HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Background 1

Chapter 1

Introduction

Chapter 1 introduces the information discussed throughout the remainder of the HiLine Resource Management Plan. 

This chapter discusses why the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) prepared this Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft RMP/EIS), how the public was involved in this planning process, how issues 

were defined, and a number of other topics. The information in this chapter is organized into the following headings and 

subheadings:

 Background

 Purpose and Need

 Planning Area

 Collaboration

 Planning Process

− Scoping

o Issues Addressed

o Issues and Concerns Considered but Not Addressed Further

− Planning Criteria

− Vision and Management Goals

− Development of Alternatives

o Related Plans

o Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

− Draft Resource Management Plan

− Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final EIS

Background

The BLM prepared this Draft RMP/EIS to provide direction for managing 

public lands (BLM lands) and federal minerals in northcentral Montana under 

the jurisdiction of the HiLine District under the principles of multiple use. 

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), lands 

administered by the BLM are defined as public lands. However, the public 

generally refers to public lands as those for which title and control rests with a 

government (federal, state, regional, county, or municipal). For clarity 

throughout the document public lands administered by the BLM will be 

referred to as BLM lands.

The affected lands are currently managed under two RMPs: the JudithValley-Phillips Resource Management Plan (BLM 1994a) and the West 

HiLine Resource Management Plan (BLM 1988). Oil and gas leasing in 

Phillips and Valley Counties is currently managed under four Management Framework Plans (MFPs): the Phillips MFP 

(BLM 1977a), Valley MFP (BLM 1977b), Little Rocky Mountains MFP (BLM 1977c), and UL Bend/Zortman MFP 

(BLM 1977d).

The Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP was amended on five occasions and the West HiLine RMP was amended on seven

occasions (Table 1.1). In addition, several new laws, regulations, and policies have affected management of public lands

since approval of both plans.

The two previous RMPs and four MFPs are being revised according to guidance in FLPMA and the BLM’s Land Use 

Planning Handbook, H-1601-1. An EIS is incorporated into this document as required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA. 

Public Lands

Under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976, the term 

“public lands” means any land and 

interest in land owned by the United 

States within the several States and 

administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the Bureau of Land 

Management, without regard to how the 

United States acquired ownership.” (43 

U.S.C. 1702, Sec. 103(e))
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

2 Background

Land use plan decisions establish goals and objectives for resource management (desired outcomes) and the measures 

needed to achieve these goals and objectives (allowable uses and management actions) in coordination with federal, 

tribal, state, and local governments; land users; and interested public. This RMP incorporates new information and 

regulatory guidance, and provides management direction where it may be lacking or requires clarification. Current 

management direction that has proven effective and requires no change will be carried forward into the revised RMP.

Table 1.1

Resource Management Plan Amendments

Amendment

RMP Amended

Judith-ValleyPhillipsWest 

HiLine

Bitter Creek and Mountain Plover Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Plan Amendment and Environmental Assessment (BLM 2001a)



Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for 

Montana and the Dakotas (BLM 2004a)

 

Loma/Vimy Ridge Watershed Environmental Assessment and Plan 

Amendment (BLM 2002)



Lonesome Lake Management Area Environmental Assessment and Resource 

Management Plan Amendment (BLM 1996a)



Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management (BLM 1997a)

 

Off-Highway Vehicle Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan 

Amendment for Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota (BLM 2001b)

 

Sweet Grass Hills Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement 

(BLM 1996b)



Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western 

United States, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 

2005)

 

The BLM’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment 

of present and future generations. Management is based on the principles of multiple use within a framework of 

environmental responsibility and scientific technology.

The BLM is responsible for resource protection, resource use, recreation, and serving the community on public lands and 

federal subsurface mineral estate. The resources managed include air quality, cultural, fish and wildlife habitat, 

minerals, rangelands, timber, visual, watersheds, and wilderness.

Multiple Use

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 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 longterm 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.” (43 U.S.C. 1702, Sec. 103(c))
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Purpose and Need/Planning Area 3

Purpose and Need

The purpose of the RMP is to provide a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of public lands and 

minerals administered by the HiLine District. The plan provides goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management 

direction to maintain, improve, or enhance resource conditions and to provide for long-term benefits to the public.

The need for the revision is the result of considerable changes within the planning area since completion of the JudithValley-Phillips RMP and the West HiLine RMP. Additional plan amendments and maintenance actions are not adequate 

to address these changes, which include increased oil and gas leasing, exploration and development activities, heightened 

public awareness and interest in BLM management actions and permitted uses, increased demand for recreational use of 

public lands, increased conflicts between land use and wildlife/wildlife habitat, changes in BLM policy, and expanded 

scientific knowledge and data. 

In March 2010, the U.S. 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, and/or restore Greater Sage-Grouse habitat and could 

reduce the need to list the species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.

This RMP revision incorporates specific management actions and conservation measures to conserve greater sage-grouse 

and its habitats on BLM land. 

Planning Area

The BLM administers approximately 2,437,000 acres of public land and 4,240,000 acres of federal minerals within the 

planning area in Blaine, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Liberty, Phillips, Toole, and Valley Counties (Table 1.2). These lands 

and minerals are managed by three BLM Field Offices in Havre, Malta, and Glasgow along with the Great Falls Oil and 

Gas Field Office, which provides oil and gas program support in western, central, and northcentral Montana. Figure 1.1 

shows surface land ownership within the planning area, and Figure 1.2 shows the federal mineral estate.

Table 1.2

BLM Surface and Subsurface Ownership by County

County Total Area (Acres)

BLM Surface BLM Subsurface

Acres % Acres %

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census (total acres) and BLM 2012 (BLM surface and subsurface acres).
4 Planning Area

Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

Figure 1.1 HiLine Planning Area– Surface Ownership
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Planning Area 5

Figure 1.2 HiLine Planning Area – Federal Mineral Estate
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

6 Collaboration/Planning Process

Collaboration

Throughout preparation of the Draft RMP/EIS consultation and coordination have been important components of the 

planning effort. Public meetings, information mailings and individual contacts with other governmental agencies, Native 

American tribes, interest groups and the general public were used to gather information for the RMP/EIS. Consultation 

and coordination will continue with preparation of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, Record of Decision, and 

implementation. A list of the public involvement opportunities can be found in Chapter 5.

At the onset of this planning process the BLM invited entities of federal, tribal, state and county governments to 

collaborate with the BLM on the development of this Draft RMP/EIS by becoming cooperating agencies. The primary 

role of cooperating agencies (also called cooperators) is to provide special expertise and/or assistance to the lead agency 

throughout the planning process. Cooperator roles include participation in the scoping process; provision of staff, 

information, and assistance to the lead agency; performance of (or assistance with) independent preparation of analysis 

where cooperating staff has special expertise; and review of draft information. Cooperators meet throughout the 

planning process as a group to discuss issues, solutions, and ideas for revising the plan. Upon request of the lead agency, 

any other federal, state, local, or tribal government having jurisdiction by law or having special expertise with respect to 

an environmental issue may become a cooperating agency. An agency may also request the lead agency designate it a 

cooperating agency.

The following agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise are cooperating agencies for this resource management 

plan:

 U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs

 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks

 Blaine County

 Phillips County

 Valley County

 Montana Cooperative State Grazing Districts

− Badlands

− Buggy Creek

− North Blaine

− North Phillips

− North Valley

− South Phillips

− Wayne Creek

− Willow Creek

In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act and in recognition of the government-to-government 

relationship between tribes and the federal government, letters were sent to nine tribal governments and officials at the 

start of the planning process to inform them of the HiLine RMP and an opportunity to partner with the BLM as a 

cooperating agency. While no tribes became an official cooperating agency, coordination has continued through letters 

and updates. The opportunity for meetings and briefings will occur with the Draft RMP/EIS.

Planning Process

Figure 1.3 shows the major steps in the planning process that led to the publication of the Draft RMP/EIS and the steps 

for completing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The major steps in Figure 1.3 are described in subsequent sections of this 

chapter.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Scoping 7

Figure 1.3

Steps in Preparing the Resource Management Plan

Scoping

The scoping process identifies land use issues and conflicts. These issues stem from new information or changed 

circumstances, the need to address environmental concerns, or a need to reassess the appropriate mix of allowable uses 

based on new information. Scoping is the first step in the planning process and closely involves the public with 

identifying issues, providing resource or other information, and developing planning criteria to guide preparation of the 

RMP.

Scoping

• Publish a Notice of Intent to prepare an RMP/EIS 

• Host public meetings 

• Provide a summary of the public's scoping 

comments 

•Identify Issues 

• Prepare planning criteria for the RMP/EIS 

•Collect resource data 

Development of Alternatives 

•Identify Related Plans 

•Consider BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 

• Draft Vision and Management Goals 

• Organize public management ideas into alternatives 

•Begin writing the RMP/EIS 

•Identify a Preferred Alternative 

Draft Resource Management Plan 

•Issue a Draft RMP/EIS 

• Provide a 90-day public comment period on the Draft 

RMP/EIS 

• Host public meetings on the Draft RMP/EIS 

•Review and analyze public comments on the Draft 

RMP/EIS 

Proposed Resource Management 

Plan/Final EIS 

• Select a Preferred Alternative 

•Issue a Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

• Provide a 30-day protest period 

• Provide a 60-day Governor's consistency review period 

• Approve the RMP 

•Issue a Record of Decision 
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

8 Issues Addressed

On September 9, 2006, a Notice of Intent to prepare the RMP was published in the Federal Register. This notice marked 

the beginning of a scoping effort that would invite extensive public involvement as a means of helping define the issues 

to be addressed in the RMP/EIS.

During scoping the BLM requested public input on identifying resource issues and concerns, management alternatives, 

or other ideas to help in determining future land use decisions for the planning area. In October 2006, eighteen scoping 

meetings were held across the planning area, including three outside of the planning area (Great Falls, Billings and 

Helena). Additional information on scoping and public participation is described in Chapter 5.

Issues Addressed

Planning issues are determined from demands, concerns, conflicts, or problems concerning use or management of public 

lands and resources. These issues are usually expressed in terms of the potential adverse consequences or effects that a 

particular land or resource use may have on other lands or resources which are used or valued for other purposes. The 

following planning issues were identified through public scoping and information gathered in analyzing the existing 

management situation in the planning area. Based on the input of the public, other government agencies, and the BLM 

and its cooperators, eleven key issues or unresolved conflicts were identified.

Issue 1: How will the area be managed for the development of fluid minerals, solid minerals, and renewable 

energy?

Fluid Minerals

In March 2004, the United States District Court for the District of Montana determined that the West HiLine RMP, 

which was approved in 1988, did not analyze the impacts of leasing in the area such as to allow leasing to proceed 

without appropriate NEPA analysis. The BLM was ordered to prepare an environmental impact statement for the oil and 

gas leasing program that covers the three leases. While this ruling only applied to the three leases, the BLM 

discontinued leasing in the West HiLine planning area until completion of a new resource management plan that would 

address the oil and gas leasing program.

Oil and gas leasing continues to occur in the remaining portion of the planning area on a very limited basis until 

completion of a new resource management plan. In 1988, the BLM suspended lease issuance on lands that require 

special stipulations to protect wildlife resources until a new resource management plan was completed. This was a result 

of a protest on the issuance of oil and gas leases by the BLM in Montana. In the early 1990s, the BLM prepared the 

Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP to address this protest along with other resource issues. However, a subsequent protest to

the 1992 Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP warranted a supplement to address an alternative for oil and gas leasing that would 

avoid leasing valuable wildlife habitat. The supplement was never finalized and the HiLine RMP will address the 

deficiency.

The HiLine RMP will address the oil and gas leasing program for the entire planning area in compliance with FLPMA, 

NEPA, ESA, NHPA and all other applicable laws, regulations, and policies. Fluid mineral (oil and gas) development 

and the related transportation network may conflict with other land and resource uses or values in some areas. Principal 

management considerations include split estate ownership (private surface/federal minerals), activities and human 

presence in fish and wildlife habitats, and the potential effects of mineral development on recreation values, forage use, 

air quality, scenic quality, sensitive vegetation types, and water quality. Areas should be identified where surfacedisturbing activities (e.g., mineral exploration and development) are suitable or not suitable.

Solid Minerals

Solid mineral development, which includes leasable, locatable, and salable minerals, requires the same management 

considerations discussed above for fluid minerals.

Leasable mineral resources are managed under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. Coal is a leasable solid mineral with 

occurrence potential in the planning area; however, no leases have been issued, no production is occurring, and the 

potential for development is considered to be low enough that no interest has been shown in obtaining leases.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Issues Addressed 9

Locatable minerals (e.g., gold and silver) are managed under the General Mining Law of 1872, as amended, which 

allows the location and maintenance of mining claims on those federal mineral estate lands open for mining claim 

location and patent. The BLM manages the Mining Law program on federal mineral estate as set forth in 43 CFR 3809. 

BLM management includes authorizing and permitting mineral exploration, mining, and reclamation actions. Areas 

should be recommended for closure to the mining laws for locatable exploration or development where surfacedisturbing activities are not suitable. Any terms or conditions should also be considered when needed to protect other 

resource values while conducting activities under the operation of the mining laws.

Salable minerals were designated under the Materials Act (July 1947), which authorizes the disposal of petrified wood 

and common varieties of sand, gravel, stone, pumice, cinders and clay through a contract of sale or free use permit. 

Uncommon varieties of these same minerals are locatable under the Mining Law. Management actions for salable 

minerals determine areas open or closed to mineral material development and identify mitigation needed to protect other 

resource values.

Renewable Energy (Wind)

The majority of high development potential areas for wind resources are located in the western third of the planning area 

(Glacier, Toole and Liberty Counties), which has the least amount of BLM land. At this time no existing or proposed 

wind farms are located on BLM land; however, several wind farms are in varying stages of planning on lands not 

managed by the BLM. These wind farms have the potential to expand; therefore, future wind farms and/or associated 

facilities (e.g., transmission lines and utility corridors) could occur on BLM land. The increased need for energy and 

reducing American reliance on foreign energy resources will most likely increase the demand for wind energy 

development. Some areas may need to be closed to wind energy development or mitigation may need to be considered 

to protect other resource values.

Issue 2: Are there opportunities to enhance management through land ownership adjustment?

Opportunities may exist to consolidate land ownership patterns that would provide improved land management 

efficiencies as well as benefit private landowners, local communities, and the public. Identification of land parcels 

and/or establishment of criteria that would be used to identify lands for land ownership adjustments are necessary.

Issue 3: How will soils and vegetation be managed to achieve or maintain healthy ecosystems while providing for 

a broad range of multiple uses?

It is important to determine the appropriate mix of resources produced from the public lands. Vegetation resource values 

include native vegetative cover, important watersheds, properly functioning riparian areas, quality soils, healthy forests 

and fuel conditions, and important wildlife habitat (particularly big game crucial winter range and habitat for candidate, 

sensitive, proposed, or threatened and endangered wildlife and vegetative species). Consumptive uses of vegetation 

include livestock grazing, forest products, wildlife foraging, and vegetation removal by surface-disturbing activities.

Issue 4: How will the area be managed for cultural resources and significant paleontological resources?

Cultural and paleontological resources must be managed in a way that appropriately protects these unique resources 

consistent with laws, regulations, and policies. Certain resources and areas need protection. Of particular concern is the 

need for protection of historic/traditional use areas and significant paleontological sites. Other areas should be accessible 

for more public and recreational uses.

Issue 5: How should the BLM manage motorized travel to meet the needs for public access and resource uses 

while considering conflicts of use and effects on other resources?

Improperly managed motorized travel can conflict with other land and resource uses and values. Of concern are 

potential effects on resources, including soil, vegetation, wildlife habitat and disturbance, watersheds, visual values, 

cultural and paleontological resources, and other recreation values. Principal considerations include providing for 

suitable and sufficient recreation uses and facilities (both dispersed and commercial), visual resource management 

direction, and OHV use designations.
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

10 Issues Addressed

Issue 6: How will access be managed to meet the needs of the public?

Meeting the access needs of the public involves two management issues. One is the acquisition of legal public access to 

BLM lands for the use and enjoyment of the public and for resource uses (e.g., energy development, right-of-way 

authorizations, grazing, and other uses). The other involves designating motorized or non-motorized access routes over 

BLM land, which would be addressed in travel management planning after completion of the RMP.

Issue 7: How will the BLM manage resource uses while protecting important wildlife habitat and special status 

species, including greater sage-grouse?

The principal issues concerning wildlife habitat are surface-disturbing or disruptive activities in big game winter range, 

migratory routes, and birthing areas (for elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep) along with the habitats of other 

important fish and wildlife species (e.g., greater sage-grouse, mountain plovers, and grassland birds). Alteration or 

elimination of wildlife habitats on private lands has increased the importance of maintaining functional habitats on BLM 

lands. Populations of greater sage-grouse have declined throughout their range, and some intensively developed areas in 

the planning area no longer provide functioning sage-grouse habitats.

Several categories of species and their habitats within the planning area require special management or considerations. 

These species are federally listed threatened and endangered, proposed for listing, and candidate and state sensitive 

species, and BLM special status species. Principal concerns associated with special status species are habitat 

identification, use, and quality; and the interrelationships between these species and other resource uses and human 

activities.

In March 2010, the USFWS determined that the greater sage-grouse warranted protection under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), but that listing the species was precluded by the need to address other, higher-priority species first (75 FR 

13910, March 23, 2010). One reason for the USFWS decision was an identified need for “improved regulatory 

mechanisms” to ensure species conservation. The principal regulatory mechanisms for the BLM are Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs); therefore, the BLM is using this opportunity to develop long-term and effective 

management for the species on the BLM lands (WO IM No. 2012-044).

Issue 8: Which areas, if any, should be managed as special designations and how should they be managed to 

protect values that warrant special designation status?

Resources or features of the lands within the planning area must be evaluated to determine if and how those resources or 

features might be managed in the future using specific or special management practices. A total of 19 Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) existing designations and new nominations will be considered during this planning 

process:

 Seven designated ACECs currently lie within the planning area: Azure Cave, Big Bend of the Milk River, 

Bitter Creek, Kevin Rim, Mountain Plover, Sweet Grass Hills, and prairie dog towns within the 7km Complex.

 The BLM also identified four ACEC nominations during scoping that will be considered in the planning 

process: Malta Geological, Woody Island, Frenchman, and Zortman/Landusky Mine Reclamation.

 The BLM received five ACEC nominations from the public that will be considered in the planning process: 

Grassland Bird/Greater Sage-Grouse, Greater Sage-Grouse, Five Watersheds, Mountain Plover, and Blacktailed Prairie Dog and Black-footed Ferret.

 Three other ACEC nominations received prior to the commencement of this planning process will also be 

considered: Old Scraggy; Saddle Butte; and Little Rocky Mountains.

Issue 9: How will the BLM manage for fire, including wildfire and prescribed fire?

The BLM prioritizes wildfire management activities by risk to life and property, commensurate with fire management 

costs. Mechanical, prescribed fire and other appropriate treatments can be used to restore and maintain fire regimes and

land health, and reduce hazardous fuels accumulations. Areas should be identified where fire is desired to manage 
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Issues and Concerns Considered but Not Addressed Further 11

ecosystems and areas where current conditions create constraints on use, or where unplanned fire is likely to cause 

negative effects.

Issue 10: How will the BLM consider social and economic conditions in the planning area when managing BLM 

lands?

The planning area provides a variety of resources that contribute to the local economy (e.g., natural gas, livestock 

grazing, recreation, etc.). Potential social and economic effects associated with management include changes in 

employment, income, public revenues, economic dependency, economic stability, and quality of life. Management must 

recognize the economic activities that are dependent on the land and its natural resources.

Issue 11: Which areas, if any, should be managed for wilderness characteristics and how should they be managed 

to protect those values?

Section 201 of FLPMA requires the BLM to maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of all public lands and their 

resources and other values. This inventory requirement includes maintaining information regarding wilderness 

characteristics (Washington Office Instruction Memorandum (WO IM) No. 2011-154). 

The existing inventory of BLM land in the HiLine planning area was updated and evaluated to determine whether 

additional lands other than the existing wilderness study areas (WSAs) have wilderness characteristics. Areas with 

wilderness characteristics must possess sufficient size, naturalness, and outstanding opportunities for either solitude or 

primitive and unconfined recreation. Twenty-six areas within the HiLine District have wilderness characteristics. These 

areas include 386,462 acres of BLM land and vary in size from 4,118 to 49,564 acres. Section 202 of FLPMA requires 

the BLM to rely on resource inventories in the development and revision of land use plans, including inventory 

information regarding wilderness characteristics.

Issues and Concerns Considered but Not Addressed Further

Scoping also identified issues, concerns, or questions that can be addressed by current management, BLM policy, 

administrative action, or that were beyond the scope of this RMP/EIS. Some of these scoping comments are summarized 

below, while the Scoping Summary Report (BLM 2007a) provides a comprehensive list of issues and concerns that are 

outside the scope of the RMP or are addressed through administrative or policy action.

Issues Considered but Not Addressed Further

How will the BLM manage wildlife populations including elk and other big game, coyotes, and sage-grouse? 

The BLM manages wildlife habitat on public lands, which is addressed in Chapter 2. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) is responsible for fish and wildlife population management.

How will bison be managed? 

The grazing regulations provide for authorizing grazing permits for privately owned indigenous animals. The BLM has 

permitted two allotments in south Phillips County for bison. The BLM has also permitted bison on 37 allotments in 

other areas of Montana, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Any future proposals to 

change the class of livestock from cattle to bison would be considered as provided by the grazing regulations.

A distinction is made between bison that are privately owned and considered livestock and those that are considered 

wildlife (publicly owned) that fall under the jurisdiction of the State of Montana.

No proposals or recommendations were made by MFWP or other agencies to manage any BLM lands in the planning 

area as wildlife ranges for bison use. Any such future proposal or application would require extensive planning and 

analysis both at the state and federal levels and would likely require an RMP amendment.

The Department of the Interior Bison Conservation Initiative (DOI 2008) provides guidance to address the health and 

genetic composition of the Department’s bison herds in seven national wildlife refuges and five national parks, which are 
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

12 Concerns Considered but Not Addressed/Questions about the RMP Process

all outside of the planning area. While the initiative does mention that the “Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge 

is in the early stages of considering devoting part of the refuge to bison habitat with adjoining land owners,” the BLM 

has not received a proposal or recommendation from the refuge to manage any BLM land as a refuge for bison.

The BLM should make a determination on final designation of the wilderness study areas (Bitter Creek and 

Burnt Lodge) in the new RMP. It is time for the process to move forward.

The wilderness program is in the transitional stage between wilderness study and Congressional action. Final suitability 

studies and environmental impact statements completed by the BLM (BLM 1987 and 1989) recommended the Burnt 

Lodge Wilderness Study Area (WSA) as wilderness and the Bitter Creek WSA as non-wilderness. Only Congress can 

designate or release these lands from WSA status. The WSAs will continue to be managed under the BLM’s Interim 

Management Policy (IMP) and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review (BLM 1995).

Concerns Considered but Not Addressed Further

Who will handle outfitting permits, the Central Montana District or the HiLine District?

Special recreation permits (SRPs) for outfitting on BLM land entirely within the planning area are administered out of 

the HiLine District. However, SRPs for lands that also include the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument 

and/or the Lewistown Field Office are administered out of the Central Montana District.

How will the BLM manage wild horses and burros in the planning area?

No wild horse or burro herd management areas or managed populations of wild horses or wild burros are located in the 

planning area.

Where does the money go from the development of federal minerals? Does some of it go back to the county or 

BLM Field Office, or can it be used to improve firefighting capabilities?

Mineral revenues are collected from two types of lands administered by the BLM, public domain lands and BankheadJones lands (LU lands). LU lands are further divided by the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 into Section 3 lands (grazing 

districts) and Section 15 lands (outside grazing districts; leased to private parties).

Mineral revenues on public domain lands are distributed as follows: the State of Montana receives 50%; the 

Reclamation Fund (managed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation) receives 40%; and the remaining 10% goes to the 

General Fund in the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Starting in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, 25% of the disbursement to the 

State of Montana (or 12.5% of total royalty revenue) is distributed to the county of production.

Mineral revenues on LU lands (Section 3) are distributed as follows: the State of Montana and counties receive 12.5%;

the BLM range improvement fund receives 50%; and the remaining 37.5% goes to the General Fund in the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. Mineral revenues on LU lands (Section 15) are distributed as follows: the State of 

Montana and counties receive 50%; and the BLM range improvement fund receives 50%.

Questions about the RMP Process

The BLM should take full advantage of the stakeholder process as decisions are made regarding the management 

of these public lands, including discussions prior to developing alternatives. The BLM should also provide for 

public input into the management situation analysis, identification of planning issues, and on a preliminary range 

of alternatives prior to preparing the Draft RMP/EIS.

During scoping the BLM requested public input on identifying resource issues and concerns, management alternatives, 

or other ideas to help in determining future land use decisions for the planning area. Public involvement will continue 

with a 90 day public comment period on this Draft RMP/EIS. Additional information on scoping and public 

participation is described in Chapter 5.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Questions about the RMP Process 13

How does the BLM handle public comments? Are written comments treated as “one person equals one vote” and 

are the public comments weighted in any way (local and non-local)?

Our planning regulations require the BLM to consider each comment thoroughly and equally. When reading the public 

comments, we look for specific comments or information that help identify issues; develop a reasonable range of 

alternatives; supplement, improve or modify the analysis; and/or make factual corrections. All the comments received 

are read and specific comments are identified and coded into the appropriate subject category (e.g., wildlife, cultural 

resources, recreation, etc.). Duplicate comments from form-type letters and emails or “campaign-style” submissions are 

only coded once, but each submission is included in the public record.

BLM resource planning is not a voting process. The BLM is expected to make decisions on the merits of each case and 

not on counting the numbers of responses pro and con (HR Report 94-1163, page 7, May 15, 1976). Our planning 

regulations do not allow us to enlarge or diminish the value of any comment based on the commenter’s location, 

livelihood, ability to travel, economic status, philosophical disposition, or any other criterion.

What type and how much cooperation/coordination is there between the BLM and other agencies including tribal 

governments? At what point are cooperating agencies involved in the planning process and will the BLM identify 

those agencies that have been granted cooperating agency status?

Twelve cooperating agencies have signed memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with the BLM and another three

agencies are informal cooperators (i.e., no formal MOU). Cooperators meet throughout the planning process as a group 

to discuss issues, solutions, and ideas for revising the plan. The cooperating agencies are identified under the 

Collaboration section of this chapter.

Throughout the development of the RMP, the BLM coordinated and consulted with the tribal governments in the 

planning area. Additional information on tribal consultation is provided in Chapter 5.

How will the BLM prepare a “no action alternative” when there are existing parcels that were withheld from an 

oil and gas lease sale? Some lease parcels are on hold and you’ve already determined that they will eventually be 

leased.

Chapter 2, Alternative A is the no action alternative, or current management. Any leases that were withheld from an oil 

and gas lease sale would be managed under the guidance of this RMP. A specific area may or may not be available for 

leasing based on the final decision in the Record of Decision.

Rock Creek Area, Northern Valley County BLM Photo
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

14 Planning Criteria

Planning Criteria

The BLM planning regulations (43 CFR 1610.4-2) require planning criteria to guide preparation of the RMP. Planning 

criteria are the constraints or ground rules that guide and direct the preparation of the plan. They ensure the plan is 

tailored to the identified issues and that unnecessary data collection and analyses are avoided.

The following criteria were developed based on applicable laws and regulations, agency guidance, and the result of 

public comment.

 The RMP will address public lands and federal minerals managed by the BLM. Decisions will not be made in 

the RMP relative to the management of lands not managed by BLM.

 The RMP will be in compliance with FLPMA and all other applicable laws, regulations and policies. 

Management is based on the principles of multiple use within a framework of environmental responsibility and 

scientific technology.

 Impacts from the management alternatives considered in the RMP will be analyzed in an EIS developed in 

accordance with regulations at 43 CFR 1610 and 40 CFR 1500.

 Broad-based public participation will be an integral part of the planning and EIS process.

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

federal agencies as long as the decisions are consistent with the purposes, policies, and programs of federal law, 

and regulations applicable to public lands.

 The RMP will recognize the State of Montana’s responsibility and authority to manage wildlife. The BLM will 

consult with MFWP as necessary. The RMP will incorporate state or region-wide planning efforts for wildlife 

to the fullest extent possible.

 The National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy (BLM 2004b) requires that impacts to sagebrush 

habitat and sagebrush-dependent wildlife species (including greater sage-grouse) be analyzed and considered in 

BLM land use planning efforts for the public lands with sage-grouse/sagebrush habitats.

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

Assessment of Greater Sage-grouse and Sagebrush Habitats (Connelly, et al. 2004), and any other appropriate 

resources, to identify greater sage-grouse habitat requirements and best management practices.

 The RMP will recognize valid existing rights.

 The RMP will incorporate management decisions brought forward from existing planning documents.

 Based on the assumptions of adequate funding, this plan will be periodically reviewed and would be amended if 

necessary. Plans would be evaluated every 5 years per 43 CFR 1610.4-9. Information gathered from the 5-year 

evaluation would be used to determine planning needs and priorities for plan revisions and/or amendments.

 The planning team will work cooperatively and collaboratively with the State of Montana, tribal governments, 

county and municipal governments, other federal agencies, the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council 

(RAC), and all other interested groups, agencies and individuals.

 The planning process will provide strategies for the protection of recognized traditional and cultural uses.

 The BLM and cooperating agencies/governments will jointly develop alternatives for resolution of resource 

management issues that are within the authority of the BLM.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Vision and Management Goals 15

 The planning process will incorporate Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing 

Management (BLM 1997a) developed in accordance with regulations in 43 CFR Subpart 4180 and approved by 

the Secretary of the Interior.

 The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) will be invited to participate throughout the planning process as 

per the State Protocol developed between the BLM and the Montana SHPO (BLM 1998a).

 Areas with special environmental qualities will be protected and, if necessary, designated as ACECs, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, or other appropriate designations.

 The RMP will emphasize the protection and enhancement of the planning area’s biodiversity while, at the same 

time, providing the public with opportunities for compatible activities on public lands.

 The RMP will recognize local, statewide and national concerns and lifestyles.

 Lands acquired by the BLM will be managed in the manner the RMP prescribes for adjacent public land, 

subject to any constraints associated with the acquisition.

 The RMP will provide management direction for lands returned to BLM management through revocation of 

withdrawals. The plan will also address lands acquired through other means.

 Forest management strategies will be consistent with the Healthy Forests Restoration Act and the Tribal Forest

Protection Act where appropriate.

 All proposed management actions will be based upon best available 

scientific information, research and technology, as well as existing 

inventory and monitoring information.

 Fire Management strategies will be consistent with the Federal 

Wildland Fire Policy (NIFC 2001), National Fire Plan (2000), 

Fire/Fuels Management Plan for Montana and Dakotas (BLM 

2003a), Interagency Prescribed Fire Planning and Implementation 

Procedures Guide with BLM supplemental guidance (NIFC 2008),

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations 

(Redbook) (NIFC 2010), and other BLM handbooks.

 GIS and metadata information will meet Federal Geographic Data 

Committee standards, as required by Executive Order 12906, signed 

April 11, 1994. Other applicable BLM data standards will be 

followed. The goal is to develop an RMP with spatial and temporal 

data that can be easily accessed for use in subsequent environmental 

review. At times, GIS analysis may result in acres that are different 

than other published data sources for BLM lands and minerals.

Vision and Management Goals

The vision of the HiLine District is to manage the planning area in a manner that provides for multiple use while 

sustaining a healthy and productive environment for present and future generations.

A number of management goals guided the development of alternatives for this RMP. The goals are the result of 

information provided through public scoping, existing laws and regulations, and the planning team. Management goals 

are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. These goals include:

 Protect, preserve and interpret the cultural and paleontological resources within the planning area and ensure 

they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations.

GIS Calculations

Acreages displayed in this document 

should be considered approximations 

even when displayed to the nearest 

acre. Most acreages were calculated 

from GIS datasets and as a result may 

not match acres provided in prior 

published documents that contained 

calculations from master title plats or 

other base data. For example, acres 

calculated for wilderness study areas 

and reported in the 1991 Montana 

Statewide Wilderness Study Report

vary from the GIS calculated acres for 

those same areas. The data used 

throughout this document is for land 

use planning purposes and not 

necessarily for actual on-the-ground 

implementation.
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

16 Development of Alternatives/Related Plans

 Manage air quality, soils, vegetation, and water resources to meet all state and federal standards, maintain a 

diversity of ecological conditions and enhance resource values while providing for a variety of multiple uses 

that are economically and biologically feasible.

 Ensure habitat for fish and wildlife species, including special status species, is of sufficient quantity and quality 

to enhance biological diversity and sustain ecological, economic and social values.

 Ensure dependable and environmentally responsible exploration and development of mineral resources and 

renewable energy consistent with other resource goals.

 Improve resource management efficiency and provide public benefits while protecting significant resources.

 Provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities and visitor experiences while maintaining healthy BLM 

land resources.

 Manage certain areas with significant values (e.g., ACECs, WSAs, National Historic Trails, etc.) through 

special management to protect those resources in need of a higher degree of management.

Development of Alternatives

The scoping results, the issues to be addressed, and the planning criteria along with related plans, other BLM plans, and 

the vision and management goals all helped define the scope of possible alternatives that will be carried forward 

throughout the planning process. Management strategies are aimed at providing viable options for addressing the 

planning issues.

Public input received during the scoping process was considered to ensure that all the issues and concerns would be 

addressed, as appropriate, in developing the alternatives. Many comments addressed management of oil and gas 

development and other resources including travel planning, designating special management areas, consideration of 

lands with wilderness characteristics, and hunting and angling areas of interest. The scoping and public comment 

processes are summarized in Chapter 5.

This Draft RMP/EIS describes and analyzes a reasonable range of management alternatives for the public lands and 

resources administered by the HiLine District. The analyses contained in this draft will aid the BLM in formulating the 

final RMP. Based on the analyses prepared for this document, the new RMP will ensure the sustainability of important 

resources in the area (e.g., crucial winter range and other wildlife habitats, air and water quality, scenic views, healthy 

vegetative cover, and soil stability) while providing for resource uses (e.g., renewable energy, motorized and 

nonmotorized recreational activities, livestock grazing, range improvements, mineral exploration and development, and 

economic development opportunities) and resource protection (cultural and paleontological) in accordance with laws and 

regulations.

Related Plans

This section discusses other plans that are germane to the development of this RMP. The BLM planning regulations 

require that RMPs be “... consistent with officially approved or adopted resource-related plans, and the policies and 

programs contained therein, of other Federal agencies, State and local governments and Indian tribes, so long as the 

guidance and resource management plans are also consistent with the purposes, policies and programs of Federal laws 

and regulations applicable to public lands ....” (43 CFR 1610.3-2(a)).

Management actions identified in the alternatives are not known to be inconsistent with other planning documents.

Blaine County Master Plan

The Blaine County Master Plan (Blaine Co. 1996) was developed to guide the use of lands and resources in Blaine 

County, promote the lawful use of private property, protect the rights of all persons in the county, and secure the benefits 

of economic activities.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Related Plans 17

Blackfeet Comprehensive Plan

The Blackfeet Comprehensive Plan (Blackfeet Planning Dept. 1984) serves as a mechanism for planning, budgeting, 

development of new programs and services, strengthening of existing services, an evaluation tool, and guide not only for 

Tribal programs and Tribal government, but for all other programs and organizations providing services for the Blackfeet 

Reservation Community.

Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan

The Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan (USFWS 1988a) outlines steps for recovery of the black-footed ferret throughout 

its historical range. A six-step process is outlined beginning with ensuring success of captive breeding, locating 

reintroduction habitat, finding other populations of ferrets, devising release strategies, managing reintroduced and other 

populations, and building programs for public support of the recovery effort.

Chinook-Blaine County Comprehensive Plan

The Chinook-Blaine County Comprehensive Plan (Chinook-Blaine Co. 1979) provides information on population, 

projected land needs for residential growth, land use, public facilities, natural resources, and land use problems. The 

plan also provides land use policy recommendations for land use, public investments, and local governmental 

administrative policy changes.

Chouteau County Growth Policy Plan

The Chouteau County Growth Policy Plan (Chouteau Co. 2004) includes a framework of goals and policies, and an 

implementation program that outlines specific action steps that are derived from the goals and policies.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Bowdoin and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuges including 

UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2010 (ongoing)) will provide long-range guidance and management 

direction for the refuges’ programs including habitat conservation and wildlife-dependent recreation such as hunting and 

wildlife observation.

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy for North Central Montana Economic Development District Inc.

The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (North Central MT EDDI 2006) is a resource to accomplish the 

following goals for five counties (Cascade, Glacier, Pondera, Teton, and Toole) in northcentral Montana: create higher 

skills, higher wage jobs; raise income levels; diversify the economy; and improve the quality of life while protecting the 

environment.

Conservation Plan for Black-Tailed and White-Tailed Prairie Dogs in Montana, and the Final Fish, Wildlife & 

Parks Region 6 Prairie Dog Abundance and Distribution Objectives

The goal of this Conservation Plan for the State of Montana (MPDWG 2002) and Abundance and Distribution 

Objectives (MFWP 2006a) is to provide for management of prairie dog populations and habitats to ensure long-term 

viability of prairie dogs and associated species.

Hill County Growth Policy - Preliminary

The goals and objectives in the Hill County Growth Policy (Hill Co. 2009) serve to establish general guiding principles 

in matters concerning planning for the future of Hill County. This includes policy statements that provide a more 

specific reference or means of achieving what the county has adopted as a desirable path to guide the citizens in the long 

term.
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

18 Related Plans

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan

This Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS 1982) outlines management objectives, practices, and responsibilities, and 

emphasizes partnerships in trail administration.

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana – Final

The Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage-Grouse in Montana (MSGWG 2005) 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.

Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species Management Plan

The goal of the Montana Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Management Plan (MANS 2002) is to minimize the harmful 

ecological, economic, and social impact of ANS through prevention and management of introduction, population growth, 

and dispersal into, within, and from Montana. The plan includes a system to classify all nonindigenous aquatic species 

in Montana, identifies the proper management for each class, details current authorities and programs, and sets objectives 

that will lead to the accomplishment of the goal.

Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan

The Bald Eagle Management Plan (MBEWG 1994) provides landowners and resource managers with information on the 

biology of bald eagles and management guidelines to allow informed decisions about land use to help conserve the 

species and its habitat.

Montana Weed Management Plan

The purpose of the Montana Weed Management Plan (MWMP 2008) is to strengthen, support, and coordinate private, 

county, state, and federal weed management efforts in the state, and promote implementation of ecologically-based 

integrated weed management programs.

Nez Perce (Nee-Me-Poo) National Historic Trail Comprehensive Plan and Interpretive Strategy

In addition to items concerning objectives and practices to be observed in trail management and trail marking 

requirements given in Section 5(e) of the National Trails System Act, the Comprehensive Plan (USFS 1990a) and 

Interpretive Strategy (USFS 1990b) address:

 Identification of non-federal lands outside of the high potential route segments needed for access to the National 

Historic Trail, development of trailhead and trailside facilities, and protection, interpretation, and visitor use of 

historic sites.

 Designation by the Secretary of Agriculture of complementary state and local components found to qualify as 

parts of the National Historic Trail provided they are administered without expense to the United States.

 Recognition of the need for habitat and visitor use management with respect to endangered species.

 Where segments of the Nez Perce route have been designated by Congress and such segments are within 

existing wilderness and other more restrictive forms of management, the trail shall be administered with the 

requirements of wilderness management and/or other such management.

 Direction on how the national identity of the trail shall be preserved and made known to trail users, consistent 

with the nationally recognized signing system.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs 19

 Identification of the relationship and alternatives for interconnecting portions of the Oregon and Lewis and 

Clark National Historic Trails, and the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail.

Recovery Plan for the Pallid Sturgeon

The Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) describes the distribution, status, life history, and habitat association information that 

is known about the pallid sturgeon. The plan provides the short- and long-term recovery objectives and actions needed 

to achieve recovery of the pallid sturgeon.

Valley County Resource Use Plan

The Valley County Resource Use Plan (Valley Co. 2006) provides a plan for the best uses of Valley County lands and 

resources.

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

A number of BLM plans relate to or otherwise govern management in the planning area. These plans are considered by 

the BLM when specific management actions are implemented. However, specific management actions from these plans 

must be in conformance with the approved HiLine RMP and Record of Decision when completed (43 CFR 1601.0-5(b)). 

All proposed actions in the future, including implementation of existing activity plans, must also be in conformance with 

the approved HiLine RMP Record of Decision when completed. Some of these plans are listed below and provide a 

perspective of the many management considerations pertinent to the planning area.

Bitter Creek Wilderness Environmental Impact Statement

This plan (BLM 1989) addressed the environmental consequences of managing the Bitter Creek WSA in the planning 

area.

BLM National Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Planning Strategy (BLM IM No. 2012-044)

This strategy (BLM 2011) provides direction to the BLM for considering greater sage-grouse conservation measures 

identified in the Sage-Grouse National Technical Team’s - A Report on National Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation 

Measures.

Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

This plan (BLM and USFS 2008) evaluates issues associated with geothermal leasing of federal mineral estate on 

western public lands administered by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service. The plan assesses the environmental, social, 

and economic impacts associated with geothermal leasing on public lands in 12 western states (including Alaska) and 

evaluates a number of alternatives to determine the best management approach to mitigating potential impacts and 

facilitating geothermal leasing of federal mineral estate.

Missouri Breaks Grazing Environmental Impact Statement

The Missouri Breaks Grazing EIS (BLM 1979) addresses the grazing management program in the Missouri Breaks area 

of central Montana, including lands available for livestock grazing and the allocation of animal unit months. This EIS 

involves nearly 2.2 million acres of BLM land, including some public land in the southern portion of the planning area.

Missouri Breaks Wilderness Suitability Study/Environmental Impact Statement

This plan (BLM 1987) addressed the environmental consequences of managing 12 wilderness study areas (WSAs) as 

wilderness or non-wilderness, including the Burnt Lodge WSA in the planning area.

Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report

This plan (BLM 1991) provides the wilderness recommendations for 36 WSAs in Montana, including the two WSAs in 

the planning area (Burnt Lodge and Bitter Creek).
Chapter 1, Introduction HiLine Draft RMP/EIS

20 Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans, and Programs

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

This plan (40 CFR 300) is the federal government’s blueprint for responding to both oil spills and hazardous substance 

releases.

National Sage-Grouse Habitat Conservation Strategy

This plan (BLM 2004b) serves as guidance on managing, restoring and enhancing sagebrush habitat on BLM 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.

National Scenic and Historic Trails Strategy and Work Plan

This plan (BLM 2006a) provides a 10-year framework for the development of program guidance and direction for 

improved management of the BLM’s National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHT) Program.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Reburial Policy on BLM Lands, 

BLM Handbook 8120-1, Ch. II, Paragraph C3

This policy (BLM 2006b) clarifies the position of the BLM that reburial of Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) items on public lands may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. Lands that may be 

considered for reburial activities include lands withdrawn from multiple uses and mineral entry.

Nongame Migratory Bird Habitat Conservation Plan

This plan (BLM 1992a) provides for managing nongame birds that migrate to the tropics or use neotropical habitats. The 

overall intent is to reverse the decline in some bird populations and to implement a proactive program for other 

migratory species.

Prairie Potholes Environmental Impact Statement

This plan (BLM 1982) addresses the grazing management program in the prairie potholes area of northern Montana, 

including lands available for livestock grazing and the allocation of animal unit months. This EIS involves about 1.75 

million acres of BLM land, including most of the planning area.

Resource Management Plan Alternative Development for Livestock Grazing (BLM IM No. 2012-169)

This Instruction Memorandum (BLM 2012) communicates policy guidance regarding resource management 

plan/environmental impact statement (RMP/EIS) alternative development for livestock grazing.

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management

This plan (BLM 1997a) documents the effects of adopting regional Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management on BLM land in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. Standards are physical or 

biological conditions or functions required for healthy, sustainable rangelands. Guidelines are management practices or 

methods which help ensure that standards can be met or significant progress can be made toward meeting standards.

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management Lands in 17 Western States 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

This plan (BLM 2007b) assesses the environmental consequences of implementing a vegetation treatment program to 

manage a variety of vegetation species on BLM land in the Western United States. The vegetation treatment program 

responds to many different control requirements, including suppressing plants that are toxic to humans and animals, 

enhancing visibility, maintaining passages for transportation, facilitating drainage, reducing fuel for wildland fires, and 

controlling the expansion of exotic species, which includes noxious weeds. The vegetation treatment methods include 

manual, mechanical, biological, prescribed burning, and chemical.
HiLine Draft RMP/EIS Chapter 1, Introduction

Draft RMP and Proposed RMP/Final EIS 21

Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

This plan (BLM 2005) evaluates issues associated with wind energy development on western public lands administered 

by the BLM. The plan assesses the environmental, social, and economic impacts associated with wind energy 

development on public lands in 11 western states (excluding Alaska) and evaluates a number of alternatives to determine 

the best management approach to mitigating potential impacts and facilitating wind energy development.

Draft Resource Management Plan

Five alternatives for managing public lands in the HiLine District, including a no action alternative (current 

management), are described in the Draft RMP/EIS. 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/EIS. The BLM will provide a 90-day public 

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

provided in Chapter 5.

Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final EIS

Following the 90-day public comment period on this Draft RMP/EIS, 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 occur following publication of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. At the end of the protest period and 

Governor’s consistency review, the BLM may issue a Record of Decision approving implementation of any portion of 

the proposed RMP not under protest. Approval would be withheld on any portion of the plan under protest until the 

protest has been resolved.

Cottonwood Creek in Valley County BLM Photo
Mule Deer Photo by John Carlson