Who is affected and how:

• Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and DOI: The agency loses the ability to implement the specific Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and the associated Resource Management Plan amendment. Any operational steps, permitting, or authorizations that flowed from that RMP change must stop while the rule has no force.

• Local communities and governments: Towns, counties, and local stakeholders that anticipated or relied on changes in land management (for example, to support particular economic activity or conservation projects) will face uncertainty and may need to delay or redesign local plans that assumed the amended RMP.

• Ranchers, grazing permittees, and existing land users: If the RMP amendment altered grazing allocations, permit conditions, or seasonal-use rules, those changes will not take effect, maintaining the pre-amendment regulatory status until BLM takes new action.

• Energy and extractive industry applicants (oil, gas, mining, renewables) and rights-of-way applicants: Projects or proposals that depended on the amended plan’s management framework may be paused or require resubmission under the previous plan or a new planning process.

• Outdoor recreation, tourism, and conservation groups: Management directions affecting trail use, habitat protections, or recreation access embedded in the amended RMP are suspended, affecting both conservation commitments and recreation planning.

• Legal and administrative consequences: Stakeholders may pursue litigation to challenge either the underlying agency process or the congressional disapproval. BLM may need to prepare a new planning document or revert to the earlier RMP, which can be time-consuming and costly but does not itself create new federal spending obligations.

Net effect: The resolution restores the regulatory status quo that existed before the named ROD/RMP amendment was issued, at least until the agency takes lawful steps to replace or reissue policy changes consistent with CRA constraints. The action is regulatory and administrative rather than budgetary; it produces uncertainty for parties planning activities tied to the amended plan but does not create new programs or funding.