Chapter 1.0: Purpose of and


Need for Action


1.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to 

improve its implementation of the National Fire Plan and 

2001 Federal Fire Policy, by amending all Resource 

Management Plans (RMPs) in Montana, North Dakota, and 

South Dakota, to update direction for fire and fuels 

management. 

These amendments would: 1) provide consistent fire 

management direction by assigning fire management 

categories and broad levels of treatment as directed by BLM 

Handbook H-1601-1 (Nov. 22, 2000), Appendix C; 2) 

provide general guidance for fire management (including 

both fire suppression and fuels management) needed to 

protect other resource values, and 3) revise specific RMP 

decisions that currently limit BLM’s ability to conduct safe 

and efficient mechanical hazardous fuels treatments in the 

Judith-Valley-Phillips (JVP), West HiLine, Billings; and 

Miles City Big Dry and Powder River planning areas. 

The following BLM Montana/Dakotas RMPs would be 

amended: Big Dry, Billings, Garnet, Headwaters, JudithValley-Phillips, North Dakota, Powder River, South Dakota, 

and West HiLine. 

The Dillon Management Framework Plan (MFP) would not 

be amended by this EA/plan amendment. The Dillon Field 

Office is currently working on the Dillon RMP/EIS, and 

fire and fuels management decisions will be made through 

that planning process. 

Planning areas are displayed on Map 1. 

1.2 Need for the Proposed Action 

National fire management policy has evolved in response 

to the increased fatalities, property loss, local economic 

disruptions, and risk to ecosystems associated with 

increasingly catastrophic wildland fire seasons. The Federal 

Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program (1995) was 

developed (and then updated) after severe fire seasons in 

1994 and 2000. The 2000 fire season also prompted a report 

from the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, which 

eventually became the basis of the National Fire Plan. 

The Grizzly Gulch fire, burning near Deadwood on 6/29/03. Credit 

Tom Warner, Warner Images. 

The National Fire Plan and the 2001 Federal Fire Policy 

both indicated that federal agencies must change their fire 

management practices to increase protection of human life 

and decrease natural resource and private property damage. 

Specifically, the 2001 Federal Fire Policy established that 

the deteriorating condition of fire-adapted ecosystems is the 

result of fire exclusion, that the fire hazard in fire-adapted 

ecosystems is worse than previously thought, and that the 

extent of the fire hazard in the WUI was not fully recognized 

in 1995. 

BLM planning documents have not kept pace with national 

fire and fuels management policies, nor do they reflect the 

condition of BLM-administered lands in terms of fuels (and 

associated risks to ecosystems and communities) in Montana 

and North and South Dakota. 

The 2001 Federal Fire Policy referenced preliminary 

Condition Class data (finalized as Schmidt et al 2002) as a 

way of inferring risk to ecosystem sustainability and risk of 

uncharacteristic wildland fire behavior and effects (Hann 

2002). According to coarse-scale spatial estimates for 

Montana and the Dakotas, past policies and activities have 

either moderately or significantly altered the fire regimes 

and frequencies on about 1.3 million of the 8.4 million acres 

of BLM-administered lands in the study area. The result is 

moderate to dramatic changes in fire size, intensity, severity, 

and/or landscape patterns. Based on estimates of vegetation 

condition, these 1.3 million BLM-administered acres need 

treatments to restore the historical fire regime. 

Risk to communities has been projected in response to 

nationwide inquiries related to the National Fire Plan (i.e. 

1

2


JUDITH, VALLEY 

PHILLIPS RMP 

1994 

BIG DRY RMP 

1996 

NOR

S

POWDER RIVER RMP 

BILLINGS RMP 1985

1984 

HEADWATERS 

RMP 

1984 

DILLON MFP 

GARNET 

RMP 

1986 

WEST HI-LINE RMP 

1992 

MAP 1 

MONTANA/DAKOTAS 

RMP/MFP BOUNDARIES 
Communities at Risk published in the August 17, 2001 

Federal Register). Montana/Dakotas BLM Field Office staff 

also completed in 1999 a survey on communities within 1/ 

2 mile of fuels buildups on BLM lands. Of 79 priority 

communities identified as part of the 1999 survey, 67 had 

moderate to high escaped fire potential and/or moderate to 

high potential for loss of life or property. Since that survey 

was completed, wildland fire has occurred in or near six of 

the priority communities. Map 2 shows communities/areas 

at risk from wildland fire on public lands. 

The proposed action was developed to respond to national 

policy and hazardous fuels conditions on BLM-administered 

lands in Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. 

1.3 Goals 

A change in fire management strategies is needed to: 

• provide greater protection to human life 

• reduce the risk and cost of severe wildland fires 

•	 sustain the ecological health and function of fire-adapted 

grasslands, shrublands, and forestlands 

•	 minimize the adverse effects of wildland fire 

suppression 

•	 use fire and other fuels management methods to reduce 

hazardous fuels while meeting other resource objectives 

(e.g., restore degraded fish and wildlife habitat) 

1.4 Scope of the Analysis 

Fire/fuels management is considered in this analysis at the 

regional RMP level. The level of detail regarding proposed 

activities and potential effects will be appropriate to this 

first tier of BLM’s land use planning process. This “big 

picture” view of the proposed action in Montana, North 

Dakota, and South Dakota includes a consideration of 

statewide land use plan management direction and guidance 

for fire suppression and treatments to reduce hazardous fuels. 

This analysis also considers the cumulative effects of BLM 

fire/fuels management activities. 

This analysis considers effects of statewide guidance for 

wildland fire suppression as well as general effects of 

suppression activities. 

Vegetation treatments and their environmental effects are 

analyzed at the programmatic level if their purpose is to 

reduce hazardous fuels. The effects of vegetation treatments 

that are not associated with fuels management have already 

been considered in BLM Resource Management Plans 

(RMPs) for Montana and the Dakotas and in the 1991 BLM 

Vegetation Treatment EIS. 

Specific information, effects, and activities associated with 

site-specific projects are not considered in this analysis. 

Following this analysis, an updated Fire Management Plan 

(FMP) will be prepared by each field office. Local-level 

environmental analyses will be completed when individual 

projects are proposed. These analyses will study the most 

effective ways to apply the management direction provided 

by RMP-level plans to local and “on-the-ground” resource 

issues and values. 

1.4.1 History of the Planning and Public Participation 

Process 

The planning process began in September 1998, when BLM 

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a NEPA 

document in the Federal Register. 

The project leader sent 5,067 letters to potential interested 

parties identified by the Field Offices. The letters explained 

the planning process and asked for issues and/or a reply 

from those who wanted to remain on the mailing list. 

The State Director sent a similar letter to 115 other federal, 

state, and local agencies. 

The BLM Fire Management Officer sent a letter asking for 

issues and concerns from 48 fire wardens. 

The BLM initiated contact with a number of different 

agencies, including: 

• Northern Rockies Coordinating Representatives 

• Forest Service 

• MT Dept. of Fish, Wildlife, & Parks 

•	 County Commissioners in counties where fuels 

reduction activities would likely take place. 

BLM representatives attended meetings of the Montana Fire 

Wardens, Montana Associations of Counties, and Resource 

Advisory Council. 

Approximately 700 persons, groups/organizations, and 

agency contacts wanted to remain on the mailing list. See 

section 1.4.3, Issues Studied in Detail, and 1.4.4, Issues 

Eliminated from Detailed Study, for a summary of public 

comments received as a result of initial mailings. 

Congressional delegations were briefed at project initiation 

and in 2001. 

The EA was released for public comment in August 2001. 

Following the end of the public comment period, the scope 

of the analysis was expanded to consider mechanical fuels 

treatments and chemical weed treatments, in response to 

public comment and internal policy direction (IM-2002-

034). 

3

4
1.4.2 Relevant Planning Documents 

• Billings RMP (1984) 

• Butte Headwaters RMP(1984) 

• Dillon MFP(1979) 

• Lewistown Judith RMP (1994) 

•	 Lewistown West HiLine RMP (1988; 1992 for protested 

portions) 

• Malta Phillips RMP (1994) 

• Malta Valley RMP (1994) 

• Miles City Big Dry RMP (1996) 

• Miles City Powder River RMP (1985) 

• Missoula Garnet RMP (1986) 

• North Dakota RMP (1988) 

• South Dakota RMP (1986) 

• OHV Amendment/EIS (Pending Protest Resolution) 

•	 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Grazing Management EIS (1997) 

•	 Vegetation Treatments on BLM-administered lands in 

13 western States EIS (1991) 

• Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program EIS 

•	 Vegetation Treatments Programmatic EIS (not 

completed) 

•	 Wilderness Management Plan for the Bear Trap Canyon 

Unit of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness 

1.4.3 Issues/Questions Studied in Detail 

•	 Where is fire not desired at all; where is unplanned 

wildland fire likely to cause negative effects; where is 

fire desired to manage ecosystems, but current 

vegetative conditions create constraints on use; and 

where is fire desired, and there are no constraints on its 

use? 

•	 What types and amounts of fuels treatments could be 

reasonably anticipated over the next 10 years? 

•	 What direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on 

resources would be caused by the types and amounts 

of treatments identified? 

•	 If unacceptable adverse impacts are anticipated, how 

might impacts by minimized, mitigated, or avoided? 

•	 What effects would occur if treatments are not 

undertaken? 

1.4.4 Issues Eliminated from Further Study 

Most issues and comments received as the result of the initial 

mailing are examined further within this analysis. 

Other issues dealt more directly with the BLM’s response 

to wildland fire, including the possibilities of BLM providing 

more equipment for fire suppression; BLM paying local fire 

departments to fight fires; fixing dams to provide a more 

accessible source of water for fire suppression; and allowing 

private parties to have a more direct role in the fire 

suppression process. These concerns may have a place in 

future suppression and budget actions or analyses. However, 

the scope of this analysis is concerned with examining how 

to align BLM suppression and fuels treatment policy to be 

consistent with the 2001 Federal Fire Policy and the National 

Fire Plan. 

1.5 Decisions to be Made 

Based on this analysis, the BLM Montana/Dakotas State 

Director will decide whether to amend land use plans that 

include: 

1. Fire management zones and categories for all 

RMPs. 

2. The EA discloses the cumulative effects of adopting 

the Proposed Action including broad levels of fuels 

treatments, wildland fire suppression, and 

associated support treatments (i.e. chemical weed 

treatments) in RMPs. 

3.	 General guidance for fire management to protect 

other resources and values for all RMPs. 

4.	 Revised specific decisions in the Billings, Big Dry, 

JVP, Powder River, and West HiLine RMPs to 

improve ability to implement of the National Fire 

Plan and 2001 Federal Fire Policy. 

The Dillon Field Office is in the process of developing an 

RMP/EIS to replace the Dillon Management Framework 

Plan (MFP). The final decisions will be approved in the 

Dillon RMP/EIS and not through this planning process; 

however, likely categories are included here to allow 

cumulative analysis. Potential fuels treatments in the Dillon 

Field Office are also included in the levels of treatment 

associated with this proposed action. 

The State Director may decide to implement the proposed 

alternative, to take no action, or to examine and select another 

alternative. Any new programmatic direction selected by 

the State Director would apply to BLM-administered lands 

in Montana and the Dakotas. 

The State Director will not authorize specific hazardous fuels 

reduction projects based on this analysis. As described in 

section 1.4, each Field Office would prepare an updated, 

NEPA-compliant Fire Management Plan and appropriate 

site-specific NEPA analyses for individual projects. These 

analyses may include more specific fire management 

objectives and guidance to protect unique resource values 

within project areas. 

5

1.6 Applicable Legal and Regulatory 

Restraints and Coordination 

Under either alternative, the BLM would comply with the 

constraints and processes imposed by the following laws, 

policies, and legal/regulatory agreements, both on this plan 

and any future site-specific plans that tier to it: 

•	 Endangered Species Act of 1973: Fire suppression, 

rehabilitation, fuel reduction treatments, and related 

activities would comply with the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) including, but not limited to, Sections 7(a)(1) 

for conservation of species and Section 7(a)(2) for 

consultation on actions that May Affect species. This 

shall include consultation on effects from BLM actions 

or authorizations that may extend onto private, state, 

tribal, or other land ownership. Section 7 consultations 

will be completed on this programmatic plan and on 

any future site-specific wildfire restoration, prescribed 

burn or fuels reduction NEPA analyses that May Affect 

listed species or critical habitat. 

•	 Emergency Section 7 Consultation: Federal regulations 

(50 CFR 402.05) recognize the need for expedited 

consultation in response to natural disaster (including 

wildland fire) or other calamity. Where emergency 

actions (including fire suppression) are required that 

may affect listed species and/or critical habitats, the 

action agency shall initiate consultation, usually by 

phone or facsimile, at the first opportunity. Emergency 

consultation procedures allow action agencies to 

incorporate endangered species concerns into their 

actions during the response to an emergency. Under 

no circumstance where human life is at stake should an 

emergency response decision be delayed due to 

administrative work required by the consultation 

regulations. 

•	 All site-specific fuels reduction projects would be 

coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO). In addition, the SHPO would be notified of 

certain surface-disturbing actions taken during fire 

suppression. 

•	 BLM will comply with the provisions of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), including 

Native American consultation, through existing 

programmatic agreements. In the absence of such 

agreements, the BLM will adhere to regulations found 

at 36 CFR 800. Projects subject to the NHPA include 

fire suppression/restoration activities and fuels 

reduction projects. 

•	 In Montana, burn permits for site-specific projects 

would be coordinated with the MT Dept. of 

Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division. This 

analysis does not authorize any projects itself, so burn 

permits would not be obtained until the site-specific 

planning level. 

•	 Additional legal and regulatory authorities relevant to 

this proposed action: 

– The Clean Air Act 

–	 Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 

1976 

– Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1974 

–	 IM no. 99-032 (Cultural Resources Protection for 

prescribed fire activity) 

– Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice) 

– American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 

–	 Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act of 1990 

–	 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 

1976 

–	 Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

– Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended 

–	 Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended by the 

Water Quality Act of 1987, including total 

maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements 

– Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 

–	 Executive Order 13186 (Implementation of 

MBTA, 2001) 

– Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 

– Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 

– Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 

– Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 

– Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as amended 

– Wilderness Act of 1964 

–	 Lacey Act, as amended (invasive/nonnative 

species) 

– Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974, as amended 

– Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species 

7.7 Additional Relevant BLM policy and 

Plans/Agreements 

The following policies and plans/agreements typically guide 

development and implementation of individual projects. 

These policy documents and agreements are listed here to 

provide a reference as Fire Management Plans and sitespecific project plans are developed. 

Standard Operating Procedures and Manual/Handbook 

Guidance 

–	 Standards for Fire and Aviation Operation (Red 

Book): Contains procedures for protecting 

environmental qualities during fire suppression and 

fuels management activities. 

– Air: State regulations and implementation plans as 

6

specified in Manual Section 9210 (Fire Planning), 

and the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group Operating 

Guide 

–	 Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and 

Rehabilitation (ESR) Handbook, including the BLMspecific exhibit 

–	 Native American Consultation: Manual 8160 and 

Handbook H-8160-1 

–	 OHV: Manual 8340 and State Director memo IM no. 

MT-2001-004 

–	 Prescribed Fire Management Handbook; Manual 

9214 

– Special Status Species: Manual 6840 

–	 Visual: Manual 8410, Handbook H-8410-1 and H8431-01. IB 98-135 and IBLA decision 98-100 

–	 Water: Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) 

guidance as described in state law (MCA-77-5-301 to 

307) and Water Quality Best Management Practices 

for Montana Forests (BMPs) 

–	 Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas: Manual 

Section 1742 and Handbook H-1742-1. Manual 

section 8500, H-8560-1, H-8550-1. Interim 

Management Policy for WSAs 

–	 Weeds: BLM Manual 9011, H9011-1 Chemical Pest 

Control Guidance, and Partners Against Weeds: An 

Action Plan for the Bureau Of Land Management 

Agreements related to Species Conservation and Recovery: 

BLM would comply with existing agreements regarding the 

following Conservation and Recovery Plans or Strategies 

and/or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs). 

– Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan 

– Interior Least Tern Recovery Plan 

– Piping Plover Recovery Plan 

– Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan 

– Montana Black-footed Ferret Recovery Strategy 

– Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 

– Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines 

– Gray Wolf Recovery Plan 

– Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement and Strategy 

–	 Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy and 

Implementation 

– Bull trout recovery plan 

–	 Westslope Cutthroat Trout Conservation Agreement 

and Implementation Strategy 

–	 Cooperative Conservation Agreement for 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout 

– Montana Fluvial Arctic Grayling Restoration Plan 

–	 Conservation Plan for Black-Tailed and White-Tailed 

Prairie Dogs in Montana 

–	 North Central Montana Black-footed Ferret 

Reintroduction and Management Plan 

–	 MOU Among Western Association of Fish and 

Wildlife Agencies (WAFWA) and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of 

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2000. 

7

8