

December 2011 National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy, transmitted via Washington IM 

2012-044, the BLM is preparing amendments to formal land use plans to further govern management of sagegrouse on BLM-administered lands. The planning strategy will evaluate the adequacy of BLM RMPs and 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vi

address, as necessary, revisions and amendments throughout the range of the greater sage-grouse. Management 

Zone 1, which is part of the Rocky Mountain Region of this planning effort, includes this RMP’s planning area.

Evidence of wildfire can be traced through the review of fire scars across all landscapes in the Northern 

Rockies. The planning area has an active fire season, with an average fire occurrence of 96 fires. The majority 

of fires occur during July and August.

Cultural resources in the planning area include archeological, historic, architectural properties, and traditional 

lifeway values important to American Indian groups. In the planning area, there is approximately one cultural 

site for every 100 acres of land.

The planning area is rich in paleontological resources, producing world famous fossils and supporting extensive 

research. The Hell Creek formation, Judith River formation, and Tullock member of the Fort Union formation 

are important geological formations occurring in the planning area. About 10 to 15 paleontological excavations 

occur in the planning area each year.

The planning area includes unique areas with a variety of scenic qualities. The planning area still maintains 

much of the scenic quality and pristine viewsheds encountered over the past 25 years. 

The MCFO administers 1,776 grazing allotments comprising approximately 2,736,673 public acres and 546,570 

public animal unit months (AUMs). Cattle are the most common livestock use category in the planning area 

(1,728 allotments), followed by sheep (132), horses (101), bison (3), and burros (1). Grazing systems are 

designed to maintain or improve plant diversity.

The planning area includes the Williston and Powder River basins, which are two geological formations 

important to mineral production. Minerals or mineral materials in the area include geothermal, oil and gas, coal, 

bentonite, uranium, gold, clinker (scoria), sand and gravel, and coal bed natural gas (CBNG). Renewable 

resources in the planning area include wind, biomass, solar power, and geothermal. An MLP area has been 

proposed in the planning area.

Recreation activities available within the planning area include hunting, wildlife viewing, driving for pleasure, 

fishing, picnicking, camping, hiking, OHV use, rock collecting, mountain biking, floating, horseback riding, 

photography, and snowmobiling. However, the most intensive, area-wide recreational use occurs during the big 

game hunting season. Off-highway vehicle use (OHV) use is one of the fastest growing Montana activities, and 

OHV use on public land is expected to increase in the planning area. 

The planning area contains seven wilderness study areas (WSAs), totaling approximately 97,248 acres. Sixteen 

areas, located in 10 counties, are designated areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and include 

significant cultural and paleontological resources in the form of fossils, prehistoric scatter, and wildlife. The 

planning area also includes the Big Sky National Back Country Byway and the Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail. There are no wild and scenic rivers in the planning area.

Sparsely populated (less than two people per square mile) and predominately rural, the planning area population 

was 87,085 in 2010 (less than one-tenth of the population of the entire state). County populations ranged from 

over 10,000 in Custer, Big Horn, and Roosevelt counties to less than 2,000 in Carter, Treasure, Wibaux, Prairie, 

Powder River, McCone, Daniels, and Garfield counties. The 2010 planning area population estimate 

represented a decline of 6 percent since 2000, with all counties losing population except Big Horn, Richland, 

and Fallon counties. Agriculture, mineral and energy development, and recreation and tourism are important 

industries in the planning area. Important positive contributors to quality of life were proximity to the outdoors 

and wide-open spaces, good people, small town atmosphere, an active and supportive community, an ability to 

earn a living, opportunity for outdoor recreation, and the presence of suitable places to raise children. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

vii

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 4 provides detailed descriptions of effects from the alternatives and discussion of the cumulative 

impacts, irretrievable and irreversible commitments of resources, and unavoidable adverse impacts of the 

alternatives.

Selection of Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would maintain the current rate of progress in meeting 

land health standards and protecting resource values. Generally, it would allow for use levels to continue at 

current levels in current locations in the planning area; however, adjustments would be required to meet 

Standards for Rangeland Health or mitigate resource concerns in compliance with existing laws and regulations. 

Alternative B would allow many uses to continue, and BLM actions under this alternative would have the least 

potential to impact physical and biological resources. However, certain activities such as livestock grazing and 

oil and gas development would be severely restricted to maintain or improve land health conditions and protect 

crucial wildlife habitat areas. 

Alternative C would provide a moderate level of protection, and potential impacts to physical and biological 

resources from BLM actions under this alternative would be reduced. Wildlife habitat monitoring and 

consultation with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) would assist in meeting these goals. Habitat 

adjustments caused by surface occupancy or timing restrictions would potentially result in alteration or 

limitation of uses and activities. 

Alternative D would offer the greatest potential for economic benefits from resource extraction but result in 

greater impacts to the physical and biological environment than actions proposed under Alternatives B and C. 

Although legal restrictions would still be applied, uses would generally be the least encumbered by management 

under this alternative. 

Alternative E (Preferred Alternative) would provide a moderate level of protection, and potential impacts to 

physical and biological resources from BLM actions under this alternative would be reduced. Wildlife habitat 

monitoring and consultation with MFWP would assist in meeting these goals. Habitat adjustments caused by 

surface occupancy or timing restrictions would potentially result in alteration or limitation of uses and activities.

CHAPTER 5: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The BLM prepared a public participation plan to guide project management and team efforts in the development 

of the RMP and to ensure public involvement before and during the preparation of the RMP. 

Major participation events included nine public scoping meetings, numerous cooperating agencies meetings, 

and an alternative development workshop. The BLM held scoping meetings to explain the planning process and 

gather input and mailed more than 9,000 informational scoping brochures to agencies, organizations, and 

individuals to solicit additional comments. Newsletters were prepared and sent to addresses on the mailing list 

throughout the preparation period.

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and in recognition of the government-togovernment relationship between tribes and the federal government, letters of introduction were sent to 13 tribal 

governments to inform them of the RMP revision. These letters, which also requested input on issues and 

concerns for the BLM to consider during the planning process, initiated efforts to identify areas of traditional 

cultural concern and extended offers of cooperating agency status. Subsequent contact with tribes was made 

throughout the planning process and during formal consultation.

As required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the BLM initiated consultation with the 

USFWS and consultation with the USFWS will continue throughout the RMP process. The BLM also 

participated in multiple sage-grouse presentations across the planning area.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

viii

The BLM maintains a website to provide information on the RMP and planning process. In addition to outreach 

described above, other informal meetings, telephone conversations, and visits with agency representatives and 

public occurred as requested. Twenty-seven cooperating agencies assisted throughout development of the RMP.

Bighorn sheep at Strawberry Hill Recreation Area in Custer County
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

μeq/L Micro-Equivalents per Liter 

μg/m3 Micrograms per Cubic Meter

μS/cm Microsiemens per Centimeter 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental 

Concern

AMP Allotment Management Plan 

AO Authorized Officer

AQRV Air Quality Related Value

APD Application for Permit to Drill

ARM Administrative Rules of Montana

ARMP Air Resource Management Plan

ATV All-terrain Vehicle

AU Assessment Unit

AUM Animal Unit Month

BCC United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service Birds of Conservation 

Concern 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practice

BNKHD-JNS Bankhead-Jones/Land Utilization 

Lands (BLM-administered)

BOR Bureau of Reclamation

BP Before Present

C Celsius

CASTNet Clean Air Status and Trends 

Network

CBNG Coal Bed Natural Gas

ccf 100 cubic feet

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

cfs Cubic Feet per Second

cm Centimeters

COA Condition of Approval

COOP Cooperative Observer Program 

CSD Controlled Surface Disturbance

CSU Controlled Surface Use

dBA A-weighted decibel

DOE United States Department Of 

Energy

DOE-EIA United States Department Of 

Energy-Energy Information 

Administration

dS/cm deciSiemens per meter

Dv Deciview

EA Environmental Assessment

EC Electrical Conductivity

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EOR Enhanced Oil Recovery

ERMA Extensive Recreation Management 

Area

ESA Endangered Species Act

F Fahrenheit

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act

FR/CC Fire Regime and Condition Class

FSEIS Final Supplement to the Montana 

Statewide Oil and Gas 

Environmental Impact Statement 

and Proposed Amendment of the 

Powder River and Billings

Resource Management Plans

GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information Systems

gpm Gallons per Minute

GPS Global Positioning System

HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant

HDD Horizontal Directional Drilling

IB Information Bulletin

IM Instruction Memorandum

IMPROVE Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change

kg/ha-yr Kilogram per Hectare per Year

kV Kilovolt

LANDFIRE Landscape Fire and Resource 

Management Planning Tools 

Project

lb Pound

lb/in2Pound per Square Inch

MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

mbf Thousand Board Feet

mbf/year Thousand Board Feet per Year

MBMG Montana Bureau of Mines and 

Geology 

MBOGC Montana Board of Oil and Gas 

Conservation

MCA Montana Code Annotated

MCFO Miles City Field Office, Bureau of 

Land Management

mDarcies milliDarcies (one thousandth of a 

darcy unit)

MDEQ Montana Department of 

Environmental Quality

MDNRC Montana Department of Natural 

Resources and Conservation

MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks

mg/L Milligrams per Liter

MIST Minimal Impact Suppression 

Tactics 

MLP Master Leasing Plan

mmhos Millimhos per Centimeter

MNHP Montana Natural Heritage Program
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ii

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPDES Montana Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System 

mph Miles per Hour

MSO Montana State Office, Bureau of 

Land Management 

MSU Montana State University

mt metric ton

mtpy metric tons per year

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards

NADP National Atmospheric Deposition 

Program

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

ng/L Nanograms per Liter

NHL National Historic Landmark

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLCS National Landscape Conservation 

System

NNL National Natural Landmarks

NOI Notice of Intent 

NOS Notice of Staking

NPS National Park Service

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation 

Service

NREL National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NSD No Surface Disturbance

NSO No Surface Occupancy

NTL Notice to Lessee

NVCS National Vegetation Classification 

System

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWSRS National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System

OHV Off-Highway Vehicle

PEIS Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement

PFC Proper Functioning Condition

PFYC Potential Fossil Yield 

Classification

PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes

PNVG Potential Natural Vegetation 

Groups

PO Plan of Operations

POD Plan of Development

ppb Parts per Billion

ppm Parts per Million

PRB Powder River Basin

PRPA Paleontological Resources

Protection Act

PSD Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration

PSQ Probable Sale Quantity

PTHV Montana Permit to Hunt from the 

Vehicle

R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes Act

RAWS Remote Access Weather Stations

RCA Reserve Common Allotment

RCM Revised Code of Montana

RFD Reasonably Foreseeable 

Development

RMP Resource Management Plan

ROD Record of Decision

ROW Right-of-Way

RSC Recreation Setting Characteristics

S/cm Siemens per centimeter

SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio 

SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring 

Stations

SN Sundry Notice

SRMA Special Recreation Management 

Area

SUPO Surface Use Plan of Operations

TCP Traditional Cultural Properties

TDS Total Dissolved Solids

TKN total Kjehldahl nitrogen 

TMA Travel Management Area

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TPA Travel Planning Area

TPS Total Petroleum System

tpy tons per year

TSS Total Suspended Solids

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

U.S.C. United States Code

USDA United States Department Of 

Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the 

Interior

USEPA United States Environmental 

Protection Agency

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

USNVCS United States National Vegetation 

Classification System

VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

VRI Visual Resource Inventory

VRM Visual Resource Management

WDEQ Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality

WDFG Wyoming Department of Fish and 

Game

WEM Waivers, Exemptions, and

Modifications

WMPP Wildlife Monitoring and Protection 

Plan

WO Washington Office, Bureau of 

Land Management

WSA Wilderness Study Area