Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 149

APPENDIX D – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ROUTE EVALUATION 

PROCESS USED BY BLM INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

In developing site-specific travel plans to meet its 

multiple-use mission, the BLM is required to follow 

regulations found at 43 CFR 8342. In part, these 

regulations (43 CFR 8342.1) require the BLM to locate 

routes to minimize damage to soil, watershed, 

vegetation, air, or other resources; minimize harassment 

of wildlife or significant disruption of wildlife habitats, 

with special attention being given to protect endangered 

or threatened species and their habitats; and minimize 

conflicts between off-road vehicle use and other existing 

or proposed recreational uses of the same or neighboring 

public lands. 

To develop travel plan alternatives that follow these 

regulations, the Butte Field Office Interdisciplinary 

Team developed an organized, systematic process to 

conduct route by route analysis for each travel planning 

area. Utilizing this process, each route was evaluated to 

recommend its future management status as either Open,

Open/With Restrictions, Closed, or Decommissioned. 

Evaluations were conducted by analyzing three 

identified key resource categories (Wildlife/Habitat, 

Aquatics/Fisheries, and Soils), and then comparing the 

level of impacts to those resources to the level of 

importance for human use. Six key Human Uses 

categories were identified. They are: Public Use 

(recreation, hunting, woodcutting, etc.), 

Wildland/Prescribed Fire, Forest Management, 

Mineral/Energy Development, Private Property Access, 

and Range Management. Due to its importance, Public 

Use was rated as an individual category, while Wildland/ 

Prescribed Fire, Forest Management, Mineral/Energy 

Development, Private Property Access, and Range 

Management were rated together. 

Although the process provided separate analysis for 

resource impacts, and combined some of the human use 

analysis, each was considered equally important and 

―weighted‖ the same during comparative analysis. 

In addition to its route by route analysis, the 

Interdisciplinary Team reviewed and consulted the 

public scoping comments (issues/concerns, potential 

solutions) generated during a series of public travel 

planning meetings. The public comments provided 

useful information for site-specific route evaluation as 

well as help set overall context for each travel planning 

area. 

In order to provide a repeatable, systematic approach, 

Interdisciplinary Team members developed written 

rating criteria, with a range of numerical values (e.g., 0, 

3, 6, 9), for use with each Resource and Human Use 

Worksheet. For Resource impact analysis, a numerical 

value of 0 indicates ―No Impact‖, while a numerical 

value of 9 indicates a ―High level of Impact‖. For 

Human Use analysis, a numerical value of 0 indicates 

―No Importance‖ to human use, while a numerical value 

of 9 indicates a ―High Level of Importance‖ to human 

use. 

As each Resource or Human Use specialist completed 

their route evaluation, the numerical values were entered 

on Evaluation Worksheets and tabulated, and a final 

―rating‖ of Low, Medium, or High was assigned to each 

route. The Low, Medium, and High ratings were derived 

by tabulating the maximum numerical value achieved 

during the analysis, and then dividing the total into 

thirds to arrive at the Low Medium, and High rating.

For example, seven written Wildlife/Habitat Criteria 

may have provided for a possible maximum numerical 

value of 52 for any given road segment within a 

particular travel planning area. However, assume the 

highest numerical value actually achieved for any road 

within that specific travel planning area was actually 36. 

To determine the rating for Low, Medium, or High, 

divide 36 into thirds (divide by 3). The results are as 

follows: 

Low = 0-12 

Medium = 13-24 

High = 25-36 

Continuing with this example, assume that for a

particular route, the following numerical values have 

been determined and entered on the worksheet:

Big Game Habitat = 6 

Unique Habitats = 0

Fragmentation of Habitat = 6

Connectivity = 0

Noxious Weeds = 4

Relict Plant Communities = 0

Special Status Plant Species and Habitats = 3

In this case, the numerical total for this route is 17, and 

will receive a rating of ―Medium‖.

This is the same methodology that was used to complete 

the Aquatics/Fisheries, Soils, and Human Use route 

evaluations and ratings throughout the process on a ―per 

travel planning area‖ basis. 

After the Resource and Human Use analysis was 

completed for a travel planning area, the final ratings 

(Low, Medium, or High) for each route were entered 

onto the Final Evaluation Table. The Final Evaluation 
Appendix D

150 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP

Table provides a format to compare the Resource Impact 

and Human Use ratings determined for each route for the 

particular travel planning area. Interdisciplinary Team 

recommendations on route-specific management 

stemmed from a comparison of the Resource Impact and 

Human Use ratings. Recommendations included a range 

of options including open yearlong, open with seasonal 

restrictions (seasons based on site-specific needs), closed 

yearlong, or decommissioning. Reasons for seasonal 

restrictions included (but were not limited to) such 

rationale as minimizing winter disturbance of big game 

in winter range areas, providing for or preventing 

motorized access during big game hunting seasons, or 

minimizing soil erosion during wet or snowmelt periods. 

The Final Evaluation Table includes a space for written 

comments to clarify the Interdisciplinary Team’s 

proposed management recommendations. 

As an example, assume the following final ratings for a 

particular route:

Wildlife/Habitat Impact Rating – Low

Aquatics/Fisheries Impact Rating – Low

Soils Impact Rating – Medium

Human Use Rating – High 

For this example, the overall level of Resource impacts 

is Low, while the overall level of importance to Human 

Use is High. In this case, the Interdisciplinary Team 

would likely propose to manage the route as Open, or 

perhaps Open/Restricted (seasonal restrictions) if Soil 

erosion were an issue. For a different route, the overall 

level of Resource Impacts might be High, while the 

overall importance to Human Use might be low; 

resulting in an Interdisciplinary Team proposal for 

Closure. In the above examples, there are no conflicts 

between the Resource Impact and Human Use ratings. 

However, a wide range of variations for 

Resource/Human Use ratings is possible, and in some 

cases required discussion and negotiation by the 

Interdisciplinary Team to arrive at a proposed 

management decision. For example, there were a 

number of routes where Resource Impacts and Human 

Use needs both rated out as High. These situations 

required group discussion and negotiation in order to 

arrive at a proposed management solution. 

Note: Near the end of BLM’s ―route by route‖ review 

process, a number of additional routes were identified in 

the Boulder-Jefferson and Lewis and Clark County NW 

TPAs through the use of aerial photography, orthoquads, 

and other GIS technology. The vast majority of these 

routes are very short, less than 1/10th mile in length. Due 

to time constraints, the ID team decided to forgo 

complete analysis of these routes (using the process 

described above. Proposed management decisions for 

these additional routes were based on professional 

knowledge, and ID team analysis and recommendations 

made for adjacent routes.

Rating Criteria Used for Route by Route 

Evaluation 

The following written criteria were used throughout the 

five travel plan areas for route by route evaluation and 

proposed management decision (Open, Open/With 

Restrictions, Closed, or Decommissioned). For some 

travel planning areas (Upper Big Hole, Lewis and Clark 

County NW), additional Wildlife criteria were needed to 

evaluate Unique Habitats, Sensitive Species (Sage 

Grouse, Northern Goshawk), and Threatened and 

Endangered Species (lynx, grizzly). 

Resource Impact Evaluation Criteria 

Wildlife

1. Big Game Habitat

0 = Segment does not lie within or intersect elk/ 

deer winter range.

8 = Segment lies within or intersects elk/deer 

winter range.

2. Fragmentation of Habitat 

This factor addresses the role of each road segment 

in the context of fragmenting large blocks of 

habitat (1 square mile). The factor looks at the 

spatial location and density of roads. BLM used

moving windows roads analysis to determine road 

densities in analysis area.

12 = Segment is within road density of 0.5-1.5 mi/ 

sq mi.

9 = Segment is within road density of 1.6-2 mi/sq 

mi.

6 = Segment is within road density of >2 mi/sq/mi.

3 = Segment is within road density of >3 mi/sq/mi

3. Connectivity

This factor primarily addresses the fragmentation 

and loss of habitat within connectivity corridors or 

riparian areas. (Based on American Wildlands 

corridor analysis).

0 = Segment is not within a connectivity corridor 

or riparian reserve.

3 = Segment intersects a low quality connectivity 

corridor.

6 = Segment intersects a moderate quality 

connectivity corridor or riparian reserve.

9 = Segment intersects a high quality connectivity 

corridor or riparian reserve.

4. Noxious Weeds

0 = Segment has no known infestations of noxious 

or non-native invasive weeds
Travel Management

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 151

4 = Density: Trace-5%; And Extent: Patchy = less 

than 0.1 acre 

8 = Density: 5-25%; Or Extent: Infestations 0.1-5 

acres

12 = Density: 25-100%; Or Extent: 5+ acres and 

soils susceptible to invasion.

5. Relict Plant Communities

0 = Segment does not cross any relict plant 

communities

4 = Segment crosses a relatively intact relict plant 

community

6. Special Status Plant Species and Habitats

0 = Segment does not cross any known special 

status plant species communities or potential 

habitat 

3 = Segment crosses potential special status plant 

species habitat

6 = Segment crosses known special plant status 

species communities or habitat.

Aquatics/Fisheries Evaluation Criteria

1. Stream Crossings on non fish-bearing streams

This factor addresses the extent to which the road 

segment lies within riparian areas, disconnect 

streams from their floodplains, and prevent 

development of riparian vegetation.

0 = Segment is ridge top or mid-slope with no 

stream crossings

2 = Segment is mid-slope with few (1-2) stream 

crossings

4 = Segment is mid-slope with numerous (>3) 

stream crossings

2. Riparian Vegetation

0 = Segment is outside of riparian vegetation

2= Segment slightly impacts riparian vegetation

4 = Segment moderately impacts riparian 

vegetation

6 = Segment highly impacts riparian vegetation. 

Segment is within a riparian area and/or parallel to 

a creek

3. Proximity to Fish Populations

This factor addresses how direct any road effects 

would be to fish stocks. Features used to judge the 

―likelihood‖ of effects to fish stocks included 

stream crossings over fish-bearing streams, stream 

crossings over non fish-bearing streams that were 

in close proximity to fish-bearing streams, and 

effects to riparian vegetation along fish-bearing 

streams.

0 = Segment is not near fish-bearing waters.

3 = Segment has 1-2 stream crossings over a fishbearing stream.

6 = Segment has 2-3 stream crossings over a fishbearing stream.

9 = Segment is directly adjacent to a fish-bearing 

stream, parallel to the creek or has 4 or greater 

stream crossings. 

Soil Evaluation Criteria

1. Accelerated Erosion

Soils that are resistant to erosion:

0 = Low impact. The area the route travels through 

has slopes ranging from 0-15%. 

6 = Medium impact. The area the route travels 

through has slopes ranging from 15-30%. 

9 = High impact. The area the route travels through 

has slopes greater than 30%. 

Soils with granite parent material

6 = Medium impact. The area the route travels 

through has slopes ranging from 0-30%. 

9 = High impact. The area the route travels through 

has slopes greater than 30%. 

Soil Impact Rating (minimum = 0, maximum = 9)

Low Impact = 0-3

Moderate Impact = 4-6

High Impact = 6-9

Resource Use Evaluation Criteria 

Private Property access, Public Utility 

(Right of Way) access, and private property 

easements granted to BLM 

1. Need for Access to private property, public 

utility right of ways, and private property 

easements providing access to BLM lands.

0 = Route does not contribute in any way to access 

private property, public utility right-of-way, or 

private property easement providing access to 

BLM lands.

3 = Route serves as secondary access to private 

land, public utility right of way, or private property 

easement providing access to BLM lands. 

6 = Route serves as primary access to private 

property, public utility right of way, or private 

property easement providing access to BLM lands. 
Appendix D

152 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP

Forest Management Evaluation Criteria

1. Access for Timber Production and silviculture. 

0 = Route does not access or is not needed to 

access potential forest management or treatment 

project units, such as areas with no forest or 

woodland or stands located in regulated 

management locations like wilderness study areas, 

nor does the route provide access for personal use 

of forest materials by the public.

3 = Route is not anticipated to be needed for BLM 

planned forest management activities or treatment 

within 20 years, or provides access to isolated 

stands of forest with no current public access.

6 = Route provides access to public forest or 

woodland available for public use such as firewood 

gathering or Christmas tree, or is expected to be 

needed for vehicle access to forest management or 

treatment units within 20 years, or currently 

provides access for inventory or monitoring 

activities. 

9 = Route provides vehicle access to an existing 

BLM contract area or current or currently planned 

forest management activities such as forest product 

sales, pre-commercial thinning, forest residue 

treatment, site preparation, plantings, insect/disease 

suppression or fire restoration, or provides access 

for project follow-up or trespass investigation 

activities.

Mineral/Energy Development Evaluation 

Criteria 

1. Need for Access for Mineral/Energy 

development

0 = Route does not access, or will not be needed to 

access mineral/energy development. 

3 = Route would not be needed to access 

mineral/energy development within 20 years.

6 = Route is expected to be needed to access 

mineral/energy development within 20 years. 

9 = Route is currently used to accesses 

mineral/energy development. 

Range Management Evaluation Criteria

1. Need for Permittee Access (for range 

management, and/or maintenance repairs to 

range facilities)

0 = Route does not access range improvements, is 

not used for range management. 

6 = Route provides access to range improvements, 

and/or is needed for range management. 

Wildland/Prescribed Fire Evaluation 

Criteria

1. Need for Access for fire suppression, fuels 

management

0 = Low intensity area

6 = Moderate intensity area. 

9 = High intensity area. 

Public Use Access Evaluation Criteria

(Recreation, Hunting, Woodcutting, etc.)

1. Need/Level of Public Use

0 = No known public use

3 = Receives little public use, does not access any 

developed recreation sites (facilities, trailheads) 

known points of interest, or destination points. 

6 = Receives moderate use, used to access hunting 

areas, developed recreation sites (facilities, 

trailheads), known points of interest, or destination 

points. 

9 = Receives high use, provides primary access to 

hunting areas, developed recreation sites (facilities, 

trailheads), known points of interest, or destination 

points. 

COMMUNITY BASED COLLABORATIVE 

WORKING GROUPS

During spring 2004, BLM identified and prioritized nine 

site specific areas needing travel planning. Five of the 

nine areas were identified as High Priority, and are being 

addressed concurrently with the RMP revision. The 

remaining four areas were identified as Moderate 

Priority, and will need to be addressed after the RMP, 

due to time constraints. 

1) Helena (focus area- Scratchgravel Hills) - High 

Priority

2) East Helena (focus area- North Hills) - High Priority

3) Lewis and Clark Country Northwest (focus areaMarysville) - High Priority

4) Boulder/Jefferson City - High Priority

5) Upper Big Hole River - High Priority

6) Missouri River Foothills - Moderate Priority

7) Jefferson County Southeast - Moderate Priority

8) Broadwater County South - Moderate Priority

9) Park/Gallatin - Moderate Priority

Given their relative importance, a series of public 

scoping meetings were held for the five High Priority

travel planning area during November and December 
Travel Management

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 153

2004, and January 2005. The primary purpose of the 

meetings was to solicit site-specific issues and concerns, 

as well as potential solutions; to be used to help establish 

criteria governing decisions for travel planning. (e.g., 

issue/concern – noise/dust impacts from motorized OHV 

use near housing area; solution – restrict/prohibit OHV 

use near housing area, establish minimum distance, 

criteria – establish/determine minimum distance from 

housing areas ). 

During the meetings, it became apparent that three of the 

travel planning areas - Lewis and Clark County 

Northwest (Marysville), Helena (Scratchgravel Hills), 

and East Helena (North Hills) were particularly 

important to the public and travel planning. Meetings for 

these three areas were well attended; interest in the 

Scratchgravel Hills required a second meeting. 

Given the level of public interest, BLM decided to 

solicit the assistance of three community-based 

collaborative working groups, one for each travel 

planning area. Assisted in part by Tetra Tech (RMP 

contractor), the groups were intended to work under the 

direct supervision and guidance of the Western Montana 

Resource Advisory Council (RAC). 

Several press releases and letters of interest were issued 

by Tetra Tech during May 2005, soliciting applicants for 

each of the three travel planning areas. The mission of 

the collaborative working groups was to ―assist in 

developing a travel management plan mutually 

agreeable to both the collaborative working groups and 

BLM‖. Membership criteria included: Montana 

residency, familiarity with the travel planning area(s), 

and a willingness to work collaboratively with people of 

differing viewpoints. In addition, in accordance with the 

Western Montana Resource Advisory Council criteria, 

members were selected from three different interest 

categories in order to provide for balanced 

representation. 

BLM anticipated enough public interest to support three 

balanced working groups, composed of either six or nine 

people total. Without BLM intervention, Tetra Tech was 

tasked with selecting group membership (for subsequent 

approval by the RAC), and coordinating and facilitating 

all of the group meetings. No BLM employees 

participated in the working groups. 

In late May, however, it became apparent that the RAC 

would not be able to sponsor the collaborative 

subgroups, due to time constraints and other unforeseen 

events. BLM contacted the Lewis and Clark County 

commissioners, who graciously agreed to sponsor the 

collaborative working groups under their direct guidance 

and supervision. 

Due to a shortage of interested candidates, only two 

(rather than 3) balanced collaborative working groups 

were able to be selected, each composed of nine 

members. Given its group membership, interest, and 

local knowledge, one of the groups was tasked with 

assisting the BLM develop travel management for both 

the Helena (Scratchgravel Hills) travel planning area as 

well as the East Helena (North Hills) travel planning 

area, while the second group was selected to assist the 

BLM with the Lewis and Clark travel planning area 

(Marysville). 

The Lewis and Clark County Commission sponsored 

and oversaw the working group process. Michael 

McHugh, the Lewis and Clark County land planner, 

represented the county and chaired both working groups 

throughout the process. Each group held a series of six 

meetings during June and July, 2005. Each meeting was 

assisted by Tetra Tech, and attended by BLM staff only 

to answer questions and provide information from the 

BLM’s Interdisciplinary Team as needed. In addition, 

BLM provided a full range of maps and other travel 

planning information used by its own interdisciplinary 

travel planning team, including its preliminary travel 

planning recommendations based on the route by route 

rating process described above (if requested by working 

groups), for each of the three travel areas. However, 

since no BLM employees participated on the working 

groups and the BLM did not facilitate the process, the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) did not apply 

to the working groups. 

Working group recommendations were based on 

consensus. In the end, the working groups were able to 

arrive at complete consensus for the Marysville and 

North Hills areas, but only partial consensus for the 

Scratchgravel Hills area. 

From August 2005-October 2005, the BLM 

Interdisciplinary team met and finalized a range of 

alternatives (A-D) for each of the five travel planning 

areas addressed with the RMP revision. With the 

exception of some minor changes, community based 

collaborative working group proposals were 

incorporated into Alternative B, which eventually 

became the Preferred Alternative. 

BUTTE FIELD OFFICE TRAVEL PLAN 

VARIANCE PROCESS/APPLICATION 

FORM

Travel plan variances are requests by the public, 

commercial interests, interagency personnel, or BLM 

personnel to temporarily use motorized vehicles on 

closed roads, seasonally restricted roads, and cross 

country (off road) use. The following process (see 

flowchart below) has been developed to address requests 

for motorized travel not already authorized by a prior 

decision based on analysis in an existing EIS, EA, or the 

provisions of a permit, lease, memorandum of 

understanding, or right of way. It is also intended to 

provide additional oversight for uses already generally 

authorized under the 2003 Statewide OHV ROD and 

Instruction Memorandum #MT-2001-004 regarding 

administrative uses. 
Appendix D

154 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP

Variance requests that cannot be approved due to issues 

raised during review would be subject to the NEPA 

process, or Documentation of NEPA adequacy (DNA). 

A DNA is documentation of whether or not there is 

existing NEPA documentation to cover the proposal. If 

the variance request cannot pass this ―test‖, additional 

NEPA documentation is required. 

The process is initiated by the program lead requesting 

the variance, or who has received a request from the 

public. After completing the basic information on the 

variance form, the flow chart should be circulated 

among the respective specialists for consultation and 

overall review. 

Example requests for variances include (but are not 

limited to):

Access to private property (patented mine claim, 

mining claim location and assessment work, 

seasonal cabin)

Casual use mineral exploration (refer to 43 CFR 

3809.5)

Permit lease administration (firewood collection, 

recreation)

Agency administrative work

Contract work or contract administration

Other permit leases 

Flowchart

(Please document your responses, as needed, in the space next to the question. Use ―N/A‖ for issues and concerns not 

applicable to the request). 

Does the request provide reasonable use of public lands? — No-----No Variance

Must be Yes to continue

|

Yes

|

Are there reasonable, alternative routes available? — Yes-----No Variance

Must be No to continue

|

No

|

Is the activity in a WSA?

(Exceptions – Grandfathered rights, valid existing rights, use of an existing way) — Yes-----No Variance

Must be No to continue

|

No

|

Is the road safe to use during the requested time period? — No-----No Variance

Must be Yes to continue

|

Yes

|

Can the activity be postponed until the road or area is open to motorized use? — Yes -----No Variance

Must be No to continue

|

No

|

Can resource impacts be sufficiently mitigated? 

(Winter range, spring calving habitat, Threatened and Endangered species habitat, sensitive species habitat, sensitive 

soils, soils susceptible to erosion, water quality, spread of noxious weeds, etc.) — No-----No Variance

Must be Yes to continue

|

Yes

|

Can social conflicts (as analyzed) be sufficiently mitigated? — No ----- No Variance

Must be Yes to continue

|

Yes

Yes – Variance may be approved by Authorized Officer (refer to Variance Request Form for signature)
Travel Management

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 155

Respective Program Reviewers:

Program Lead Signature Date

CULTURAL

FORESTRY

REALTY

WILDLIFE/T&E

GEOLOGY

SOIL/WATER/AIR

HAZMAT/AML

RANGE/WEEDS

RECREATION/WILDERNESS/VRM

RIPARIAN

FIRE/FUELS

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
Appendix D

156 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP

USDI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Authorization No.____________

Butte Field Office

106 North Parkmont

Butte, Montana, 59701

Telephone 406-533-7600

 

AUTHORIZATION FOR MOTORIZED USE OF ROAD, TRAIL, OR AREA WITH TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS

 

When approved by the authorized officer, this permit authorizes:

 

Name: __________________________________________________________________

Address: ________________________________________________________________

 (City, State) (Zip)

Telephone Number (s): ____________________________________________________

(List additional authorized users on back of form)

 

To use the following road (s), trails, or area with travel restrictions (indicate entry locations and travel areas): 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

 

In order to conduct the following operations: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Dates/Time of Use: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

Number and Type(s) of Vehicles: 

______________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________ 

(See other side) 

Page 1 of 3
Travel Management

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 157

Standard Stipulations

Copy of variance to be kept with authorized vehicle (s) and displayed in window. 

Variance restricted to authorized (listed) individuals only

Permittee shall notify BLM of any changes under this authorization 

Post sign or notice (on gate or beginning of restricted road) stating reason for use. Close/Lock gates when entering and 

leaving closure area

Vehicle use limited to ingress and egress only, using the authorized route, and minimum number of vehicles and trips. 

No off road travel allowed, unless specifically authorized under this variance.

Avoid wet areas; travel only when ground is dry to prevent ruts and resulting erosion

Wash vehicles prior to use on BLM lands to prevent introduction of weeds

During fire operations - May use ATVs and engines on any existing road or trail that accesses treatment area. Off road 

use restricted for fire holding, mop up, and any related suppression needs. Off road vehicle use should be avoided during 

the general rifle hunting season. No new trails are to be created

During hunting season - Vehicles shall not be used for hunting purposes on BLM lands. Use limited to ingress/egress 

only after dark or between the hours of 11 AM to 3 PM (with the exception of emergencies).

I (we) acknowledge that I (we) am (are) required to comply with any conditions or stipulations of the authorized officer 

when the permit is issued:

 

_________________________________________________________________ 

(Applicant signature/date)

 

 

Page 2 of 3
Appendix D

158 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP

Butte Field Office Manager Action

Special Stipulations (if any): 

 ______ Variance Approved 

This application is hereby approved subject to the Standard stipulations and Special stipulations (if any) listed above: 

_____________________________________________________________________ 

(Signature/date)

______ Variance Denied

This application has been denied for the following reasons: 

See attached letter.

This decision may be appealed to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary, in accordance with the 

regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4, and the enclosed Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, your notice of appeal must 

be filed in this office (at the above address) within 30 days from receipt of this decision. The appellant has the burden of 

showing that the decision appealed from is in error.

If you wish to file a petition (request) pursuant to regulation 43 CFR 8342 for a stay (suspension) of the effectiveness of 

this decision during the time that your appeal is being reviewed by the Board, the petition for a stay must accompany 

your notice of appeal. A petition for a stay is required to show sufficient justification based on the standards listed below. 

Copies of the notice of appeal and petition for a stay must also be submitted to each party named in this decision and to 

the Interior Board of Land Appeals and to the appropriate Office of the Solicitor (see 43 CFR 4.413) at the same time the 

original documents are filed with this office. If you request a stay, you have the burden of proof to demonstrate that a 

stay should be granted.

 

Page 3 of 3