RECORD OF DECISION 

INTRODUCTION 

This Record of Decision (ROD) approves the Bureau of 

Land Management’s (BLM’s) proposal to manage 

public lands within the Butte Field Office as described in 

the attached Approved Resource Management Plan 

(Approved RMP). The Proposed RMP/Final EIS was 

published in September 2008. 

The Butte Field Office administers about 307,309 

surface acres of BLM land and a total of about 660,819 

acres of federal subsurface mineral estate in western 

Montana. These lands are dispersed throughout a 7.2 

million acre planning area in eight counties. 

The Butte RMP includes two levels of decisions in 

accordance with the NEPA and BLM regulations. These 

are land use planning decisions and implementation 

decisions. Land use planning decisions were protestable 

during the September 26, 2008 to October 27, 2008 

protest period in accordance with BLM regulations at 43 

CFR§1610.5-2. Six unique protest letters were received. 

Implementation decisions (described below) may be 

appealed in accordance with 43 CFR Part 4 upon 

publication of the Notice of Availability of this 

document in the Federal Register by the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

PROTEST REVIEW RESULTS 

The BLM received six unique protest letters during the 

30-day protest period provided for the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS in accordance with 43 CFR 1610.5-2. 

Most concerns were focused on the NEPA process 

associated with site-specific travel planning 

(implementation decisions). There were some concerns 

that the Proposed RMP would establish “de facto” 

wilderness areas. One party expressed disagreement with 

the BLM’s decision to omit listing some particular 

parcels of land on the disposal list. 

The BLM Director addressed all protests without 

making changes to the Proposed RMP. 

DECISION 

The decision is hereby made to approve the attached 

plan as the Approved Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) for lands administered in Beaverhead, 

Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and 

Clark, Park, and Silver Bow counties by the Bureau of 

Land Management’s Butte Field Office in Montana. 

This Plan was prepared under the regulations 

implementing the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (43 CFR §1600). An environmental impact 

statement was prepared for this Plan in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. 

The Approved RMP is nearly identical to the preferred 

alternative (Alternative B) set forth in the Butte 

Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement published in 

September 2008. Specific management decisions for 

public lands under the jurisdiction of the Butte Field 

Office are presented in the Management Decisions 

section of the enclosed Approved RMP. Land use plan 

decisions include identification of goals, allowable uses 

and management actions for different resources and 

resource uses. Major decisions include: quantitative 

objectives for active vegetation treatments, provision for 

Riparian Management Zones to focus on site-specific 

riparian values, continuation of livestock grazing, Field 

Office-wide area designations for motorized vehicle use, 

identification of nine Special Recreation Management 

Areas, designation of 70,644 acres as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, finding of one river segment 

(2.6 miles) as suitable for Wild and Scenic River 

designation, and finding of one river segment (3.1 miles) 

as preliminarily suitable pending Forest Service 

concurrence. 

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS 

COVERED UNDER THIS RECORD OF 

DECISION 

A number of implementation decisions are covered by 

this Record of Decision. While designation of areas as 

open, closed, or limited to motorized vehicle use is a 

land use planning decision, travel route-specific 

decisions are implementation decisions. Implementation 

decisions for route-specific management in the Helena, 

East Helena, Boulder/Jefferson City, Lewis and Clark 

County NW, and Upper Big Hole River travel planning 

areas (TPAs) are covered by this Record of Decision and 

are appealable under the Department of Interior’s appeal 

regulations (43 CFR Part 4) upon publication of the 

Notice of Availability of this document in the Federal 

Register by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Decisions for each of the five individual travel planning 

areas are considered to be five separate decisions so any 

appeals must indicate which travel planning area(s) 

is/are being appealed. 

The travel route designations for the five travel planning 

areas listed above, described in the Travel Management 

and Access sub-section of the Management Decisions 

section of the Approved RMP, and identified on Maps 

4, 5(a-d), 6(a-b), 7, and 8(a-c) are effective upon 

issuance of this Record of Decision, unless a stay of the 

decision is granted (see below). In accordance with 43 

CFR Part 8342.2(b) public notice of these decisions was 

provided with publication of the Federal Register Notice 

of Availability of this Record of Decision and Approved 

RMP. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record of Decision 

APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR 

IMPLEMENTATION DECISIONS 

Any party adversely affected by the route designations 

in the Helena, East Helena, Boulder/Jefferson City, 

Lewis and Clark County NW, or Upper Big Hole River 

travel planning areas may appeal within 30 days of the 

publication of the Notice of Availability of this 

ROD/Approved RMP in the Federal Register in 

accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR Part 4, 

Subpart E. Decisions for each of the five individual 

travel planning areas are considered to be five separate 

decisions so any appeals need to indicate which travel 

planning area(s) is/are being appealed. The appeal 

should state the specific route(s) by township, range and 

section on which the decision is being appealed, or by 

route number taken from the travel plan maps enclosed 

with this document (Maps 4-8). The appeal must include 

a statement of the reasons when the notice of appeal is 

filed, or you may file the statement of reasons within 30 

days after filing the appeal. The appeal must state if a 

stay of the decision is being requested in accordance 

with 43 CFR 4.21 and must be filed with the Butte Field 

Manager at the following address: 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office 

106 North Parkmont
 

Butte, Montana 59701 

A copy of the appeal, statement of reasons, and all other 

supporting documents must also be sent to the Field 

Solicitor at the following address: 

USDI Field Solicitor’s Office 

P.O. Box 31394 

Billings, MT 59107-1394 

If the statement of reasons is filed separately, it must be 

sent to the following address: 

USDI Office of Hearings and Appeals 

801 N. Quincy Street, MS 300-QC 

Arlington, VA 22203 

It is suggested that any appeal be sent certified mail, 

return receipt requested. 

Request for Stay 

Any party wishing to file a petition for stay pending the 

outcome of an appeal must show sufficient justification 

for the stay based on the following standards listed under 

43 CFR Part 4.21(b): 

•	 The relative harm to the parties if the stay is granted 

or denied, 

•	 The likelihood of the appellant’s success on the 

merits, 

•	 The likelihood of immediate and irreparable harm to 

the appellant or resources if the stay is not granted, 

and 

•	 Whether the public interest favors granting the stay. 

The request for stay must be filed with the Butte Field 

Manager at the address listed above. 

MODIFICATIONS 

Since development of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, an 

error was found in the GIS mapping of the federal 

mineral estate lands. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS 

reported 652,194 acres in federal mineral estate. Since 

publication of that document, an additional 8,625 acres 

in Jefferson County near the town of Boulder were 

found to be federal mineral estate, for a total of 660,819 

acres of federal mineral estate covered by decisions in 

the Approved RMP. The additional acres found to be in 

federal mineral estate are in granitic geology with “very 

low” potential for fluid mineral development as 

described in the Reasonably Foreseeable Development 

Scenario (Appendix M of Proposed RMP/Final EIS). Oil 

and gas leasing stipulations identified in the Approved 

RMP will apply to these lands based on resources 

present just as they do for all other federal mineral estate 

lands covered by the RMP. These additional acres do 

have high potential for locatable minerals and were 

recognized and addressed throughout the RMP planning 

process as being in the federal mineral estate for 

locatable minerals. 

After the Proposed RMP/Final EIS was released, the 

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan 

Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the Western 

United States was finalized in December 2008 (USDI – 

BLM 2008). Decisions in that Record of Decision 

amended the Headwaters RMP and are brought forward 

in this Approved RMP. 

After the Proposed RMP/Final EIS was released, 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land 

Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western 

States was published in January 2009 (USDI-BLM 

2009). That document amended the Headwaters RMP 

and its decisions are brought forward in this Approved 

RMP. 

CLARIFICATIONS 

During the Endangered Species Act section 

consultation process on the preferred alternative of the 

RMP, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

identified a number of non-discretionary terms and 

conditions associated with minimizing incidental take of 

grizzly bear. These terms and conditions were included 

in the Wildlife appendix (Appendix G) of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS. They are directly stated as management 

actions in the Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, Special Status 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 

7 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record of Decision 

and Priority Plant and Animal Species section of the 

Approved RMP. A new map (Map 3) in this document 

displays the area (approximately 8,196 BLM acres) to 

which these terms and conditions will apply in the 

Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. 

The total mileage of BLM roads in the Upper Big Hole 

River Travel Planning Area (TPA) was under-reported 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. A main route south of 

Humbug Spires, the Soap Gulch Road (Road #0105 on 

Map 8a enclosed), was errantly treated as an “access” 

(non-BLM) route, “open yearlong”, in the road mileage 

calculations in the Upper Big Hole River TPA in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. This route was mapped as a 

BLM route in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS and was 

considered as a BLM route during the planning process. 

However, it was omitted from the calculations in 

mileage figures previously displayed in the Draft 

RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Since it is a 

heavily used main access route to many BLM and Forest 

Service lands, it is carried forward as “open yearlong” in 

the Approved RMP. This adds an additional 

approximately 9 miles of “open yearlong” routes to the 

Upper Big Hole River TPA (depicted in Table 16 

below) compared to the values previously reported in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

The following error was discovered in the Final EIS. 

During the formatting/printing of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS, a passage of text in Chapter 4 was 

inadvertently misplaced relative to its intended location. 

On page 680, the heading entitled “Effects of Five SiteSpecific Travel Plans at RMP Decision Area Scale” and 

the first paragraph beneath that heading were 

inadvertently placed in the left column of the page. This 

content was intended to be placed in the right column of 

this same page immediately above the heading “Effects 

of Alternative A”. This content was in its proper location 

on page 655 of the Draft RMP/EIS. 

A number of minor edits have been applied throughout 

the Approved RMP to provide more clarity to 

descriptions of management actions and/or allowable 

uses. 

OVERVIEW OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

There were four alternatives considered in detail. This 

section provides a brief overview of each of those 

alternatives. Alternatives considered in detail include 

one “No Action” alternative (Alternative A), and three 

“action” alternatives (Alternatives B-D) that would 

reflect various levels of change from the existing 

Headwaters RMP and Dillon MFP direction. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

Alternative A is the continuation of present 

management, referred to as “No Action”. This 

alternative would continue present management 

practices based on existing land use plans and other 

management decision documents. Direction contained in 

the Headwaters Resource Management Plan and the 

Dillon Management Framework Plan would continue to 

be implemented. The current levels, methods, and mix of 

multiple use management would continue, and resource 

values would receive attention at present levels. 

Motorized access and motorized recreational 

opportunities would not change from the current 

condition. Eligible Wild and Scenic River segments 

would continue to be managed to protect the values that 

make them eligible. 

ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative emphasizes moderate levels of resource 

protection, use, and restoration. Alternative B places a 

priority on vegetative restoration. Quantities of forestbased commodity resources from vegetation restoration 

activities would be similar to Alternative A, greater than 

in Alternative C, but less than in Alternative D. Forest 

commodities would be derived from projects planned 

with a more holistic vegetative community perspective 

than under Alternative A. Project-level wildlife habitat 

and riparian management measures would be greater 

than in Alternatives A and D due in part to establishment 

of Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) where 

managing for riparian values would be the focus, but 

less than in Alternative C where RMZs would be wider 

and with more protective management than under 

Alternative B. 

Alternative B emphasizes a balance of motorized and 

non-motorized recreation and access opportunities 

compared to the other action alternatives (C and D). 

Two rivers would be recommended as “suitable” for 

Wild and Scenic River designation. There would be 

more oil and gas leasing management measures than in 

Alternatives A and D, but less than in Alternative C. 

Alternative B represents the mix and variety of actions 

that in the opinion of BLM, best resolves the issues and 

management concerns and is therefore considered 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C emphasizes a lesser degree of vegetative 

restoration than any of the other alternatives. Production 

of forest-based commodity resources from vegetation 

restoration activities would be lowest of all alternatives. 

This alternative emphasizes a greater degree of projectlevel wildlife habitat and riparian management measures 

(wider Riparian Management Zones than Alternative B, 

no RMZs under Alternatives A or D) than in any other 

alternative. 

Alternative C emphasizes non-motorized recreation 

opportunities more than the other alternatives. All 

potential ACECs would be designated with this 

alternative. All four river segments eligible for Wild and 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 3 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record of Decision 

Scenic status would be found suitable and recommended 

for Wild and Scenic designation. Alternative C provides 

for the most oil and gas leasing management measures 

of any alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Of all the alternatives, Alternative D emphasizes the 

greatest degree of active management to restore 

vegetative communities and would produce the greatest 

quantities of forest products from vegetation restoration 

activities of all alternatives. Alternative D features fewer 

wildlife habitat and riparian management measures than 

Alternatives B and C, but more than Alternative A. This 

alternative emphasizes motorized access and recreation 

opportunities more than Alternatives B and C. No river 

segments eligible for Wild and Scenic status would be 

found suitable or recommended for Wild and Scenic 

designation with this alternative. Alternative D would 

have the fewest oil and gas leasing management 

measures of all the alternatives. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY 

PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has 

defined the environmentally preferable alternative as the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental 

policy as expressed in Section 101 of the NEPA. This 

section lists six broad policy goals for all federal plans, 

programs, and policies as follows: 

•	 Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as 

trustee of the environment for succeeding 

generations; 

•	 Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, 

and aesthetically and culturally pleasing 

surroundings; 

•	 Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the 

environment without degradation, risk to health or 

safety, or other undesirable and unintended 

consequences; 

•	 Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural 

aspects of our national heritage, and maintain 

wherever possible, an environment which supports 

diversity and variety of individual choice; 

•	 Achieve a balance between population and resource 

use which will permit high standards of living and a 

wide sharing of life’s amenities; and 

•	 Enhance the quality of renewable resources and 

approach the maximum attainable recycling of 

depletable resources. 

Based on these criteria, identification of the 

environmentally preferable alternative involves 

balancing current and potential resource uses with the 

need to protect resources, as well as consideration of the 

human environment. Overall, the BLM considers 

Alternative B to best meet the criteria for the 

environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative C 

would be the most protective of riparian and aquatic 

resources, while Alternative D would provide for the 

most aggressive pursuit of upslope vegetation 

restoration, potentially resulting in the greatest long-term 

environmental benefits to vegetation and wildlife but 

with more short to mid-term adverse impacts. 

MANAGEMENT 

CONSIDERATIONS IN 

SELECTING THE APPROVED 

RMP 

The BLM is tasked with the job of multiple use 

management, as mandated under the FLPMA and other 

laws and regulations governing the management of 

public lands for various purposes and values. Selection 

of this Approved Resource Management Plan is based 

on careful consideration of relevant issues, public input, 

and anticipated environmental effects of all the 

alternatives that were analyzed and described in the 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The primary rationale for 

selecting Alternative B as the Approved RMP is based 

on the need to balance resource protection and 

restoration with the need to provide for appropriate 

levels of resource uses. 

As the EIS indicates, the Approved RMP provides for 

proactive vegetation restoration in riparian and upslope 

areas while providing forest products. Vegetation 

restoration and project-level protection measures will 

result in improved wildlife habitat for a wide range of 

special status and priority species. Establishment of 

Riparian Management Zones where riparian ecosystem 

values will be the focus during project-level planning 

will lead to improved riparian and aquatic habitats. 

Livestock grazing will continue with Standards for 

Rangeland Health as the benchmark for appropriate 

levels of use compared to resource impacts. 

The Approved RMP also identifies conditions for 

permitted activities such as fluid mineral leasing, use of 

designated utility corridors, right-of-way avoidance and 

exclusion areas, and other commercial uses. These 

conditions were considered in the context of balancing 

the need to provide for these uses with the need to 

protect resources. 

The Approved RMP designates several Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern based on relevant and important 

values. Special management direction is also indicated 

to manage for these values while providing for 

appropriate types of resource uses in these areas. 

Consistency of the Approved RMP with other local, 

state, tribal and federal plans was also considered. The 

Governor’s Office did not identify any inconsistencies 

between the Draft RMP/EIS and state or local plans, 

4 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Record of Decision 

policies, and programs; nor were any inconsistencies 

noted following the 60-day Governor’s Consistency 

Review of the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. No formal 

comments were received from federal agencies or tribal 

governments indicating the Proposed RMP was 

inconsistent with other existing plans or policies. 

In general, the rationale for travel planning 

(implementation) decisions was guided by the results 

from a combination of sources including: the 

interdisciplinary team process used to rate specific 

routes for resource impacts and resource uses based on 

the process described in Appendix A of the Proposed 

RMP/Final EIS (Appendix D of Approved RMP); 

recommendations from community-based working 

groups for routes in the Helena Travel Planning Area 

(TPA), portions of the East Helena TPA, and portions of 

the Lewis and Clark County NW TPA; and public 

involvement through scoping as well as public 

comments on the Draft RMP/EIS. Where necessary 

throughout all TPAs, the BLM coordinated with the U.S. 

Forest Service on decisions for BLM routes accessing 

National Forest lands in effort to ensure that BLM 

decisions are consistent with Forest Service 

management. 

The decision to close the majority of routes in the 

Scratchgravel Hills portion of the Helena TPA to 

wheeled motorized access yearlong also stems from an 

existing high degree of user conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized users and illegal activity taking place 

in this area. The BLM believes that the decision to close 

the majority of the routes in the Scratchgravel Hills will 

reduce problems with motorized vehicle-based trash 

dumping and illegal activities; and reduce user conflicts. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

Measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts 

were built into the Approved RMP where practicable. 

Many of the standard management provisions will 

minimize impacts when applied to activities proposed in 

the Decision Area. The Standards for Rangeland Health 

and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management 

(Appendix A) will be used as the base standards to 

assess the health of BLM lands. Best management 

practices (Appendix B) will be used when applicable for 

a number of uses such as livestock grazing, vegetation 

treatment activities, road maintenance or 

decommissioning, mineral activities, oil and gas 

development, and wind energy development. Additional 

measures to mitigate environmental impacts may also be 

developed during project level planning processes based 

on site-specific resources and conditions. 

PLAN MONITORING 

BLM planning regulations (43 CFR §1610.4-9) require 

continuous monitoring of RMPs and periodic formal 

evaluations. The BLM will monitor the Approved RMP 

to determine whether the management actions set forth 

in this document are being implemented and whether 

RMP objectives are being effectively met. 

The BLM will primarily use two types of monitoring: 

implementation monitoring and effectiveness 

monitoring. Implementation monitoring simply 

determines whether planned activities have been 

implemented in the manner prescribed by the plan. This 

monitoring documents BLM’s progress toward full 

implementation of the land use plan decision. There are 

no specific thresholds or indicators required for 

implementation monitoring. Effectiveness monitoring 

determines if implementation of activities under the plan 

has achieved the desired goals and objectives. 

Effectiveness monitoring asks the question: Was the 

specified activity successful in achieving the objective? 

Answering this question requires knowledge of the 

objectives established in the Approved RMP as well as 

indicators that can be measured. Indicators are 

established by technical specialists to address specific 

questions and avoid collection of unnecessary data. 

Success is measured against the benchmark of achieving 

the goals and objectives established in the Approved 

RMP. Monitoring for each program area is outlined in 

the Management Decisions section of the Approved 

RMP. 

If monitoring shows land use plan actions or BMPs are 

not effective, the BLM may modify or adjust 

management without amending or revising the plan, as 

long as assumptions and impacts disclosed in the 

analysis (EIS for the RMP) remain valid and broad-scale 

goals and objectives are not changed. Where the BLM 

considers taking or approving actions that alter or do not 

conform to overall direction of the plan, the BLM will 

prepare a plan amendment or revision and appropriate 

environmental analysis. 

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

A number of opportunities were available to members of 

the public to educate themselves about the planning 

process and participate in development of the plan. 

Public scoping meetings, press releases, an internet 

website, and occasional newsletters were used to provide 

information, promote awareness, and solicit public input 

and involvement in development of the RMP. A 

Proposed Planning Scenario was developed and used as 

an additional scoping tool in effort to generate public 

feedback on initial proposed management activities. 

Briefings of local governments, the Montana 

congressional delegation, and organized groups (upon 

their request) were also provided by the BLM. The 

Western Montana Resource Advisory Council was 

briefed periodically and given opportunities to provide 

input. 

Various potential cooperators including tribes, the 

Governor’s Office, state and federal agencies, and local 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 5 
Record of Decision
	

governments within the Planning Area were solicited to 

become cooperators for development of the RMP. No 

agencies or governments signed on as cooperators for the 

development of this plan. In spite of the lack of interest in 

becoming cooperating agencies, these entities were 

included in all scoping activities throughout the process. 

To generate public input on site-specific travel plans 

(implementation decisions), additional public scoping 

meetings were held. For three travel planning areas, 

community-based collaborative working groups were 

developed to generate recommendations to the BLM on 

route-specific management. 

Throughout the planning process, tribal governments 

have been consulted to generate input. Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service took place 

based on the Preferred Alternative in the Draft RMP/EIS. 

The BLM also consulted with the State Historic Preservation Office to meet BLM requirements and responsibilities under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

More detailed descriptions of these public involvement 

activities are provided in the Draft RMP/EIS and 

Proposed RMP/Final EIS in Chapter 5, Consultation and 

Coordination. 

In addition to anticipated environmental effects described 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, comments and input 

received from the public, land users, and other agencies 

throughout the planning process were also important 

considerations in selecting the Approved RMP. 

AVAILABILITY OF THE APPROVED RMP 

Copies of the Record of Decision and Approved Butte 

Resource Management Plan are available upon request 

from the Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, 

Montana 59701, (406) 533-7600, and on the Butte Field 

Office website at: 

www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/butte_field_office.html. 

FIELD MANAGER RECOMMENDATION 

Having considered a full range of reasonable alternatives, associated effects, and public input, I recommend adoption and 

implementation of the attached Butte Resource Management Plan. 

4-17-2009

Richard M. Hotaling Date 

Butte Field Manager 

APPROVAL 

In consideration of the foregoing, I approve the Butte Resource Management Plan. 

Gene R. Terland Date 

State Director, Montana/Dakotas 

4-20-2009
 

6 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
 

INTRODUCTION 

This Approved RMP is now the base land use plan for 

all lands managed by the Butte Field Office. It replaces 

the Headwaters RMP approved in 1984, as well as the 

Dillon Management Framework Plan approved in 1979 

as these two previous plans have applied to lands 

managed by the Butte Field Office since reconfiguration 

of the field office boundaries in 1983. The Approved 

RMP adopts the management described in Alternative B 

as well as Management Common to All Alternatives and 

Management Common to Action Alternatives described 

in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PLAN 

The purpose of the RMP is to provide a single, 

comprehensive land use plan to guide management of 

public lands administered by the Butte Field Office. The 

plan provides goals, objectives, allowable uses, and 

management direction to maintain, improve, or restore 

resource conditions and to provide for the long-term 

economic needs of local communities. 

Since the original plans were approved, several 

conditions have changed. These include: 

•	 Changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, 

and regulatory conditions; 

•	 Many new laws, regulations, and policies that 

invalidate or superseded previous decisions; 

•	 Changing user demands and activities; 

•	 Changing acceptance of impacts; and 

•	 Changes in the Butte Field Office boundaries. 

These conditions drive the need for an inclusive, 

comprehensive plan that provides updated, clear 

direction to both BLM and the public. 

The purpose of site-specific travel planning is to develop 

travel plans that meet the needs of public and 

administrative access, are financially affordable to 

maintain, and minimize user conflicts and natural 

resource impacts associated with roads and trails, as per 

43 CFR 8342. There is a need to do this because in many 

portions of the Butte Field Office, travel planning has 

not ever been conducted in a manner to establish a 

managed transportation network that meets the criteria 

within these regulations and fully considers public and 

administrative needs, user conflicts, and natural resource 

impacts. 

Planning for the management of BLM-administered 

lands is a tiered process. Documents produced during 

each successive tier are progressively more focused in 

scope and more detailed in terms of their identification 

of specific measures to be undertaken and impacts that 

may occur. Different levels of planning are described 

briefly below: 

•	 The RMP provides an overall vision of the future 

(goals and objectives) and includes measurable 

steps, management actions, and allowable uses to 

achieve the vision. 

•	 Subsequent implementation decisions are carried 

out by developing activity-level or project-specific 

plans. Activity-level plans usually describe multiple 

projects for a single or multiple resource programs. 

Project-specific plans usually describe a single 

project or several related projects. 

The RMP provides basic program direction with the 

establishment of goals, objectives, allowable uses, and 

management actions or prescriptions. The RMP focuses 

on what resource conditions, uses, and visitor 

experiences should be achieved and maintained over 

time. To do this, the RMP must take a long-term view. 

Defining planning issues and planning criteria represent 

the first steps in establishing the scope of the RMP 

revision. These, combined with public input, provide the 

framework in which RMP decisions are made. RMP 

decisions refer to what is established or determined by 

the Approved RMP. The RMP provides guidance for 

land use planning decisions in accordance with the 

following categories: 

•	 Natural, biological, and heritage resources 

•	 Resource uses 

•	 Special designations such as Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern and Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. 

In the context of these categories, the planning team 

developed management strategies aimed at providing 

viable options to address planning issues. These 

management strategies provide the basis for future 

activity-level plans or specific projects. 

In addition to the RMP (land use plan) type decisions 

described above, several implementation decisions 

associated with activity plans for several site-specific 

travel plans have been made based on this document. 

Travel route-specific management decisions have been 

made for the following five Travel Planning Areas: 

Helena, East Helena, Lewis and Clark County 

Northwest, Upper Big Hole, and Boulder/Jefferson City. 

PLANNING AREA AND MAP 

The Butte Field Office administrative area is located in 

mid-western Montana (Map 1). The Planning Area is all 

the land within the Butte Field Office administrative 

boundary. Within the Planning Area, BLM administers 

about 307,309 acres of public land surface and 660,819 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 7 
Approved Resource Management Plan 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 

Great Falls 

Missoula 

Helena 

Butte 

Billings 

Bozeman 

Butte Field Office Planning Area 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in January 2009

Map 1: Project Location Map

1 inch equals 60 miles DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Bureau of Land Management Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual 0 25 50 75 100 

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map maynot meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through Miles digital means and information may be updated without notification. Montana State Plane (NAD 83) Projection Butte Field Office

Approved Resource Management Plan 

8 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

acres of federal mineral estate in Broadwater, Deer 

Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark (southern 

portion), Silver Bow, Park, and the northern portion of 

Beaverhead counties. Table 1 identifies BLMadministered acres and total acres within the Planning 

Area by county. Collectively, the lands that BLM 

administers (surface and mineral estate) are considered 

the “Decision Area”. Surface lands within the Planning 

Area administered by other federal agencies, such as the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS), 

and U.S. Department of the Army are not subject to 

decisions made in association with this RMP. 

Approximately 1,800 acres of land administered by the 

Bureau of Reclamation surrounding Canyon Ferry Lake 

near Townsend; 65,500 acres of land administered by 

the State of Montana including several wildlife 

management areas, and approximately 286,210 acres of 

private land for which the BLM holds subsurface 

mineral rights are also subject to fluid mineral leasing 

decisions in this document. 

Table 1 

Lands Within the Butte Planning Area 

County 

BLM 

Surface 

Acres 

BLM 

Mineral 

Estate 

County Acres 

in Planning 

Area 

Beaverhead 12,660 22,372 31,429 

Broadwater 70,679 106,032 792,866 

Deer Lodge 5,227 141,648 473,932 

Gallatin 7,250 34,656 1,683,558 

Jefferson 94,397 124,786 1,061,462 

Lewis & 

Clark 63,510 113,119 895,925 

Park 8,365 53,505 1,793,054 

Silver Bow 45,221 64,701 460,124 

TOTALS 307,309 660,819 7,192,349 

The Decision Area consists of many tracts ranging in 

size from less than one acre to over 20,000 acres. BLMadministered lands are mixed among private, State of 

Montana, Bureau of Reclamation, and USFSadministered lands, each of which may be influenced or 

directly affected by BLM decisions. 

The BLM will coordinate with other federal and state 

agencies, especially for those resources and issues that 

share boundaries. 

Planning Area is all the land within the Butte Field 

Office administrative boundary regardless of 

jurisdiction. 

Decision Area is comprised of only those lands 

administered by the BLM (surface and mineral estate). 

SCOPING/ISSUES 

A planning issue is a relatively substantial controversy 

or dispute regarding management of resources or uses. 

Based on internal and public scoping, the following 

issues drove the formulation of the range of alternatives 

considered in the planning process for this RMP. 

Issue 1: Vegetation Communities 

How will vegetation on BLM lands be managed to 

achieve healthy ecosystems while providing for a broad 

range of multiple uses? 

Issue 2: Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, 

Special Status and Priority Plant and 

Animal Species 

How will BLM lands be managed to provide wildlife 

and fish habitat, and to conserve, and recover special 

status and priority species? 

Issue 3: Travel Management and Access 

How should the BLM manage motorized public travel 

to meet the needs for public access and resource uses 

while minimizing user conflicts and impacts to air, soil, 

watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and other resource 

values? 

Issue 4: Recreation 

How should recreation be managed to accommodate 

the full range of recreational uses enjoyed by the 

public on BLM lands? 

Issue 5: Special Designations including 

ACECs, National Trails, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and WSAs 

Which areas, if any, should be managed as special 

designations? How should they be managed to protect 

values that warrant their special designation status? 

In addition to issues, a number of management 

concerns were identified and addressed in the planning 

process. Management concerns are topics that involve a 

resource, resource management activity or land use that 

generally did not have enough controversy surrounding 

them to generate different RMP alternatives to address 

them. 

Management concerns included: 

•	 Air Quality; 

•	 Soil Resources; 

•	 Water Resources; 

•	 Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties 

and Paleontological Resources; 

•	 Visual Resources; 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 9 
 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

•	 Lands and Realty; 

•	 Minerals and Energy; 

•	 Abandoned Mine Lands; 

•	 Hazardous Materials; 

•	 Social and Economic Environment; 

•	 Environmental Justice; and 

•	 Tribal Treaty Rights including Native American 

Religious Concerns. 

PLANNING CRITERIA/LEGISLATIVE 

CONSTRAINTS 

FLPMA is the primary authority for BLM’s 

management of public lands. This law provides the 

overarching policy by which public lands will be 

managed and establishes provisions for land use 

planning, land acquisition and disposition, 

administration, range management, rights-of-way, 

designated management areas, and the repeal of certain 

pre-FLPMA laws and statutes. 

NEPA requires the consideration and public availability 

of information regarding the environmental impacts of 

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. 

BLM planning regulations (43CFR 1600, Subpart 1610) 

require preparation of planning criteria to guide 

development of all resource management plans. 

Planning criteria guide the development of the plan and 

determine the approach to developing alternatives, and 

ultimately, the selection of a Preferred Alternative. The 

criteria serve to help ensure that plans are tailored to the 

identified issues and avoid unnecessary data collection 

and analyses. Planning criteria for this planning effort 

included: 

•	 The plan will comply with FLPMA and all other 

applicable laws pertinent to the BLM. 

•	 The planning process will include an EIS that will 

comply with NEPA standards. 

•	 The plan will establish new guidance and identify 

existing guidance upon which the BLM will rely in 

managing public lands within the Decision Area. 

•	 The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference the 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management; Off-Highway 

Vehicle EIS and Plan Amendment for Montana, 

North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota; 

Record of Decision on Implementation of a Wind 

Energy Development Program and Associated Land 

Use Plan Amendments; Record of Decision for 

Vegetation Treatments Using Herbicides on BLM 

Lands in Seventeen Western States; Approved 

Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of 

Decision (ROD) for Designation of Energy 

Corridors on Bureau of Land ManagementAdministered Lands in the 11 Western States; and 

Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan 

Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States. 

•	 The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference all prior 

Wilderness Study Area findings, suitability studies, 

and reports that affect public lands. 

•	 The plan will result in determinations as required by 

special program and resource specific guidance in 

Appendix C of the BLM’s Planning Handbook. 

•	 The plan will recognize the state’s responsibility to 

manage wildlife populations, including uses such as 

hunting and fishing, within the Decision Area. 

•	 Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible 

with the existing plans and policies of adjacent 

local, state, tribal, and federal agencies as long as 

the decisions are in conformance with legal 

mandates on management of public lands. 

•	 The scope of analysis will be consistent with the 

level of analysis in approved plans and in 

accordance with Bureau-wide standards and 

program guidance. 

•	 Geospatial data will be automated within a 

Geographic Information System (GIS) to facilitate 

discussions of the affected environment, alternative 

formulation, effects analysis, and displaying the 

results. 

•	 Resource allocations must be reasonable and 

achievable within available technological and 

budgetary constraints. 

•	 The RMP will consider conservation and 

management strategies developed for protection, 

conservation, and restoration of Yellowstone and 

westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, fluvial Arctic 

grayling and sage grouse. 

•	 The RMP will incorporate existing recovery plans 

and management strategies and guidelines for 

federally listed threatened and endangered species, 

including Ute Ladies’ Tresses, the Northern 

Continental Divide population of the grizzly bear, 

and lynx (the Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy). State management plans will be 

considered for delisted species including the 

peregrine falcon, bald eagle, wolf, and Yellowstone 

population of grizzly bear. 

•	 The RMP will recognize the State of Montana’s 

authority on Montana water law and water rights. 

•	 The RMP will recognize federal land management 

agency obligations under tribal treaties and laws or 

executive orders on Native American reserved 

rights, religious freedoms, and traditional use areas. 

10 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

PLANNING PROCESS 

The planning process involves public participation, 

assessment, decision-making, implementation, plan 

monitoring, and evaluation, as well as adjustment 

through maintenance, amendment, and revision. This 

process ensures that land use plans and implementation 

decisions remain consistent with applicable laws, 

regulations, orders, and policies. The steps of RMP 

preparation (Table 2) are interrelated. 

Relationship to BLM Policies, Plans and 

Programs 

A number of plans have been developed by the BLM 

that relate to or otherwise govern management in the 

Planning Area. Some of these plans amended the Dillon 

MFP and Headwaters RMP while others, though they 

have not been formally adopted through the land use 

planning process, are considered by BLM when 

implementation level planning is conducted or other 

specific actions are analyzed. Specific management 

actions undertaken under these plans must be in 

Table 2 

Steps in the BLM Land Use Planning Process 

Step Process 

Step 1 – 

Identification of Issues 

This planning step is designed to identify major problems, concerns, or opportunities 

associated with the management of public land in the Planning Area. Issues are identified by 

the public, the BLM, and other governmental entities. The planning process is then focused 

on resolving the planning issues. 

Step 2 – 

Development of 

Planning Criteria 

Planning criteria are identified to guide development of the RMP and prevent the collection 

of unnecessary information and data. 

Step 3 – 

Collect and Compile 

Inventory Data 

This planning step involves the collation and collection of various kinds of environmental, 

social, economic, resource, and institutional data. In most cases, this process is limited to 

information needed to address the issues. The data required for land use planning decisions is 

usually at a broader scale than data required in implementation level planning and analyses. 

Step 4 – 

Analysis of the 

Management Situation 

This step calls for the deliberate assessment of the current situation. It identifies the way 

lands and activities are currently managed in the Planning Area, describes conditions and 

trends across the Planning Area, identifies problems and concerns resulting from the current 

management, and identifies opportunities to manage these lands differently. It also forms the 

basis for the “No Action” alternative. 

Step 5 – 

Formulate Alternatives 

During this step, BLM formulates a reasonable range of alternatives for managing resources 

in the planning area. Alternatives include a continuation of current management (no action) 

alternative and other alternatives that strive to resolve the major planning issues while 

emphasizing different management scenarios. Alternatives usually vary by the amounts of 

resource production or protection that would be allowed, or in the emphasis of one program 

area over another. 

Step 6 – 

Estimation of Effects 

This step involves estimating the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of 

implementing each alternative in order to provide a comparative evaluation of impacts in 

compliance with CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500). 

Step 7 – 

Selection of 

Preferred Alternative 

Based on the information resulting from the estimation of effects, the BLM identifies a 

Preferred Alternative. The Draft RMP/EIS is then prepared for printing and distributed for a 

90 day public review. 

Step 8 – 

Selection of 

RMP 

Following review and analysis of public comments on the Draft RMP/EIS, BLM makes 

adjustments as warranted and selects a proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP and a Final EIS is 

then published. A final decision is made after a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review and a 

30-day public protest period are completed. BLM then publishes the Record of Decision 

(ROD) and prepares the Approved Resource Management Plan. 

Step 9 – 

Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

This step involves the collection and analysis of resource condition and trend data to 

determine the effectiveness of the plan in resolving the identified issues and achieving 

desired results. Implementation of decisions requiring subsequent action is also monitored. 

Monitoring continues from the time the RMP is adopted until changing conditions require 

revision of the whole plan or any portion of it. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

conformance with the Butte RMP and Record of 

Decision. These plans and amendments (listed below) 

provide a perspective of the many management 

considerations pertinent to the Planning Area. 

Land Use Plans and Amendments 

•	 Mountain Foothills Rangeland Management 

Program Document (USDI-BLM 1981) 

•	 Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North 

Dakota and South Dakota ROD (USDI-BLM 1997) 

•	 Elkhorns Travel Management Plan/Amendment 

(USDI-BLM et al. 1995) 

•	 Off-Highway Vehicle ROD and Plan Amendment 

for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South 

Dakota (USDI-BLM 2003a) 

•	 Clancy-Unionville Travel Management Plan/ 

Amendment (USDI-BLM 2000) 

•	 Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Management Plan/ 

Amendment (USDI-BLM 2003b) 

•	 Suitability Report and EIS for Wilderness 

Designation of Humbug Spires Instant Study Area 

(USDI-BLM 1980) 

•	 Sleeping Giant and Sheep Creek Wilderness Study 

Areas EIS (USDI-BLM 1991a) 

•	 December 2005 Record of Decision on 

Implementation of a Wind Energy Development 

Program and Associated Land Use Plan 

Amendments (USDI-BLM 2005a) 

•	 December 2008 Record of Decision and Resource 

Management Plan Amendments for Geothermal 

Leasing in the Western United States (USDI–BLM 

2008) 

•	 January 2009 Approved Resource Management 

Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land 

Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western 

States (USDI-BLM 2009) 

Other National, Statewide, and Field Office 

Plans 

•	 Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen 

Western States (USDI-BLM 1991b) 

•	 Partners Against Weeds: An Action Plan for the 

BLM (USDI-BLM 1996) 

•	 Record of Decision for Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in Seventeen 

Western States (USDI-BLM 2007) 

•	 Bull Mountains Exchange Final EIS/ROD (USDIBLM 1991c) 

•	 The Montana Weed Management Plan (Duncan 

2005) 

•	 Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDI-BLM 

1985) 

•	 Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report 

(USDI-BLM 1991d) 

•	 National Fire Plan and 2001 Federal Fire Policy 

•	 National BLM Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation 

Strategy (USDI-BLM 2004) 

Collaboration 

There are no formally designated cooperating agencies 

for the Butte RMP planning process. Collaboration and 

consultation with federal, state, and local agencies, and 

tribal governments are described in Chapter 5 of the 

Draft RMP/EIS and Proposed RMP/Final EIS. 

RELATED PLANS 

BLM planning regulations require that BLM plans be 

consistent with officially approved or adopted resource 

related plans of other federal, state, local, and tribal 

governments as long as those plans are consistent with 

federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. 

Plans formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal 

governments that relate to the Butte RMP have been 

reviewed and no proposed management in this RMP is 

known to be inconsistent with these plans: 

•	 Canadian Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000) 

•	 Forest Plan – Helena National Forest (USDA-FS 

1986a) 

•	 Record of Decision for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Revised Land and Resource 

Management Plan – Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forest (USDA-FS 2009) 

•	 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) 

•	 Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Southwestern 

Montana (MFWP 2002) 

•	 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1987) 

•	 Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (MBEWG 

1994) 

•	 Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986). 

•	 Montana Gray Wolf Conservation and Management 

Plan (MFWP 2004) 

•	 Montana’s Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) 

•	 Montana Nonpoint Source Management Plan 

(MDEQ 2007). 

12 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

  

  

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

POLICY 

No proclamations or legislative designations that would 

influence decisions or constrain the alternatives have 

been issued within the Butte RMP Decision Area. 

Implementing the RMP begins when the Montana BLM 

State Director signs the ROD for the RMP. Decisions in 

the RMP will be implemented tied to the BLM 

budgeting process. An implementation schedule will be 

developed, providing for the systematic accomplishment 

of decisions in the Approved RMP. 

OVERALL VISION 

The overall vision of the Butte RMP is to: Manage 

resources in a balanced manner to provide for 

appropriate levels and types of social and economic 

benefits, while maintaining and restoring upland 

vegetation and riparian areas to provide healthy and 

diverse habitats for aquatic, wildlife and plant 

communities. 

MANAGEMENT DECISIONS 

This section is organized by resource and resource use as 

they were embodied in the issues and management 

concerns in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. Programspecific goals are listed for each program area with a 

letter/number designation. For example, Forest and 

Woodland Goal 1 is identified as “Goal FW1”. Within 

the descriptions of objectives and management actions 

for each program area, goals across all program areas 

are listed to which these objectives and actions 

contribute. For example, management action #1 for 

Grasslands and Shrublands contributes to many different 

goals identified in the RMP, indicated as “(Goals GS1, 

LG2, FM2, NW1, WF1, WF2)” listed at the end of the 

management action. 

Management decisions for resources and resource uses 

are described in the following order (goal abbreviations 

for each program area in parentheses): 

Goals Common to All BLM Activities 

Vegetation Communities 

Vegetation Management Approach and Tools 

Emphasis and Priorities for Vegetation 

Treatments 

Grassland and Shrubland Vegetation (GS) 

Forests and Woodlands (including Forest 

Products) (FW) 

Riparian Vegetation (RV) 

Livestock Grazing (LG) 

Wildland Fire Management (FM) 

Noxious Weed Management (NW) 

Wildlife, Fish, Wildlife Habitat, Special Status 

and Priority Plant and Animal Species (WF) 

Travel Management and Access (TM) 

Transportation and Facilities (TF) 

Recreation Management (RM) 

Special Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (AC) 

National Trails (NT) 

Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) 

Air Quality (AQ) 

Soil Resources (SR) 

Water Resources (WR) 

Visual Resources (VR)
 

Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural
 

Properties and Paleontological Resources (CP)
 

Lands and Realty (LR)
 

Energy and Minerals (EM)
 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AM)
 

Hazardous Materials Management (HM)
 

Wild Horses and Burros (None)
 

Social and Economic Environment (SE)
 

Environmental Justice (EJ)
 

Tribal Treaty Rights (TT) 

GOALS COMMON TO ALL BLM 

ACTIVITIES 

Throughout the BFO, BLM authorized activities 

associated with all resource and resource use programs 

will meet or move toward meeting the following 

standards to the extent practicable: 

•	 Uplands are in proper functioning condition; 

•	 Riparian and wetland areas are in proper 

functioning condition; 

•	 Water quality meets state standards; 

•	 Air quality meets state standards; and 

•	 Provide habitat as necessary, to maintain a viable 

and diverse population of native plant and animal 

species, including special status species. 

These standards were originally described as rangeland 

health standards (USDI BLM 1997), but will be applied 

to all BLM authorized activities as “Land Health 

Standards.” More detailed descriptions of characteristics 

associated with these standards can be found in the 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 13 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management Butte District section of 

the publication Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, (USDIBLM 1997). 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Vegetation Management Approach and 

Tools 

Vegetation management will emphasize maintaining and 

restoring healthy, diverse, and productive native plant 

communities appropriate to local site conditions. There 

will be a focus on actively restoring vegetation on the 

landscape to conditions more consistent with landform, 

climate, biological, and physical components of the 

ecosystem. Vegetation structure, density, species 

composition, patch size, pattern, and distribution will be 

managed to provide habitat for a variety of wildlife 

species while reducing the risk of uncharacteristically 

large and severe disturbances (such as forest insect 

epidemics, high intensity/severity wildland fires). 

Actions will maintain or mimic natural disturbance 

regimes (such as low intensity wildland fires) to provide 

for diverse and sustainable ecosystems so that plant 

communities will be resilient to periodic outbreaks of 

insects, disease and wildland fire. 

A number of different vegetation management tools or 

activities will be used in implementing the approach 

described above. 

Mechanical treatments will include tree removal through 

the use of ground based equipment, horses, helicopters, 

or any other appropriate methods. This will include 

thinning/removing medium (9 to 15 inch DBH) and 

large (greater than 15 inch DBH) trees and obtaining 

commercial wood products, thinning non-commercialsized trees, and cutting non-commercial conifers that 

have “encroached” into grassland or sagebrush habitats. 

It would also include mechanical on-site treatments of 

non-commercial trees and biomass (vegetative materials 

that are by-products of management including 4 to 8 

inch DBH trees) such as chipping, grinding, piling, or 

portable biomass/energy production. Mechanical 

treatments will be used to restore vegetative 

communities to desired future conditions as well as to 

reduce fuels in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. 

While in most cases vegetation treatments will be geared 

toward meeting historic vegetation conditions, it is 

recognized that this will not necessarily be the case in 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas where more 

substantial fuels reductions may be needed to address 

site-specific conditions and objectives for public safety. 

Prescribed burning will be used to treat forest, grassland, 

or shrubland vegetation types. In grasslands or 

shrublands, prescribed burning will be used to kill 

encroaching conifers; remove dead finer fuels created by 

years of grass or shrub growth; and stimulate grass and 

shrub re-growth. In forests, prescribed burning will be 

used to reduce fuels generated by mechanical treatments, 

thin understories, recycle nutrients, eliminate ladder 

fuels, create small openings, or create and maintain a 

more savannah-like habitat in stands dominated by 

medium and large-sized trees. 

Methods to address noxious weeds will include, but not 

be limited to, hand-pulling; chemical spray; use of 

biological agents such as insects, goats, or sheep; 

cultural treatments such as modifying timing or intensity 

of other management activities; and public outreach 

education. Other appropriate methods will be applied as 

they are developed and approved for use. 

Changing grazing management or prescription grazing 

will also be used as a vegetative treatment. Management 

may include changing the season of use, the intensity of 

the use, or the kind of livestock. 

Proposed vegetation management actions described in 

this Approved RMP refer to “project area” and 

“treatment area”. A project area is a large area within 

which some type of management activity will occur and 

encompasses a region defined by logical boundaries 

such as watersheds, ridges, highways or blocks of BLM 

lands. The project area can be both the analysis area and 

a starting point to determine where treatments should 

occur. A treatment area is a smaller block of land within 

the project area. A treatment area is the boundary of the 

area where the actual management activity, such as 

timber harvest or burning, would occur. 

Proposed vegetation treatments are characterized in the 

sub-sections below by numbers of acres (ranges) per 

decade. Multiple activities could occur within a single 

treatment area, concurrently or over time. For example, 

if 500 acres of grassland are proposed for treatment, then 

there could be a conifer removal, or “slashing” treatment 

on these acres. This may be followed by a separate 

prescribed burning treatment on the same acres, but 

since these treatments were applied to the same acres, 

they would be considered as a total of 500 acres of 

treatment in the context of RMP implementation and 

meeting RMP objectives for quantities of treatments. 

Emphasis and Priorities for Vegetation 

Treatments 

The major emphasis areas for vegetation treatments will 

be fuels reduction in the WUI; reduction of conifer 

encroachment in grasslands and shrublands, particularly 

in big game winter range areas; restoration of sagebrush 

habitat; enhancement of bighorn sheep habitat; and 

restoration of dry forest types. Treatments of cool, moist 

forests have lower priority. Priority for restoration and 

protection treatments will be given to forested areas with 

heavy fuel concentrations, limited vegetative diversity, 

and declining forest health. Areas with an increasing risk 

14 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

of insect infestation or loss of important habitat values 

will also be given precedence for treatment. Priority 

geographic areas for treatment are the Jefferson, Upper 

Missouri, and Big Hole watersheds. 

Major sub-sections below addressing specific goals, 

objectives, management actions, and monitoring 

associated with vegetation treatments include: 

grasslands and shrublands, forests and woodlands 

(including forestry and forest products), riparian 

vegetation, livestock grazing, wildland fire management, 

and noxious weeds. 

Grassland and Shrubland Vegetation 

Prior to effective fire suppression, foothill grasslands 

were maintained free of invading trees and shrubs by 

periodic fires associated with natural fire return cycles. 

With successful long-term fire suppression, many 

grasslands are becoming woodlands or shrublands, and 

many shrublands are being converted to woodlands. 

These vegetation types will be treated to remove conifer 

encroachment and move towards a more desired 

ecological condition of open grasslands and shrublands 

with a low density of trees species. Grasslands and 

shrublands will also be assessed to ensure that uplands 

are in properly functioning condition. If these habitat 

types are not in properly functioning condition due to 

management activities, management will be modified to 

improve conditions. 

Goals 

Goal GS1 – Manage upland vegetation communities to 

move toward or remain in proper functioning condition, 

including a full range of herbaceous and shrub species. 

Goal GS2 – Maintain or enhance communities of 

priority species or habitats (for example, mountain 

mahogany, sagebrush, bitterbrush) to provide desired 

ecological functions and values. 

Objectives (Goals GS1, GS2, LG2, FM2, FM5, 

WF1, WF2, WF7, SE3, SE4) 

One objective is to treat up to 850 acres of crested 

wheatgrass seedlings, agriculture fields, and weed 

infestations in the McMasters and Ward Ranch 

acquisitions to convert their communities from nonnative vegetation to native vegetation. 

Field Office-wide objectives for mechanical or 

prescribed burning treatments of grasslands and 

shrublands are as follows. The total amount of grassland 

proposed for conifer reduction per decade is 2,750 to 

11,800 acres (Table 3). The total amount of shrubland 

proposed for conifer reduction per decade is 1,000 to 

3,650 acres (Table 4). These acres are displayed by 

major watershed in Tables 3 and 4. The current acres of 

shrublands and grasslands shown by major watershed in 

Tables 3 and 4 are approximations with built-in 

limitations associated with distinguishing between these 

two habitat types during mapping. The current and 

proposed treatment acres of these two habitat types were 

separated to provide an indication of the relative amount 

of these habitats. However, due to the limitations in 

mapping these habitat types, the total number of 

shrubland and grassland acres proposed for treatment 

should be considered in combination. Objectives for 

proposed treatment acres include only those acres that 

will be treated to reduce conifer encroachment. 

 Table 3. Grassland Acres to be Treated per 

Decade by Watershed 

Watershed Treatment Acres per Decade 

Big Hole 500 to 2,500 (of 16,344) 

Blackfoot 0 to 50 (of <100) 

Gallatin 0 to 200 (of 860) 

Jefferson 500 to 3,000 (of 39,720) 

Upper Missouri 1,750 to 6,000 (of 73,965) 

Yellowstone 0 to 50 (of 4,409) 

Total 2,750 to 11,800 (of 135,398) 

Table 4. Shrubland Acres to be Treated per 

Decade by Watershed 

Watershed Treatment Acres per Decade 

Big Hole 550 to 2,000 (of 12,126) 

Blackfoot 0 to 50 (of <100) 

Gallatin 0 to 50 (of <100) 

Jefferson 300 to 1,000 (of 5,452) 

Upper Missouri 150 to 500 (of 1,714) 

Yellowstone 0 to 50 (of 366) 

Total 1,000 to 3,650 (of 19,858) 

Management Actions 

1.	 When necessary, sagebrush and grassland 

distribution and vigor will be restored through 

vegetative treatments such as reducing conifer 

encroachment, reducing noxious weeds, and 

ensuring proper grazing practices (season of use or 

intensity). (Goals GS1, LG2, FM2, NW1, WF1, 

WF2) 

2.	 Management of sagebrush habitats will be a priority 

based on concerns over the conservation status of 

sage grouse, pygmy rabbit, and other species 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

associated with sagebrush and grassland habitats. 

(Goals GS1, GS2, WF1, WF2, WF5, WF7) 

3.	 Priority areas for treatment will include big game 

winter range, sagebrush, bighorn sheep habitat, and 

the Wildland Urban Interface. (Goals GS1, GS2, 

LG2, FM2, FM5, NW1, WF1, WF2, WF5, WF7) 

4.	 Native or low impact, non-invasive seed mixtures 

will be used when restoring vegetation on disturbed 

ground. (Goals GS1, LG2, NW1, WF1) 

Monitoring 

Measuring trends in vegetative production, structure, 

and composition, soil/site stability, watershed function, 

and integrity of biotic community will be accomplished 

through periodic rangeland health assessments following 

procedures outlined in Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005), Rangeland 

Health Standards and Guidelines (USDI-BLM 1997), 

BLM Manual 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding 

implementation of the rangeland health standards, and 

methodologies found in the 4400 BLM Technical 

References and handbook series. 

Case-specific monitoring will be conducted for activities 

that may affect (either positively or adversely) priority 

species such as sagebrush, bitterbrush, and mountain 

mahogany. Such monitoring will be focused on 

assessing the extent to which these communities are 

being maintained or restored. 

Forests and Woodlands (including 

Forest Products) 

Examination of BLM forest inventory data and analysis 

using the SIMPPLLE model indicates that the overall 

character of the forests found on BLM lands have 

changed over time with a reduction in the size and age 

class diversity within the majority of forest stands, and a 

reduction in the number and sizes of forest openings. 

Lower to mid-elevation dry forests are dominated by 

Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. These forest types are 

typically interspersed with limber pine, Rocky Mountain 

juniper, grasses, and shrubs. Fire suppression and 

historic grazing practices have resulted in unusually high 

tree densities on many sites as well as excessive 

wildland fuels. 

Treatments in dry forest areas will be designed to mimic 

pre-fire suppression conditions and promote healthy and 

diverse forest ecosystems and wildlife habitat. Smaller 

diameter thinning along with low intensity understory 

burning will occur in seedling, pole and some medium 

(9 to 15 inch diameter at breast height (DBH)) sized 

trees to open the canopy and allow understory vegetation 

to become re-established. In the WUI, treatment 

emphasis will include mechanical or hand thinning, 

while prescribed burning will be minimized to lessen 

smoke impacts to local communities. Where burning is 

restricted, material could be mechanically reduced and 

left on site or mechanically reduced and removed. 

Outside the urban interface, prescribed burning will be 

emphasized except when not economically feasible or 

when the effects could be detrimental to vegetation or 

soils. 

Mechanical treatments, which may include harvest of 

trees, will be used to accomplish restoration and thinning 

of dry forests. Trees in the small to large size classes 

will produce commercial forest products including 

lumber, posts and poles, and biomass. 

Cool, moist forest types are found at mid to high 

elevation and are dominated by Douglas-fir, lodgepole 

pine, subalpine fir and spruce. These forest types 

typically have higher tree densities with open parks and 

grass or shrub dominated meadows interspersed. 

Whitebark pine occurs as an incidental species in some 

of these areas, but is not a prevalent species anywhere in 

the Butte Field Office because it is generally found at 

higher elevations than are present on BLM lands here. 

Treatments in cool, moist forests will focus on 

protecting healthy and diverse forest systems by 

reducing stem densities and creating appropriate 

openings to mimic pre-fire suppression conditions. In 

lodgepole pine stands, mechanical treatments which may 

include timber harvest will be used to create openings to 

mimic stand-replacing fire events and to regenerate 

lodgepole pine. 

Goals 

Goal FW1 – Restore and/or maintain the health and 

productivity of public forests, to provide a balance of 

forest and woodland resource benefits, as well as 

wildlife and watershed needs to present and future 

generations. 

Goal FW2 – Manage forestry resources to provide a 

sustained flow of local social and economic benefits and 

protect non-market economic values. 

Goal FW3 – Maintain and/or improve sustainability and 

diversity of woodland communities to meet ecological 

site potential. 

Goal FW4 – Manage dry forest types to contain healthy, 

relatively open stands with reproducing site-appropriate, 

desired vegetation species. 

Goal FW5 – Manage moist forest types to contain 

healthy stands that combine into a diversity of age 

classes, densities, and structure (including dead and 

down material). 

Goal FW6 – Manage old forest structure in a sustainable 

manner. (Note: old forest structure is defined by the 

following: large, old trees; large standing dead trees 

[snags]; fallen trees or logs on the forest floor; multiple 

canopy layers; and a developed, patchy understory. In 

forest types subject to frequent, low-intensity fire such 

as dry Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine, old forest structure 

16 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

is typically characterized by relatively open understories 

and fewer large fallen trees.) 

Objectives 

Dry Forest Types (Goals FW1, FW2, FW3, FW4, 

FM2, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, SR2, SE1, SE3, 

SE5) 

Restoration priorities include dry forests with medium (9 

to 15 inch DBH) to large (>15 inch DBH) sized trees, 

with high tree densities relative to historic conditions. In 

dense, old, and mature Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine 

forests, stand density will be moved toward stands that 

consist of fewer trees per acre with a larger average 

diameter. Over time, treatments will produce a variety of 

stands with more open canopies of multiple age groups 

of native conifers and healthy and more diverse shrub, 

grass, and forb understories. 

The objective for total amount of dry forest treatments 

per decade is 4,150 to 14,750 acres. These acres are 

displayed by major watershed in Table 5. 

Table 5. Dry Forest Acres to be Treated per 

Decade by Watershed 

Watershed Treatment Acres per Decade 

Big Hole 1,150 to 2,500 (of 19,906) 

Blackfoot 0 to 100 (of 368) 

Gallatin 0 to 150 (of 533) 

Jefferson 1,000 to 4,000 (of 31,936) 

Upper Missouri 1,900 to 7,000 (of 59,988) 

Yellowstone 100 to 1,000 (of 2,196) 

Total 4,150 to 14,750 (of 114,926) 

A range of 3,350 to 10,750 acres per decade of medium 

to large sized tree-dominated stands of this forest type 

will be treated (as a subset of the total acreage objectives 

in Table 5). Historically, these habitat types were more 

open “savannah” forests interspersed with grassland and 

shrubs. 

Dry forest stands that are in an ecologically “healthy” 

condition (those that can sustain the growth of larger 

trees while successfully producing and maintaining 

growth of younger trees) will also be treated. Treatments 

will promote the large, overstory trees and natural 

regeneration that will provide diverse age and size 

classes. Maintenance of existing dry forests is 

considered a “moderate priority” with 400 to 2,000 acres 

per decade anticipated for treatment (as a subset of the 

total acreage objectives in Table 5). 

Dry forest treatments may also include thinning in 

limber pine habitats, amounting to approximately 100 to 

1,000 acres per decade, and approximately 300 to 1,000 

acres per decade of small diameter thinning of 

seedling/sapling and pole sized conifer stands (both as 

subsets of the total acreage objectives in Table 5). 

The majority of ponderosa pine, dry forest treatments 

will occur in the Upper Missouri Watershed. 

Cool and Moist Forest Types (Goals FW1, FW2, 

FW3, FW5, FM2, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, SR2, 

SE1, SE3, SE5) 

Cool and moist forest types will be treated when 

necessary to maintain or improve stand conditions. 

Restoration of these habitat types may also be done to 

meet desired future conditions for ecosystem function 

and diversity as well as for wildlife habitat including 

creating forage for lynx in lodgepole pine forests. 

Treatments in cool and moist forest types will include 

the creation of openings to simulate natural disturbance 

(i.e. fire) to allow for regeneration of lodgepole pine and 

Douglas-fir, and to reduce the threat of standreplacement fire in decadent stands. Areas may also be 

pre-commercial or commercially thinned. Commercial 

products such as timber and biomass will be produced 

from these treatments. 

Treatment in cool and moist forest types will be 

considered a low to moderate priority. The priority 

watershed for implementation of treatments in cool and 

moist forest is the Big Hole. 

The objective for total amount of cool and moist forest 

treatments per decade is 450 to 3,750 acres. These acres 

are displayed by major watershed in Table 6. 

Table 6. Cool/Moist Forest Acres to be Treated 

per Decade by Watershed 

Watershed Treatment Acres per Decade 

Big Hole 200 to 1,600 (of 9,868) 

Blackfoot 0 to 100 (of <500) 

Gallatin 0 to 50 (of <100) 

Jefferson 50 to 300 (of 2,059) 

Upper 

Missouri 200 to 1,600 (of 7,165) 

Yellowstone 0 to 100 (of 551) 

Total 450 to 3,750 (of 20,243) 

Approximately 350 to 3,350 acres of stands dominated 

by medium to large sized trees, with high tree density in 

cool and moist forest will be treated (as a subset of the 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

total acreage objectives in Table 6). Small diameter tree 

thinning will also occur on approximately 100 to 400 

acres per decade in seedling/sapling and pole-sized cool 

and moist Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forests. 

Forest Products 

The objective for quantities of forest products (Probable 

Sale Quantity) is based on the expected numbers of 

treatment acres (including Wildland Urban Interface 

projects) and is 33,000 to 91,000 CCF or 9 to 25 MMBF 

per decade. (Goal FW2) 

Management Actions 

1.	 Vegetation structure, density, species composition, 

patch size, pattern, and distribution will be managed 

in a manner to reduce the occurrence of unnaturally 

large and severe wildland fires and forest insect 

outbreaks. Natural disturbance regimes will be 

maintained or mimicked so that plant communities 

are resilient when periodic outbreaks of insects, 

disease, and wildland fire occur. (Goals FW1, FW3, 

FW4, FW5, FM2, FM5, WF1, WF2, WF3) 

2.	 Forest and woodland health assessments will be 

incorporated into Land Health Standards at the 

activity plan level to determine forest health 

conditions in project areas. Forest health is defined 

as the degree to which the biological and physical 

components of forest stands and their associated 

ecosystems and relationships are present, 

functioning, and capable of self-renewal. (Goals 

FW1, FW3, FW4, FW5, WF1, WF2, WF3) 

3.	 Vegetation planning will be coordinated with 

managers of federal or state lands adjacent to sitespecific proposals to provide for a collaborative 

approach. (Goals FW1, FW3, FM4, WF6) 

4.	 Vegetation manipulation projects will be designed 

to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat and improve 

it when possible. (Goals FW1, FW6, WF2, WF3, 

WF4, WF5) 

5.	 Residual stands left by disturbance events will be 

maintained to provide for natural regeneration and 

diversity of forest systems. (Goals FW1, FW3, 

FW4, FW5, WF1) 

6.	 Stands with characteristics indicating a substantial 

risk of developing epidemic levels of forest insects 

and/or disease will be high priority for treatments to 

reduce risk. (Goals FW1, FW3, FW4, FW5, WF1) 

7.	 Silvicultural prescriptions will be consistent with 

accepted methods related to site, species, habitat 

types, and the individual requirements of the forest 

stand. (Goals FW1, FW2, FW3, FW4, FW5) 

8.	 Tractor logging generally will be limited to slopes 

with average gradients of less than 40 percent and 

the season of logging will be limited to reduce soil 

compaction and rutting (Appendix B). (Goals FW1, 

FW2, SR1, SR2, WR1, WR3, SE1) 

9.	 Adequate access will be maintained for 

management activities and treatments. Road 

locations will be determined on the basis of 

topography, drainage, soil type, and other natural 

features to minimize erosion. Skid roads will be 

rehabilitated by appropriate methods that disperse 

runoff, reduce erosion, and promote revegetation as 

needed. (Goals FW1, FW2, FW3, FW4, FW5, TM1, 

SR1, SR2, WR3, SE1) 

10.	 Some new permanent roads may be built for longterm management of areas where multiple entries 

will be necessary to meet objectives. New 

permanent and temporary road construction will be 

kept to a minimum. Temporary roads will be 

decommissioned (route will be closed and 

rehabilitated to eliminate resource impacts such as 

erosion, and rendered no longer useable for public 

or administrative uses) within one year of project 

completion. In addition, replacement, maintenance, 

or decommissioning of existing roads to meet 

transportation planning and management objectives 

may also occur as part of forest product removals or 

stewardship treatment projects. (Goals FW1, FW2, 

FW3, FW4, FW5, WF2, WF5, TM1, SR1) 

11.	 Treatments utilized for disposal of slash will be 

beneficial for site reforestation, revegetation, or big 

game passage. These treatments may include 

physical removal, mechanical treatment, burning or 

other appropriate methods necessary. All slash 

treatments will be in conformance with Best 

Management Practices (Appendix B). (Goals FW1, 

FW2, FW3, FW4, FW5, FM2, WF5) 

12.	 Mechanical treatments will be laid out to minimize 

the risk of windthrow and to improve the genetic 

composition of the regenerated stand to meet 

resource objectives. Whenever possible, openings 

larger than 20 acres in size resulting from forest 

treatment or large scale events in forested habitats 

will be planted when natural regeneration does not 

become established to desired levels within 15 years 

or cannot be reasonably expected in five to fifteen 

years. (Goals FW1, FW2, FW3, FW4, FW5, WF1) 

13.	 To maintain site productivity (organic matter and 

nutrients), provide for special wildlife features, and 

discourage cross-country motorized travel, much of 

the fine material not utilized as forest products 

(seedlings, saplings, tops, and branches less than 4 

inches in diameter, cull logs and identified down 

woody material) will be left scattered on the forest 

floor where it will not contribute to increased ladder 

fuels. (Goals FW1, FW3, FW4, FW5, WF2, WF3, 

SR2) 

14.	 BLM will design fire restoration/rehabilitation 

standards on a case-by-case basis, compatible with 

18 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

landscape resource management objectives and 

long-term (25-year) vegetation health protection and 

fuel management. (Goals FW1, FW2, FW3, FW4, 

FW5, FM3, SR1, SR2, WR1, WR3) 

Forest and Woodland Products 

15.	 Commercial harvest of forest products will normally 

be associated with vegetative restoration (including 

forest health) and fuels treatments, and will be 

designed to meet objectives for forest management, 

wildlife habitat management, fire hazard reduction, 

hazard tree removal, special status species 

management, visuals, recreation, and travel 

management. (Goals FW1, FW2, FM2, FM5, WF1, 

WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, VR1, RM1, RM2, TM1, 

SE1, SE2, SE3, SE5) 

16.	 Raw material for a variety of forest products will be 

made available. Special forest and range products 

will be managed according to sustainability limits 

and where consistent with other resource 

management objectives. These products will be 

harvested under the appropriate written, BLM 

approved authorization only. (Goals FW1, FW2, 

FW3, SE1, SE2) 

17.	 The small sale program will maintain the current 

types of activities as well as the development of 

treatment areas to help meet public demand for 

small sale products. The small sales will only occur 

where sufficient physical access currently exists. No 

new permanent roads will be constructed to meet 

the demands of the small sale program. (Goals 

FW2, WF2, TM1, SE1, SE2) 

18.	 The forest product small sale program will continue 

to maintain a balance between public demand and 

the health and productivity of native and desired 

vegetation communities. Small forest product sales 

include over-the-counter sales of firewood, 

Christmas trees or other products for personal use, 

small amounts of materials removed as a result of 

other authorizations such as rights-of-way, road use 

agreements, grazing leases or other land uses, and 

public demand sawtimber or salvage sales. These 

activities will usually take place in small areas or on 

scattered or isolated parcels often concurrent with 

similar activities on adjacent private lands. (Goals 

FW2, SE1, SE2, SE5) 

19.	 The following permit types and estimated quantities 

are anticipated to be permitted per decade under the 

small sales program: 

•	 450 Permits of all types including for: 

o	 5,500 Christmas trees 

o	 1,000 cords of firewood 

o	 2,100 MBF sawtimber (included with 

PSQ) 

o	 77 CCF posts, poles, biomass, other 

woody materials. (Goals FW2, SE1, 

SE2, SE5) 

20.	 Other forest products will include: house logs, 

posts and poles, vegetative cuttings, conifer boughs, 

wildlings and ornamentals, grape stakes, juniper 

products, specialty cuttings, and wildflowers. 

(Goals FW2, SE1, SE2, SE5) 

21.	 Personal use firewood permits valid for wood 

collection from both BLM and Forest Service lands 

in Western Montana will continue to be offered by 

BLM in cooperation with the Forest Service. (Goals 

FW2, SE2) 

22.	 Unless specifically designated, only standing dead 

and down wood will be allowed to be taken as 

firewood. The BLM, however, may designate 

specific areas for firewood cutting of live trees to 

meet other resource objectives or BLM-authorized 

uses such as leases and rights-of-way. (Goals FW1, 

FW2, FW3, SE2) 

23.	 To protect existing snag habitat for wildlife, no dead 

trees greater than 24 inches DBH will be allowed to 

be cut for firewood. (Goals FW1, FW6, WF3) 

24.	 Firewood cutting will not be allowed in WSAs. 

(Goals FW1, WF3, WSA1) 

25.	 Firewood cutting will not be allowed within 100 

feet of live (yearlong flow) streams or within 50 feet 

of intermittent streams. (Goals FW1, FW3, RV1, 

RV2, WF2, WF3, WF5, WR4) 

Timber Salvage 

26.	 Salvage of forest products resulting from wildland 

fire, prescribed fire, forest insects and disease, 

weather-induced, or other forest mortality events 

will be considered on a case-specific basis. (Goals 

FW2, SE1, SE5) 

27.	 When salvage is proposed in dead and dying forests, 

contiguous acres of undisturbed standing and down 

woody material will be retained in adequate 

amounts for those wildlife species that depend on 

this type of habitat. Rationale for this is as follows. 

Many bird and mammal species require dead and 

dying forests for maintenance of viable populations. 

Methods of timber salvage that homogenize stands 

(such as selective removal of all trees of a certain 

size, density and/or species) will not maintain the 

structure or variety of microclimates required by 

bird and mammal species that use this type of 

habitat. (Goals FW1, FW2, FW6, WF2, WF3, WF4, 

WF5, SE4, SE5) 

28.	 Outside of contiguous areas identified for retention, 

harvest treatments may include: 1) forest openings 

appropriate for the site and retention patches of 

uncut dead and dying trees; or 2) forest openings 

appropriate for the site with selective thinning 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

between openings and retention patches of uncut 

dead and dying trees; or 3) selective thinning and 

retention patches of uncut dead and dying trees. 

(Goals FW1, FW2, FW3, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, 

SE4, SE5) 

29.	 Bark beetle suppression treatments, which may 

target large tree removal, will be permitted to 

contain outbreaks and to reduce the risk to other 

forest stands in the vicinity. (Goals FW2, FW3) 

30.	 In all areas with dead and dying trees (including 

retention patches), tree cutting will be allowed for 

human safety, fire rehabilitation and stabilization, 

and forest or stream restoration activities. (Goals 

FW1, FW2, RV1, RV2, FM3, SR1, WR1, WR3, WR4) 

Old Forest Structure 

31.	 The BLM will strive to maintain and/or restore 

stands with old forest structure within historic range 

of variability to maintain and/or enhance habitat for 

species dependent on this type of habitat. Existing 

and developing old forests will be retained and 

protected from uncharacteristically severe natural 

disturbances such as; stand replacing wildland fire, 

and insect and disease epidemics. (Goals FW1, 

FW6, WF3, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

32.	 Old forest structure and conditions will be 

maintained and promoted through active treatments 

and restoration activities. Actions will be designed 

to develop and maintain healthy stand structures 

that are relatively complex with highly variable tree 

densities, healthy and diverse understory 

composition, and abundant snags, large diameter 

trees, and downed logs. Where deficient on the 

landscape, snags and down woody material will be 

created in appropriate areas. (Goals FW1, FW6, 

WF3, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

Monitoring 

Forest monitoring will be focused on tree density (i.e., 

number of trees per acre or basal area), structure, canopy 

cover, tree size, tree height, age class, down wood and 

number of snags. Some forest types will also be 

measured for regeneration/recruitment which can be 

measured through visual observation or counts. Other 

woodland types such as quaking aspen and mountain 

mahogany stands will be monitored for their presence or 

absence, recruitment, and for their response to other 

forest/woodland management activities and uses. 

Forests and woodlands will also be monitored in relation 

to disturbance processes. Stands may be assessed for the 

presence of insects and/or disease. Fire history and/or 

fire intervals may also be monitored in forest and 

woodlands. These disturbances may be monitored for 

severity and response to management actions. 

Forest products generated from management actions in 

forests and woodlands will be monitored by measuring 

the type and volume of product removed (i.e. tons of 

biomass, board feet of timber, etc). 

Data will be collected within forest stands or woodlands 

using the FORVIS data collection format and other 

appropriate plot sampling. In commercial treatment 

units, the pre-treatment basal area of the live and dead 

component, the average stand diameter at-breast height, 

the average stand total height, and fuel loading 

information will be collected. Estimated volume per acre 

or biomass tons per acre will be obtained, if applicable, 

in stands that will be treated. Post treatment monitoring 

may include transect and/or plot sampling to determine 

if goals and objectives were met for canopy cover, trees 

per acre, basal area, stand structure, understory species, 

down wood, and snags. 

In commercial and non-commercial treatment units, 

photo points will be established to show approximate 

percent cover, habitat types, understory development 

and occurrence of insect infestations and diseases before 

and after treatments. 

The number of acres treated and number of small 

sale/public use permits issued each fiscal year will be 

tracked and reported as necessary. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Goals 

Goal RV1 – Manage riparian and wetland communities 

to move toward or remain in proper functioning 

condition (appropriate vegetative species composition, 

density, and age structure for their specific area). 

Manage these communities to be sustainable and provide 

physical stability and adequate habitat for a wide range 

of aquatic and riparian dependent species. 

Goal RV2 – Manage wetland and riparian habitats to 

support healthy, diverse and abundant populations of 

fish and associated aquatic and riparian dependent 

species. 

Objectives (Goals RV1, RV2, WF1, WF3, WF4, 

WF5, WR1, WR4, SE4) 

Riparian and wetland areas will be assessed and 

monitored for proper functioning condition and other 

specific objectives, by using proper functioning 

condition and/or other appropriate stream survey 

methodologies. For proper functioning condition in 

streams, entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, 

channel substrate, and slope should be within the range 

identified for channel types. 

The objective for total amount of riparian vegetation 

habitat proposed for mechanical and/or prescribed 

burning treatments is 200 to 700 acres per decade (this 

includes vegetative treatments and not changes in 

grazing practices). These acres are displayed by major 

watershed in Table 7. 

20 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 7. Riparian Vegetation Acres to be 

Treated per Decade 

Watershed Treatment Acres per Decade 

Big Hole 50 to 200 (of 3,139) 

Blackfoot 0 to 40 (92) 

Gallatin 0 to 10 (of 22) 

Jefferson 50 to 200 (of 2,846) 

Upper Missouri 100 to 200 (of 4,651) 

Yellowstone 0 to 50 (of 350) 

Total 200 to 700 (of 11,000) 

Management Actions (Goals RV1, RV2, WF1, 

WF3, WF4, WF5, WR1, WR4, SE4) 

Allowable Uses 

Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) are areas where 

riparian values will receive primary emphasis with all 

activities to the extent possible. Maintaining and 

restoring quality riparian habitat (including vegetation) 

is important: 1) as habitat for many wildlife species; 2) 

to maintain water quality, appropriate woody material, 

and nutrient routing to aquatic habitats; and 3) to 

maintain appropriate stream channel morphology. 

Riparian Management Zones are intended to: maintain 

and restore riparian structures and functions; benefit fish 

and riparian-dependent resources; enhance conservation 

of organisms that depend on the transition zone between 

upslope and aquatic habitats; and improve connectivity 

of travel and dispersal corridors for terrestrial animals 

and plants, and aquatic organisms. At the Field Office 

scale, projects in RMZs will generally be designed to 

protect or restore the ecological function of riparian 

areas and streams. 

Beyond adhering to the Streamside Management Zone 

(SMZ) Law, Riparian Management Zones will be 

established from the edge of aquatic habitats as follows. 

Forested Areas 

Streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs containing fish: 

The riparian management zone (RMZ) consists of the 

water body and a zone located on all sides of the water 

body. This zone extends from the outer edges of the 

bankfull channel, full pool, or adjacent wetland a slope 

distance equal to the height of two site-potential trees. 

(Site potential tree height – within forested areas, a site 

potential tree height would be the average maximum 

potential height of dominant trees, in the riparian 

management zone). 

160’ 160’ 

RMZ for a Forested, Fish Bearing Stream 

Assumes an 80’ height site potential tree 

Perennial non-fish bearing streams: The RMZ consists 

of the stream and a zone located on both sides of the 

channel. This zone extends from the outer edges of the 

bankfull channel (or adjacent wetland) a distance equal 

to one site-potential tree height. 

80’ 80’ 

RMZ for a Forested, Perennial, 

Non-Fish Bearing Stream
 

Assumes an 80’ height site potential tree 

Non-fish bearing ponds, lakes, reservoirs, or wetlands 

greater than 1 acre: The RMZ extends from the outer 

edge of the full pool or wetland a distance equal to one 

site-potential tree height or to the edge of seasonally 

saturated soil or wetland vegetation, whichever is 

greater. 

Intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre: The 

RMZ consists of the water body and a zone located on 

all sides of the water body. This zone extends from the 

outer edges of the bankfull channel or adjacent wetland a 

distance equal to at least 50 feet. 

Non-forested Areas 

For fish-bearing and non-fish bearing perennial streams, 

lakes, ponds, and reservoirs, the RMZ consists of the 

water body and a zone located on all sides of the water 

body. This zone extends from the outer edges of the 

bankfull channel (average high-water mark), full pool, or 

adjacent wetland a distance that encompasses the active 

floodplain. The RMZ extends 50 feet above the break in 

slope leading down from the lowest terrace to the 

floodplain, or in segments where trees are present, to a 

distance equal to one site-potential tree height (two siteRecord of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

potential tree heights for fish-bearing waters) from the 

edge of the feature, whichever is greatest. 

50’ 50’ 

RMZ for a Non-Forested, Perennial Stream 

For intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre, 

RMZs are 50 feet from the edge of wetland vegetation or 

active stream channel as indicated by riparian 

vegetation, saturated soil, or water. The criteria for 

selecting the width may be different for each side of the 

water body. 

Riparian livestock use and vegetative treatments will 

occur within RMZs. Riparian areas will continue to be 

evaluated using Land Health Standards and grazing 

practices will be modified when necessary. The 

condition and importance of riparian resources to natural 

systems locally will serve as primary emphasis for 

management activities and uses. 

Because stream types and riparian functions 

significantly vary across the Planning Area, RMZs based 

on a minimum linear distance will not be applicable for 

every project. Although the minimum distances will 

always apply, the width necessary to protect the stream 

and riparian structure and function may be wider than 

the minimum distances and will be determined from 

site-specific analysis. 

Each project will incorporate specific design features to 

maintain or improve the key ecological functions of the 

Riparian Management Zones. 

Commercial timber harvest will be allowed in Riparian 

Management Zones to meet riparian restoration or 

maintenance objectives and only if adequate woody 

material remains in the riparian area to meet site-specific 

(project level) riparian objectives. 

Actions 

1.	 At the Field Office scale, management will 

maintain, protect, restore and/or improve riparian 

areas and wetlands. Riparian areas that are 

functioning at risk will be a high priority for 

restoration. (Goals RV1, RV2, WF1, WF3, WF4, 

WF5, WR1, WR4, SE4) 

2.	 Riparian and wetland management will be 

consistent with all state and federal laws and 

regulations, including the Montana Streamside 

Management Zone Law (77-5-301 through 307 

MCA). Actions will be taken to cooperatively 

conserve riparian/wetland habitat, minimize the 

impacts, loss or degradation of wetlands, and 

preserve values served by floodplains where 

occurring on public land while reducing hazards to 

human safety. (Goals RV1, RV2, FW1, FW2, FW3, 

WF3, WF5, WF6, WR1, WR3, WR4, SE1, SE4) 

3.	 BLM will cooperate with federal, tribal, and state 

wildlife management agencies and private 

landowners to identify activities that prevent 

meeting riparian standards. In cooperation with 

those agencies, projects or management measures 

will be designed to minimize impacts. (Goals RV1, 

RV2, WF3, WF6, WR1, WR3, WR4, SE4) 

4.	 Authorized activities within riparian areas will 

strive to maintain and restore riparian structure and 

function, benefit fish and riparian-dependant 

species, enhance conservation of organisms that 

depend on the transition zone between upslope and 

the stream, and maintain or improve the 

connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors for 

terrestrial animals and plants. When projects that 

cause detrimental effects on riparian resources 

cannot be located outside of riparian areas, shortterm and long-term effects will be minimized. 

(Goals RV1, RV2, WF3, WF5, WR1, WR3, WR4, 

SE4) 

5.	 Restorative treatments in riparian areas will focus 

on re-establishing willows, aspen, and cottonwood 

stands as well as other riparian vegetation, and to 

move towards pre-fire suppression stem densities in 

conifer stands. (Goals RV1, RV2, FW1, FW2, FW3, 

WF1, WF3, WF5, WR1, WR4, SE4) 

6.	 Where conifers are outcompeting or precluding 

regeneration of aspen, or preventing establishment 

of aspen or cottonwood stands, conifers will be 

removed (via mechanical methods and/or prescribed 

burning) to provide suitable habitat for expansion of 

these species. Commodity removal of juniper will 

be encouraged when applicable. (Goals RV1, RV2, 

FW1, FW2, FW3, WF1, WF3, SE4) 

7.	 Where the primary project objective is aspen 

restoration, treated aspen stands will be fenced from 

livestock and wildlife when recovery could be 

suppressed by grazing and browsing. Fencing could 

consist of using native, on-site materials as barriers. 

All fences (with the exception of barriers created 

from native, on-site materials) will be maintained 

and removed within 10 years or when the aspen is 

fully re-established or recovered. (Goals RV1, RV2, 

FW1, FW2, FW3, WF1, WF3, SE4) 

8.	 Forested riparian habitats will be managed to 

accelerate the development of mature forest 

communities to promote shade, bank stability, and 

down woody material recruitment. Latesuccessional riparian vegetation will be promoted in 

amounts and distribution similar to historic 

22 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

conditions. (Goals RV1, RV2, FW1, FW2, FW3, 

WF1, WF3, WR1, WR3, WR4, SE4) 

9.	 Riparian areas will be managed to provide the 

amount and distribution of large, woody material 

characteristic of natural aquatic and riparian 

ecosystems. Trees may be felled in riparian areas 

when they pose a safety risk or are needed to 

enhance riparian function/condition. Felled trees 

will be kept on site when needed to meet sitespecific down woody material objectives. (Goals 

RV1, RV2, WF3, WR1, WR3, WR4, SE4) 

10.	 Streams and riparian habitats that have been 

degraded or lost due to the effects of historic mining 

operations, including placer mining, will continue to 

be restored to improve water quality as well as 

aquatic and riparian habitats. The BLM Hazardous 

Materials/AML Program(s) will continue to 

cooperatively work on a watershed-by-watershed 

basis reducing exposures to human health and the 

environment from AML sites. Reclamation of these 

areas typically includes removing contaminated 

soils and tailings, preventing run-off of heavy 

metals, reconstructing/stabilizing streambeds and 

banks (including providing habitat features such as 

down woody material and planting or restoring 

riparian vegetation), reducing sedimentation, 

closing physical safety hazards, and 

closing/stabilizing roads. Following reclamation, 

sites will be monitored to evaluate if the reclamation 

risk reduction project goals were achieved; whether 

additional restoration efforts are necessary to restore 

or improve aquatic and/or riparian habitats; and the 

effectiveness of the project(s) to determine if a 

viable fishery has been or could be established. 

(Goals RV1, RV2, WF3, WR1, WR3, WR4, AM1, 

HM1, SE4) 

Monitoring 

Changes in miles or acres of riparian/wetland habitat in 

proper functioning condition will be determined during 

rangeland health and watershed assessments using the 

procedures outlined in BLM Technical References TR 

1737-15 and TR 1737-16 (Prichard et. al 1998, 2003). 

Changes in vegetation communities will also be 

determined during these assessments. 

Riparian/wetland plant community characteristics will 

be inventoried and monitored to establish trends in plant 

composition, canopy, age class diversity, and utilization 

that indicate progress toward desired plant communities 

and properly functioning riparian conditions. Rosgen or 

other appropriate inventories may be used to provide 

baseline channel morphology information and identify 

site potential. Simple stream cross sections can also be 

used to provide measurements of width:depth ratios and 

to help assess channel types. Monitoring methods for 

riparian and wetlands may include but are not limited to: 

Proper Functioning Condition assessments; Rosgen 

channel type assessments; greenline transects; browse 

transects; photo points; channel cross sections; 

vegetation cover, density, composition, frequency 

assessments; and other methodologies and procedures 

found in the BLM Technical References 1737 series. 

Livestock Grazing 

Goals 

Goal LG1 – Manage for a sustainable level of livestock 

grazing while meeting or progressing toward Land 

Health Standards. 

Goal LG2 – Maintain, restore, or enhance BLM 

rangelands to meet the Land Health Standards. 

Goal LG3 – Manage livestock grazing to provide a 

sustained flow of local economic benefits and to protect 

non-market economic values. 

Objectives (Goals LG1, LG2, LG3, GS1, WF1, 

WF7) 

Objectives for livestock grazing are to meet the 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management, Butte District section 

of the publication Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, (USDIBLM 1997), which will be incorporated into livestock 

grazing permits and leases. 

Management Actions 

Allowable Uses (Goals LG1, LG3, SE1, SE3, 

SE5) 

Livestock grazing will be allowed on about 270,000 

acres of public land. The amount of forage available on 

these lands will be 24,710 AUMs active use and 1,312 

AUMs forage reserve, temporary non-renewable AUMs. 

Approximately 37,000 acres of public land will be 

unavailable for grazing permits or leases (Table 8). The 

allotments unavailable for grazing permits generally lack 

forage or water, are small, are on steep terrain, are 

covered with timber, are adjacent to subdivisions, or 

lack infrastructure. 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the 

McMaster Hills and Spokane Hills individual allotments 

will be established as forage reserve allotments (an 

allotment without a term grazing permit that is grazed on 

a temporary nonrenewable basis). This type of allotment 

will be used to provide temporary grazing to rest other 

areas following wildfire, habitat treatments, or to allow 

for more rapid attainment of rangeland health. Forage 

reserve allotments will be managed to meet, or move 

toward meeting, Land Health Standards. Use will be 

authorized on a temporary, nonrenewable basis. The 

amount of use will be determined by the BFO. 

Applicants will be required to meet qualifications per the 

grazing regulations, and show the ability and 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 8 

Areas Unavailable for Long Term Permits 

Allotment 

Name 

Allotment 

Number 

Allowed Grazing 

Use 

Alder Creek 351 Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Centennial 

Gulch 7715 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit; 

prescription grazing 

Charcoal 

Mountain Cust. 10363 Unavailable for grazing permit 

Dickie 20364 Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Free Coinage 20254 Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Indian Creek 20233 Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Maiden Rock 

Custodial 20367 Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Spokane Hills 7720 Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Medicine Creek 

Riparian Area 

McMasters 

Hills 

N/A 

7721 

Prescription Grazing 

Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Quinn Creek 5487 Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Wineglass 

Mountain 15452 Unavailable for grazing permit 

commitment to repair and maintain improvements and 

infrastructure. The BFO will rank qualified applicants 

according to the following criteria in priority order: 

1.	 Implementing projects or vegetation management 

on BLM lands. 

2.	 Facilitating a change in management to improve 

resource conditions on BLM allotments. 

3.	 Accommodating permittees or lessees displaced by 

natural causes (i.e. wildland fire, drought, insect 

infestations, etc.) 

The criteria found at 43 CFR §4130.1-2 (USDI-BLM 

2006) will be used to determine priority when 

conflicting applications are submitted. 

The existing Indian Creek allotment will be expanded up 

to 5,566 additional acres and 700 AUMS by the Iron 

Mask acquisition. This allotment located in the Elkhorns 

Cooperative Management Area will be managed as a 

forage reserve allotment. The allotment will be managed 

to meet, or move toward meeting, Land Health 

Standards. Use will be authorized on a temporary, 

nonrenewable basis. The amount of use will be 

determined by the BFO. Applicants will be required to 

meet qualifications per the BLM grazing regulations, 

and show the ability and commitment to repair and 

maintain improvements and infrastructure. The BFO will 

rank qualified applicants for the Indian Creek allotment 

according to the following criteria in priority order: 

1.	 Be a state or federal permittee or lessee, or private 

landowner within the boundaries of the Elkhorns 

Cooperative Management Area (ECMA). 

2.	 Implementing projects or vegetation management 

on ECMA lands. 

3.	 Facilitating a change in management to improve 

resource conditions on ECMA lands. 

4.	 Accommodating permittees or lessees displaced by 

natural causes (i.e. wildland fire, drought, insect 

infestations, etc.) 

5.	 The criteria found at 43 CFR §4130.1-2 (USDIBLM 2006) when conflicting applications are 

submitted.
 

The Centennial Gulch (Ward Ranch) allotment and 

Medicine Rock (Northeast Helena) riparian area will be 

available for prescription livestock grazing to meet 

specific resource objectives as determined through a 

site-specific interdisciplinary planning and NEPA 

process. 

Actions 

1.	 Allotment Management Plans and Coordinated 

Resource Management Plans will continue to be 

implemented, including utilization objectives and 

associated range improvement projects. (Goals 

LG1, LG3, GS1, WF1, SE1, SE5) 

2.	 Land Health Standards will be used with Best 

Management Practices for livestock grazing that 

meet or exceed those approved by the State of 

Montana in order to maintain, restore, or enhance 

water quality and site-specific vegetation 

conditions. (Goals LG1, LG2, RV1, RV2, WF1, 

WF3, WR1, WR3) 

3.	 Cooperatively managed allotments with the USFS, 

Dillon, Lewistown, and Missoula Field Offices will 

continue under existing Memoranda of 

Understanding. Cooperative management of the 

Bull Mountain Game Range will continue with the 

USFS. (Goals LG3, SE1, SE5) 

4.	 Applications for unleased allotments and vacant 

available lands (areas of land not segregated into 

allotments open to leasing by qualified applicants) 

will be considered on a case-by-case basis. (Goals 

LG3, SE1, SE5) 

5.	 Existing utilization objectives set through 

interdisciplinary NEPA, Allotment Management 

Plan, or Coordinated RMP planning processes will 

continue to be in effect. (Goals LG1, LG3, GS1, 

WF1, SE1, SE5 ) 

24 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

6.	 Adjustments to livestock management practices or 

livestock numbers, including increases or decreases, 

will be made based on results of monitoring studies, 

rangeland health assessments, allotment evaluations, 

and interdisciplinary review. (Goals LG1, LG3, 

GS1, RV1, WF1, SR1, WR1, WR3, SE1, SE5) 

7.	 The health and integrity of riparian areas and 

wetlands will be maintained and improved by using 

tools such as livestock fencing, alternate upland 

water sources or livestock grazing adjustments 

(timing and stocking rates). (Goals LG1, LG2, RV1, 

RV2, WF3, SE1, SE3, SE5) 

8.	 Grazing practices in riparian areas (accessibility of 

riparian areas to livestock, length of grazing season, 

stocking levels, timing of grazing, etc.) that retard 

or prevent attainment of riparian goals or proper 

functioning condition will be modified. Where 

livestock grazing is the cause of degraded 

conditions, grazing will be suspended on a case-bycase basis if adjusting practices is not effective in 

meeting riparian goals or proper functioning 

condition. (Goals LG1, LG2, RV1, RV2, WR1, WR3, 

WR4, SE1, SE4, SE5) 

9.	 Functional wildlife escape ramps will be installed 

and maintained on all water tanks on BLM lands. 

(Goals LG2, WF5, SE4) 

10.	 All new fences will be built to standard BLM 

wildlife specifications (USDI – BLM 1989) in the 

Bureau of Land Management Fencing Manual, (H1741-1) to allow wildlife passage, with the 

exception of fences built specifically to keep 

ungulates out of an area or fences built to meet 

specific public safety or other administrative 

purposes. Existing fences not meeting standard 

BLM wildlife specifications will be modified to 

meet the standard when reconstruction is done. 

(Goals LG2, WF5, SE4) 

11.	 Wildlife habitat, grassland, sagebrush, and 

shrubland health of individual allotments will be 

assessed. Livestock grazing guidelines will be 

implemented to maintain or improve conditions 

when degradation due to grazing has been 

identified. Livestock grazing guidelines for residual 

cover and monitoring measures for forage 

utilization will be developed for new or revised 

Allotment Management Plans. (Goals LG1, LG2, 

GS1, GS2, WF1, WF2, WF5, SE4) 

12.	 Because of fencing issues, a need to reduce conflicts 

between recreational use and grazing use, as well as 

a need to improve water quality, no new term 

grazing permits will be authorized on river islands. 

(Goals LG1, LG2, RV1, RV2, RM1, WR1, WR3, 

SE2, SE4) 

13.	 Water developments for livestock generally will not 

be established in areas where substantial conflicts 

with wildlife forage and habitat could occur. (Goals 

LG1, LG2, WF5, SE4) 

14.	 Range improvements generally will be designed to 

achieve both wildlife and range objectives. (Goals 

LG1, LG2, LG3, WF5, SE4) 

15.	 Sufficient forage and cover will be provided for 

wildlife on seasonal habitat. (Goals LG1, LG2, 

WF5, WF7, SE4) 

16.	 For allotments without specific management 

objectives set through an interdisciplinary planning 

process, the utilization objective as measured at the 

end of the grazing season will be 55 percent on nonnative seedlings and 45 percent on native 

herbaceous forage plants, on a pasture average 

basis. (These utilization percentages will maintain 

or enhance most plant communities found in the 

Decision Area to achieve or make progress toward 

meeting Land Health Standards.) Lower or higher 

utilization objectives may be acceptable when set 

through an interdisciplinary planning or NEPA 

process to achieve resource objectives. (Goals LG1, 

LG3, GS1, WF1, SE1, SE4, SE5) 

17.	 Grazing uses on lands proposed for acquisition will 

be considered on a case-by-case basis based on the 

values identified for the acquisition. (Goals LG3, 

SE1, SE2, SE4, SE5) 

18.	 No new kind of livestock conversions from sheep or 

cattle to horses will be allowed on existing 

allotments smaller than 160 acres. No new horse 

permits or leases will be offered on available vacant 

parcels less than 160 acres in size. In both cases, 

exceptions may be granted in rare cases of 

intermingled ownership where Land Health 

Standards are met and/or where standards are 

expected to be maintained under horse use. (Goal 

LG1) 

19.	 BLM will develop and implement appropriate 

grazing strategies in grizzly bear distribution zones. 

(Goals LG2, WF4) 

20.	 Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished 

during the life of this plan will be evaluated for 

suburban/urban interface issues, important wildlife 

habitat, riparian values, or recreational 

considerations before re-offering the grazing 

preference on the allotment for permit or lease. 

(Goals LG1, LG3, WF3, WF5, RM1, SE4) 

21.	 Areas identified for prescribed burning will be 

rested from livestock grazing up to one year prior to 

treatment, if necessary, to produce fine fuels to 

carry the burn. Treatment areas will be rested for a 

minimum of two growing seasons following 

treatment to promote recovery of vegetation. 

Livestock rest for more or less than two growing 

seasons could be justified on a case-by-case basis. 

(Goals GV1, LG1, LG3, GS1, FM2, WF1, SE4) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

22.	 Range projects will be maintained as long as needed 

to meet management objectives. Maintenance will 

be assigned to grazing permittees, other authorized 

public land users, or the BLM. Routine maintenance 

will be completed according to the maintenance 

schedule per the terms and conditions of existing 

cooperative agreements. (Goals LG1, GS1, RV1, 

RV2, WF1, WR1, WR3, SE4) 

23.	 No change in livestock conversions from cattle to 

domestic sheep or goats will be allowed in 

allotments within occupied wild sheep habitat. New 

sheep and goat allotments or conversions from 

cattle to sheep or goats will be permitted a 

minimum of 5 miles from known bighorn sheep 

habitat. This distance will be greater if deemed 

necessary through site-specific analysis or a 

cooperative agreement with other federal or state 

agencies. (Goals LG1, WF5, SE4) 

Monitoring 

The BLM will record and update the number of 

allotments and acres that meet the Land Health 

Standards and the total number of allotments and acres 

assessed. 

Measuring trends in vegetative production, structure, 

and composition, soil/site stability, watershed function, 

and integrity of biotic community will be accomplished 

through periodic rangeland health assessments following 

procedures outlined in Interpreting Indicators of 

Rangeland Health (Pellant et al. 2005), Rangeland 

Health Standards and Guidelines (USDI-BLM 1997), 

BLM Manual 4180 and Handbook H-4180-1 guiding 

implementation of the rangeland health standards, and 

methodologies found in the 4400 BLM Technical 

References and handbook series. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Goals 

Goal FM1 – Provide an appropriate management 

response to all wildland fires, emphasizing firefighter 

and public safety. 

Goal FM2 – Move toward restoring and maintaining 

desired ecological conditions consistent with appropriate 

fire regimes. 

Goal FM3 – Minimize the adverse effects of fire and 

fire suppression activities on resources, resource uses, 

and wildland-urban interface. 

Goal FM4 – Promote seamless fire management 

planning across jurisdictions within the boundaries of 

the BFO. 

Goal FM5 – Protect life and property by treating 

hazardous fuels on BLM lands. 

Management Actions 

Allowable Uses (Goals FM1, FM2, FM3, FM4, 

FM5) 

BFO lands are designated into fire management 

categories described below. 

Category B Areas 

These are areas where unplanned fire (natural or humancaused) is likely to cause negative effects, but these 

effects can be minimized or avoided through fuels 

management, prevention of human caused fire, or other 

strategies. Prevention and mitigation programs to reduce 

unwanted fire ignitions and resource threats will be 

emphasized. Full fire suppression will generally be the 

appropriate management response for unplanned 

wildland fire. Fire and non-fire fuels treatments reduce 

the effects of unplanned wildland fire. Restorative 

treatments may consist of one or more non-fire 

treatments before the use of fire will be considered. 

Category C Areas 

These are areas where wildland fire use and prescribed 

fire are desired to manage ecosystems but there are 

substantial constraints that must be considered for their 

use. These constraints include important wildlife habitat, 

air quality, or threatened and endangered species. 

Additional considerations may include maximum 

acreage burned under wildland fire use, time of year, or 

number of acres burned per decade from all types of fire. 

These areas will receive lower suppression priority in 

multiple wildland fire situations. Fire and non-fire fuels 

treatments will be utilized to ensure constraints are met 

or to reduce any hazardous effects of unplanned 

wildland fire. 

Fire management objectives are associated with Fire 

Management Units (FMUs). BFO-administered lands 

are broken into nine FMUs. The FMUs have B and C 

designations applied. Approximately 52,000 acres are 

designated in Category B, with 255,000 acres in 

Category C (Table 9 and Map 2). 

Fire Management Unit (FMU) boundaries are generally 

based on watershed boundaries. The FMUs follow 

watershed boundaries with the following two 

exceptions: The Missouri and the Big Hole watersheds 

are each broken into two FMUs due to the urban 

interface areas surrounding Helena and Wise River. The 

Missouri watershed FMUs are Central Missouri and 

Upper Missouri, and the Big Hole watershed FMUs are 

Big Hole and Wise River. 

26 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 9 

Fire Polygons by Fire Management Unit 

FMU Category1 BLM Acres2 

Big Hole C 51,000 

Blackfoot B 1,000 

Central Missouri B 37,000 

Gallatin B 2,000 

Jefferson C 82,000 

Upper Clark Fork B 1,000 

Upper Missouri C 115,000 

Wise River B 10,000 

Yellowstone C 8,000 

1

Category and associated treatments only apply to BLM 

land within each unit. 

2

Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 1,000. 

Actions 

1.	 The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Helena 

National Forest, Gallatin National Forest, and the 

State of Montana DNRC in conjunction with the 

Butte Field Office will implement fire preparedness, 

prevention, and suppression on BLM administered 

lands through the interagency offset and six party 

fire protection agreements, and other interagency 

agreements. (Goals FM1, FM4) 

2.	 BLM will provide assistance to communities in 

developing and maintaining community wildland 

fire protection plans. (Goals FM1, FM5) 

3.	 Priority of fire management activities will be placed 

on fuels reduction in WUI areas in conjunction with 

completed Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 

(Goals FM1, FM4, FM5) 

4.	 Fire management activities (wildland fire 

suppression; fuels treatments; and fire mitigation, 

education and prevention) will be prioritized by 

their risk to life and property across the Decision 

Area. Fires that are adjacent to or near WUI will 

have highest priority for fire suppression. (Goals 

FM1, FM5) 

5.	 BLM will implement management actions that 

maintain or move plant communities to the historic 

fire regime and condition classes. In areas where the 

environment has changed substantially and a return 

to historic conditions is not possible or ecologically 

desirable, the appropriate fire regime will be 

determined based on existing conditions and current 

management. (Goals FM2, GS1, FW1, WF1) 

6.	 Fire management will focus on maintaining fire 

dependent ecosystems and restoring or maintaining 

those areas outside their natural balance through 

mechanical, chemical, and/or prescribed fire 

treatments. (Goals FM2, FM3, GS1, FW1, WF1) 

7.	 Fire management activities outside of the WUI 

areas will use Fire Regime, Condition Class (FRCC) 

to determine level of fuels treatments. (Goals FM2, 

FM3) 

8.	 For all prescribed fire projects, BLM will evaluate 

habitat type, soils, fuel conditions, project 

objectives, and risk when determining seasonality 

for burning. (Goals FM3, GS1, FW1, WF1, SR1, 

SR2, SE4) 

9.	 Planned prescribed fire unit size will be determined 

by an interdisciplinary team through site-specific 

NEPA analysis. (Goals FM2, FM3) 

10.	 Any wildland fire that is eligible for Wildland Fire 

Use (WFU) will require a site-specific Wildland 

Fire Implementation Plan (WFIP) before it can be 

managed as such. (Goals FM2, FM3) 

11.	 BLM will manage naturally ignited wildland fires in 

the Elkhorn Mountains under the prescription 

guidelines established in the Elkhorn Mountains 

Fire Management Plan. (Goals FM2, FM3) 

12.	 Incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, and 

other incident management activities will be located 

outside of riparian areas. If unavoidable, an 

exemption could be made by a line officer. (Goals 

FM3, RV1, RV2, WF3, WR1, WR3, SE4) 

13.	 Use of retardant in Wilderness Areas or WSAs will 

be avoided and will require line officer approval. 

(Goals FM3, RM1, WSA1, SE2, SE4) 

14.	 Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics will be used 

when working in Wilderness Areas or Wilderness 

Study Areas (WSAs), following the Interim 

Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under 

Wilderness Review (BLM Handbook H-8550-1). 

(Goals FM3, RM1, WSA1, SE2, SE4) 

15.	 Use of heavy equipment will be restricted to areas 

outside of Wilderness or WSAs. (Goals FM3, RM1, 

WSA1, SE2, SE4) 

16.	 Spread of non-native invasive aquatic species as 

well as additional resource issues will be addressed 

in the Butte Field Office Fire Management Plan to 

be revised after finalization of this RMP. (Goals 

FM3, WF3, WR1, SE4) 

17.	 Management-ignited prescribed fire will not be 

conducted between May 1st and August 30th to 

protect nesting migratory birds, unless breeding bird 

surveys document low potential impact to breeding 

birds. (Goals FM3, WF5, SE4) 

18.	 In grassland and shrubland habitats, BLM will plan 

for prescribed burns that do not consume aboveground vegetation on more than 80 percent (on 

average) of each unit by surface area. (Goals FM2, 

FM3, GS1, WF1, WF5, WF7, SE4) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

19.	 Delivery of chemical retardant, foam or additives to 

live streams will be avoided. Fish screens (1/8 inch 

diameter holes) on hoses will be required when 

removing water from fish bearing streams during 

fire management activities. Maps of fish bearing 

streams will be included in the BFO Fire 

Management Plan for use in initial attack of 

wildland fires. Aerial delivery of retardant will meet 

Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation 

Operations (USDI-BLM et al. 2009). (Goals FM3, 

RV2, WF3, WF5, WR1, SE4) 

20.	 Following large wildland fires, burned areas will be 

evaluated for appropriate timber salvage as well as 

biological and physical rehabilitation activities. 

(Goals FM1, FM3, FM5, SR1, SR2, WR1, WR3, 

SE1) 

21.	 BLM will use the BLM’s Emergency Fire 

Rehabilitation Handbook (H-1742-1) outlining the 

process for implementing emergency fire 

rehabilitation projects following wildland fires and 

wildland fire use. (Goal FM3) 

22.	 Emergency fire rehabilitation funds will be used to: 

•	 Protect life, property, and soil, water and 

vegetation resources; 

•	 Prevent unacceptable onsite or offsite damage; 

•	 Facilitate meeting land use plan goals and other 

federal laws; and 

•	 Reduce the invasion and establishment of 

undesirable or invasive vegetation. (Goals 

FM3, NW1, SR1, SR2, WR1, WR3) 

Monitoring 

Monitoring will determine whether fire management 

cooperation, planning, strategies, practices, and activities 

are meeting safety issues for personnel involved in fire 

operations and resource management objectives and 

concerns. Fire management plans and policies will be 

updated as needed to keep current with national and state 

fire management direction. Scheduled pre/post-season 

fire meetings will be conducted to evaluate fire 

management effectiveness in meeting goals and to reassess program direction. 

Monitoring of the Fuels program will be done annually 

based on acres treated by treatment type and by set 

priority (utilizing National and State guidance for 

Wildland Urban Interface prioritization). The 

effectiveness of treatments will be noted for changes in 

FRCC. Databases will be used in tracking the Fuels 

program. 

An indication of pre-fire condition and post-fire effects 

will be captured by monitoring wildland fuels loads, 

vegetative conditions, and other ecological parameters as 

appropriate for resource objectives. Monitoring methods 

may include fuels and vegetation transects, photo points, 

density, cover and frequency plots, and ocular estimates. 

Wildfire rehabilitation effectiveness monitoring studies 

will be encouraged to determine whether emergency 

rehabilitation objectives are met. Monitoring 

requirements and methods will be project specific. 

Noxious Weed Management 

Goal 

Goal NW1 – Minimize infestations of invasive plants 

and noxious weeds. 

Objective (Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, LG2, WF1, 

SR2, SE3) 

The Butte Field Office objective for noxious weed 

treatments is to treat an estimated 21,000 to 50,000 acres 

of weeds per decade, not including biocontrol measures 

such as insect releases, grazing, or use of pathogens. 

Approximately 10 to 15 percent of proposed weed 

treatment acres are expected to be newly treated acres. 

Most of the treated acres will be repeated treatments on 

the same areas because successful weed control usually 

requires multiple treatments and/or combinations of 

treatment methods. 

Management Actions 

1.	 BLM will manage Montana state and county 

designated noxious weeds and invasive plants 

according to the principles of Integrated Weed 

Management, Partners Against Weeds: An Action 

Plan for the BLM (USDI-BLM 1996), Vegetation 

Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States (USDI-BLM 1991b), Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on BLM Lands in 17 Western 

States (USDI-BLM 2007), the Montana Weed 

Management Plan (Duncan 2005), the Noxious 

Weed Control Plan, Bureau of Land Management, 

Butte District, Headwaters Resource Area (USDIBLM 1986) or the most current BFO noxious weed 

control plan, and other applicable federal, state, and 

local laws, statutes, plans, and regulations. (Goals 

NW1, GS1, FW1, LG2, WF1, SR2, SE3) 

2.	 BLM will encourage the development of weed 

management areas where the landowners and users 

are cooperatively working to manage noxious weeds 

within designated areas. (Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, 

SR2, SE3, SE4) 

3.	 BLM will continue cooperative agreements with 

county and state entities. Management efforts will 

be coordinated with other federal, state, and county 

agencies, weed management areas, and private 

landowners and organizations. (Goals NW1, GS1, 

FW1, WF1, SR2, SE3, SE4) 

4.	 Prevention and control of weed infestations in 

special designation areas and weed management 

28 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

areas will be a high priority. (Goals NW1, AC1, 

NT1, WSA1, WSR1, SE2, SE4) 

5.	 BLM will focus prevention of weed spread along 

roads, trails, waterways, recreation sites, and 

disturbed sites associated with project 

implementation. (Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, RV1, 

WF1, RM2, SE4) 

6.	 Where applicable, plant communities will be 

restored to promote resistance to weed invasion, 

using accepted management techniques, methods, 

and procedures. (Goals NW1,GS1, FW1, WF1, SR2, 

SE3, SE4) 

7.	 BLM will continue to use a combination of cultural, 

physical, chemical, and biological treatments for 

weed control. Chemical and biological treatment 

techniques will conform to BLM guidelines and 

state and federal laws. Standard operating 

procedures described in the September 2007 Record 

of Decision for the Final Vegetation Treatments 

Using Herbicides on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in 17 Western States Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement will be used. 

(Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, WF1, SR2, SE3, SE4) 

8.	 Weed management prescriptions will be included in 

all new vegetation treatment projects and 

incorporated where possible in all existing 

contracts, agreements, and land use authorizations 

that would result in ground-disturbing activities. 

(Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, WF1, SR2, SE3, SE4) 

9.	 Weed seed free forage will be used on BLM lands. 

Forage subject to this rule will include hay, grains, 

cubes, pelletized feeds, straw, and mulch. (Goals 

NW1, GS1, FW1, WF1, SR2, SE3, SE4) 

10.	 Noxious weed control using domestic sheep and/or 

goats in occupied bighorn sheep habitat will 

generally be prohibited. Goats and sheep could be 

used for weed control on wild sheep winter ranges 

when wild sheep are absent. To minimize contact 

with bighorn sheep, domestic sheep and goats used 

for weed control will only be allowed to graze for 

up to 1 month near occupied bighorn sheep habitat 

and there will be a minimum buffer of 2 miles 

between domestic and wild sheep. Bedding grounds 

will be located a minimum of 4 miles from known 

bighorn sheep habitat. The use of domestic sheep 

and goats will only be allowed from May 1 to July 

31 unless coordinated with MFWP. A herder will be 

required to be on site at all times and to be able to 

communicate with the BLM, the herd owner and 

MFWP. If bighorn sheep and domestic sheep and 

goats come into contact, the herder will be required 

to contact the BLM and MFWP immediately. 

(Goals LG1, NW1, WF5, SE4) 

11.	 To minimize the risk of inadvertently spraying 

desirable riparian vegetation and waterways, aerial 

spraying of herbicides or pesticides will not occur 

when eye-level winds are greater than 6 miles per 

hour, or within a minimum of 100 feet from 

streams, or wetlands or in occupied or high value 

habitat for sensitive species of plants or animals. 

Aerial spraying will be conducted in a way that 

minimizes the effects on native forbs, grasses, and 

shrubs. Additionally, no herbicides or pesticides 

which may negatively affect sagebrush will be used 

aerially in sensitive sagebrush habitats. (Goals 

NW1, GS2, RV1, RV2, WF3, WF7, WR1) 

12.	 To prevent special status plants from being sprayed 

with herbicides, BLM, county, and contractor 

personnel participating in weed treatment activities 

will be provided with training to identify special 

status plants and maps of special status plant 

populations associated with weed treatment areas. 

(Goals NW1, WF4, WF5, WF6) 

13.	 All contractor and BLM equipment will be powerwashed to remove weed seed before entering 

ground disturbing project areas. (Goals NW1, GS1, 

FW1, WF1, SR2, SE3, SE4) 

14.	 BLM will actively conduct noxious weed outreach 

and education for BLM personnel, public land 

users, and the general public. Outreach and 

education will consist of identification, prevention 

and control methods, and the benefits of restoration. 

(Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, WF1, RM1, RM2, SR2, 

SE3, SE4) 

15.	 Outreach/education on noxious weeds will be 

provided to the public at campgrounds and 

trailheads. (Goals NW1, GS1, FW1, WF1, RM2, 

SR2, SE3, SE4) 

Monitoring 

Monitoring will be conducted to determine if weed 

treatment strategies are effective at the project level and 

Planning Area- and Decision Area-wide. 

Monitoring will be focused on identification of new 

infestations, spread of existing infestations, effectiveness 

of treatments activities, and response of vegetative 

communities to weed treatments and other specific 

influences. Monitoring will provide information on the 

success of management strategies defined for the Field 

Office and for site-specific projects and weed plans. 

Monitoring will also provide feedback in order to 

evaluate management strategies, decisions, and 

implementation, and will provide the evaluation 

necessary to adapt management strategies to provide the 

best weed control and prevention. 

Noxious weed monitoring will be designed to correctly 

monitor the weed species and desired 

community/species, relative to the known or predicted 

influence to the vegetation. Areas with little or no 

resource use could require only minimal monitoring, 

such as occasional visual observation. Areas of higher 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 29 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

use or resource concern may require more intensive 

monitoring. Monitoring for new infestations will usually 

be accomplished through inventories, surveys, and 

mapping most commonly in areas previously disturbed 

by fire or other activities, and in areas with high resource 

values where early detection is critical to maintain those 

values. Spread of existing infestations, treatment 

effectiveness, and effects on desired community/species 

will often be monitored simultaneously using stem 

counts, various estimation techniques, mapping of weed 

changes over time, and/or calculations using calibrated 

herbicide application equipment. 

NON-VEGETATION RESOURCES/USES 

Wildlife, Fish, Wildlife Habitat, Special 

Status and Priority Plant and Animal 

Species 

For the sake of this description of goals, objectives, and 

management actions, fish and aquatic habitat are 

considered a subset of wildlife and wildlife habitat. 

Goals 

Goal WF1 – Manage to provide a variety of welldistributed plant communities to support a diversity of 

habitats. 

Goal WF2 – Conserve, enhance, restore, or minimize 

impacts to areas of important wildlife habitat such as 

rare or limited seasonal habitats, corridors, blocks of 

intact functional habitat across the landscape, areas of 

low road-density, and foraging areas. 

Goal WF3 – Conserve, enhance, or restore special 

habitat features or minimize impacts to special habitat 

features including, but not limited to caves, cliffs, 

riparian areas, wetlands, snags, and down woody 

material. 

Goal WF4 – With all management activities or 

authorizations: conserve, enhance, restore, minimize 

impacts to, or contribute to the recovery of threatened, 

endangered, or candidate plant or animal species. 

Goal WF5 – With all management activities or 

authorizations: conserve or enhance sensitive and 

priority species and habitats; or minimize adverse effects 

to habitat of BLM sensitive plant and animal species to 

prevent the federal listing of these species. 

Goal WF6 – Collaborate and cooperate with non-BLM 

entities to conserve special status species and habitats. 

Goal WF7 – Protect, maintain, restore, and rehabilitate 

sagebrush habitat in occupied or historic sage grouse 

habitat (as mapped by MFWP). 

Objectives 

1.	 BLM will implement recovery activities for 

federally listed species by complying with and 

adopting current and future recovery plans (such as 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993)), Ute’s 

Ladies’ Tresses Recovery Plan, Grizzly Bear 

Management Plan for Southwest Montana (MFWP 

2002), Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Plan 

Strategy, Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 1987), Lynx Conservation 

Assessment and Strategy (see Appendix C), 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 

(USFWS 2007), and the Montana Bald Eagle 

Management Plan (MBEWG 1994). (Goals WF2, 

WF4, WF5, WF6, SE4) 

2.	 The BLM will manage habitat for sensitive 

terrestrial and aquatic species in a manner consistent 

with current and future restoration, conservation and 

recovery plans, and conservation agreements 

(westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Arctic 

grayling and prairie dog). Management activities 

will be designed and implemented consistent with 

adopted conservation strategies, including 

Montana's Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005), and current, 

accepted science for special status and priority 

species. (Goals WF2, WF4, WF5, WF6, SE4) 

3.	 The BLM will maintain functional blocks of 

security habitat for big game species across BLM 

lands. Where minimum-size blocks of security 

habitat (250 acres), as defined by Hillis et al. 

(1991), are located, they will be addressed and 

retained in a suitable condition throughout project 

planning and implementation. Protection of larger 

blocks of security habitat will also be addressed 

during project or watershed level planning. Where 

security habitat is limited or fragmented across the 

landscape, the BLM will emphasize improving 

habitat through vegetation treatments and road 

closures (including seasonal closures) to increase 

security habitat for big game species. (Goals WF1, 

WF2, SE4) 

4.	 To minimize disturbance to big game and grizzly 

bears, there will be no net increase in permanent 

roads built in areas where open road densities are 1 

mi/mi2

 or less in big game winter and calving 

ranges, and within the current distribution of grizzly 

bear unless this is not possible due to rights-of-way, 

leases, or permits. All practicable measures will be 

taken to assure that important habitats with low road 

densities remain in that condition. Open road 

densities in big game winter and calving ranges, and 

within the current distribution of grizzly bear will be 

reduced where they currently exceed 1 mi/mi2

. 

(Goals WF2, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

5.	 The BLM will manage for adequate numbers, 

species and sizes of snags and levels of downed 

wood to contribute to the needs of wildlife, 

invertebrates, fungi, bryophytes, saprophytes, 

lichens, other organisms, long-term soil 

30 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

productivity, nutrient cycling, carbon cycles and 

other ecosystem processes. To determine the "range 

of natural conditions" for snag densities, the BLM 

will follow the "Northern Region Snag Management 

Protocol" (USDA-FS 2000) until more current or 

site-specific information becomes available. 

Prescribed fire, mechanical treatments, inoculation, 

or other appropriate methods will be used to create 

snags and down woody material, where deficient, in 

appropriate vegetation types across the landscape. 

(Goals WF3, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

Management Actions 

Management actions are organized by sub-categories 

below. 

Special Status/Priority Species and RMP Emphasis 

1.	 The BLM will emphasize actions that promote 

conservation of special status wildlife species and 

the ecosystems on which they depend. BLM will 

also emphasize maintaining and supporting healthy, 

productive, and diverse populations and 

communities of native plants and animals (including 

big game species such as deer, elk, and bighorn 

sheep) appropriate to soil, climate, and landform. 

(Goals WF1, WF4, WF5, GS1, GS2, FW1, FW4, 

FW5, FW6, RV1, RM1, SE4) 

2.	 Consistent with the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (1973) and BLM policy, the BLM will 

ensure that actions are consistent with the 

conservation needs of special status species. The 

BLM will seek opportunities to conserve and 

improve special status species habitats and habitats 

for native plants and wildlife in project level 

planning and in other BLM authorized, funded, or 

approved activities (BLM Manual 6840 – Special 

Status Species Management, Endangered Species 

Act). (Goals WF4, WF5, WF6, SE4) 

3.	 For federally listed species (grizzly bear, Canada 

lynx, gray wolf [if listed]), the BLM will apply the 

threatened or endangered species screens described 

in Appendix C to assess effects of projects to these 

species and determine the need for consultation with 

USFWS under the Endangered Species Act. BLM 

will comply with the standards and guidelines in the 

Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy (Appendix C). (Goals WF4, SE4) 

4.	 Within the grizzly bear distribution area of the 

Northern Continental Divide ecosystem (Map 3), 

the BLM will implement non-discretionary terms 

and conditions identified in the USFWS biological 

opinion (BO) for this RMP. These terms and 

conditions are intended to ensure that actions 

conducted under the plan do not result in 

unexpected consequences that affect more grizzly 

bears than indicated in the incidental take statement 

in the BO, or result in additional effects to grizzly 

bears. In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of 

section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, the BLM 

will comply with the following terms and 

conditions: 

a.	 The BLM will include a clause in all new and 

revised grazing permits for allotments within 

the grizzly bear distribution area, requiring the 

permittee to notify the BLM as soon as is 

practical of any grizzly bear depredation on 

livestock or conflicts between grizzly bears and 

livestock, even if the conflict does not result in 

the loss of livestock. The BLM will coordinate 

with MFWP and USDA APHIS Wildlife 

Services personnel to determine appropriate 

action. 

b.	 BLM will include a clause in all new and 

revised grazing permits for the area within the 

grizzly bear distribution line requiring the 

permittee to properly treat or dispose of 

livestock carcasses as deemed necessary on a 

case-by-case basis by BLM in coordination 

with USFWS, so as to eliminate any potential 

attractant for bears. BLM will include guidance 

to permittees to contact MFWP if they need 

carcass disposal assistance. 

c.	 The BLM will maintain an up-to-date record of 

the grizzly bear conflicts and management 

actions that occur on lands managed by the 

Butte Field Office. “Conflict” is defined by the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC 

1986) as “a confrontation between man and/or 

his property and bear(s) in which the safety of 

man and/or bear(s) is jeopardized and/or 

property loss occurs.” This information will be 

submitted to the USFWS’ Montana Field 

Office in written form annually by June 1 for 

the preceding calendar year. 

d.	 The BLM will notify the USFWS Montana 

Field Office if a change in the status of sheep 

grazing in the field office is being considered 

and if the change could increase sheep grazing 

in or adjacent to occupied grizzly bear habitat. 

Changes that increase sheep grazing include 

increased sheep AUMs in established 

allotments or conversion of cattle allotments to 

sheep. 

e.	 The BLM will notify the USFWS Montana 

Field Office, within 72 hours of discovery of 

any livestock depredation by grizzly bears, 

grizzly bear-human conflict resulting from 

improper storage of food or attractants or the 

management removal or human-caused death of 

a grizzly bear. (Goal WF4) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 31 
Approved Resource Management Plan 

T. 16 N. R. 9 W. R. R. 5 W. 7 W. 

Helena 

Lewistown National Forest 

Field Office 

T. 14 N. Lincoln 

Lewis & Clark 

County 

Helena 

National Forest 

Missoula 

T. 12 N. Field Office

Marysville 

Powell 

County 

City
 

US Highway
 

State Highway
 

County / Field Office Boundary
 

Grizzly Distribution Area
 

BFO Affected Lands
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Local Government
 

Private Ownership
 

State of Montana
 

US Forest Service (USFS)
 

Miles Map 3: BFO Area Affected by 0 1 inch equals 5 miles 10 Grizzly Bear Terms and Conditions 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in January 2009 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

UTM Zone 12 North (NAD 1983) Projection 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual Butte Field Office or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may Approved Resource Management Plan not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and information may be updated without notification. 

32 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

5.	 If more than one grizzly bear is incidentally taken as 

a result of authorizations made under the RMP 

related to sanitation/food storage and/or livestock 

grazing during any ten year period, the BLM will 

reinitiate consultation with the USFWS. 

Additionally, if the level of incidental take 

associated with the RMP reaches, but does not 

exceed, the anticipated incidental take level, the 

BLM will informally consult with the USFWS 

regarding the adequacy of existing mechanisms to 

minimize potential take. (Goal WF4) 

6.	 BLM will implement the following conservation 

actions recommended by USFWS as discretionary 

actions to minimize or avoid adverse effects to the 

grizzly bear: 

a.	 The BLM will participate in ongoing 

interagency efforts to identify, map and manage 

linkage habitats essential to grizzly bear 

movement between ecosystems. 

b.	 The BLM will continue to manage roads on 

BLM lands to achieve lower road densities. 

c.	 Where grizzly bear use is known or likely to 

occur and where practicable, the BLM will 

delay disturbing activities during the spring in 

spring habitats to minimize displacement of 

grizzly bears. (Goal WF4) 

7.	 BLM will determine the distribution, abundance, 

and management needs of special-status plant and 

animal species and species of local interest 

occurring on BLM administered lands, and evaluate 

needed management for the conservation of these 

species. (Goals WF4, WF6, SE4) 

8.	 Field inspections will be conducted to identify 

special status plant species prior to authorized 

surface disturbing activities. Waivers for on-theground inventory may be granted in areas 

determined to have low potential based on previous 

research. (Goals WF4, WF5, SE4) 

9.	 Conservation actions, inventories, and monitoring 

for special status wildlife and aquatic species will be 

prioritized based on habitats at risk and rarity. 

(Goals WF4, WF5, SE4) 

10.	 BLM will maintain and improve critical or essential 

habitat to prevent deterioration and provide 

recovery for federally listed plant species. (Goals 

WF4, SE4) 

11.	 Timing restrictions on some activities may be used 

in special status species habitat. Human activities 

that disrupt special status species habitats during 

their seasons of use, particularly during the breeding 

and winter seasons will be avoided or minimized. 

(Goals WF4, WF5, SE4) 

12.	 The BLM will maintain, protect, and restore habitat 

for priority wildlife species. All federally listed and 

BLM sensitive species and their habitats are 

considered priority species and habitats. Additional 

priority wildlife species are based on public interest, 

density, diversity or population size including big 

game (such as elk, bighorn sheep, deer, and 

antelope) and migratory birds listed by USFWS and 

Level 1 and Level 2 species listed under the 

Montana Bird Conservation Plan (Partners in Flight 

2000). Tier I and Tier II habitat and species from 

Montana's Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy (MFWP 2005) are also 

considered priority species and habitats. Priority 

habitats include habitat for all special status species 

as well as riparian areas, dry savannah forest, 

special habitats including caves, cliffs, and snags 

and down woody material, sagebrush, bitterbrush 

communities and mountain mahogany communities. 

(Goals WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, WF6, WF7, 

GS1, GS2, FW4, RV1, FW6, SE4) 

13.	 The BLM will emphasize protection and restoration 

of habitats for native wildlife, plants, and special 

status species. There will be a focus on biological 

diversity by restoring vegetation cover types and 

structural stages that have declined substantially 

including dry, open forest habitats with low tree 

densities, meadow habitats, shrub and hardwood 

dominated riparian systems, as well as open 

grasslands and shrublands with low tree densities. 

Vegetation treatments will be designed and 

implemented to restore wildlife habitat to become 

more consistent with natural disturbance regimes 

and with the landform, climate, and biological and 

physical characteristics of the ecosystem. 

Management will emphasize moderate to large 

vegetation patch sizes and distribution to be more 

consistent with natural disturbance regimes and 

ecosystem characteristics. (Goals WF1, WF2, WF3, 

WF4, WF5, WF7, GS1, FM2, FW1, FW4, RV1, SE4) 

14.	 Management techniques, including but not limited 

to prescribed and managed wildland fire, 

prescriptive livestock grazing, planting, exclusion to 

intense disturbance, timber harvest and other 

mechanical methods will be used to restore, 

maintain or improve the ecological conditions of 

vegetation communities for the purpose of 

improving forage, nesting, breeding, and security 

habitat, hiding cover and travel corridors for a wide 

diversity of terrestrial and aquatic species. (Goals 

WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, WF7, GS1, FM2, 

FW1, SE4) 

15.	 The BLM will maintain suitable habitat conditions 

and minimize fragmentation in linkage corridors 

among habitats for priority species. The BLM will 

emphasize providing habitat of sufficient quantity 

and quality, including habitat complexity, forest 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 33 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

openings, edges, and ecotones, to enhance 

biological diversity and provide quality, sustainable 

habitat for connectivity of native wildlife species in 

movement corridors. BLM land will be managed to 

consider the relationship between large special 

status species populations and smaller isolated 

populations whenever possible. The intent is to 

maintain the function and diversity of all habitats in 

large areas (patches) distributed across the 

landscape, and minimize long-term human 

disturbance to wildlife to provide habitat for 

wildlife movement, dispersal, and home ranges. In 

the context of wildlife habitat fragmentation, the 

size of “patches” will be related to the size of the 

BLM parcel(s) and adjacent federal or state lands. 

(Goals WF1, WF2, WF4, WF5, WF6, SE4) 

16.	 For habitat enhancement, fire rehabilitation and 

other restoration projects, a variety of techniques 

will be considered to protect plantings and seedlings 

from wildlife and domestic grazing including rest, 

fencing, netting, and wildlife repellants. (Goals 

WF1, FW1, FM3) 

17.	 Habitat improvement projects will be implemented 

where necessary to restore wildlife habitat and/or to 

improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat. 

(Goals WF3, WF4, WF5, WF7, SE4) 

18.	 At the Field Office scale, BLM will enhance and 

improve big game winter range by protecting and 

restoring mountain mahogany stands where conifers 

have become established. Detrimental effects on 

mountain mahogany stands will be avoided with 

projects in big game winter range whenever 

possible. When detrimental effects are unavoidable, 

loss of mountain mahogany will be minimized. 

BLM will also proactively restore the distribution 

and vigor of bitterbrush stands through vegetative 

treatments designed to reduce competing plants, 

create a variety of age classes, and create conditions 

conducive to bitterbrush natural regeneration. 

(Goals WF1, WF2, GS2, RM1, SE3, SE4) 

External Coordination 

19.	 BLM will coordinate with MFWP to determine 

whether habitat and other conditions exist that 

would allow successful reintroduction of locally or 

regionally absent species, such as westslope 

cutthroat trout, sage grouse, beaver, bighorn sheep, 

mountain goat, and prairie dogs. (Goals WF4, WF5, 

WF6, SE4) 

20.	 BLM will cooperate and collaborate with federal, 

tribal, and state wildlife management agencies as 

well as private landowners to improve habitat for 

wildlife (including game species as per Executive 

Order 13443) and special status plants. (Goals WF4, 

WF5, WF6) 

21.	 Where consistent with habitat capabilities and 

national conservation direction, the BLM will 

contribute to meeting state wildlife species 

management objectives for big game, special status, 

and priority species. (Goals WF4, WF5, RM1) 

Planning 

22.	 Fish and wildlife will continue to be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis as part of project level planning. 

Such evaluation will consider the significance of the 

proposed project and the effects to fish and wildlife 

habitat. Measures to reduce impacts will be attached 

as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects 

with management objectives for fish and wildlife 

habitat. (Goals WF4, WF5, SE4) 

23.	 During project level planning, key habitat 

components that will be emphasized include: winter 

range, seasonal migration corridors, breeding sites, 

roosting sites, and foraging habitats adjacent to 

raptor nest sites. Important blocks of hiding, 

security, and thermal cover for big game will be 

considered during project planning. (Goals WF2, 

WF3, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

24.	 Existing fences identified as barriers to wildlife 

movement will be considered for removal or 

reconstruction to follow BLM fence specifications 

for wildlife (USDI–BLM 1989) described in the 

Bureau of Land Management Fencing Manual, (H1741-1). (Goals WF2, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

25.	 Sage grouse management activities will be designed 

and implemented to be consistent with adopted 

conservation strategies such as the Bureau of Land 

Management National Sage-Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy (USDI-BLM 2004) and 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for 

Sage Grouse in Montana – Final (MSGWG 2005) 

and current, accepted science. (Goals WF6, WF7, 

GS1, GS2, SE4) 

26.	 To the extent possible, BLM will: maintain large 

patches of high quality sagebrush in occupied or 

historic sage grouse habitat (as mapped by MFWP); 

maintain connections between sagebrush habitats; 

and enlarge the size of sagebrush patches in 

occupied or historic sage grouse habitat. (Goals 

GS2, WF2, WF5, WF6, WF7, SE4) 

27.	 Vegetation altering activities could occur in sage 

grouse habitat where they do not result in long-term 

loss of habitats or contribute to the need to federally 

list sage grouse. Sufficient sagebrush densities and 

cover will be retained in sage grouse habitat. (Goals 

WF5, WF7, SE4) 

Snags and Down Wood 

28.	 Within appropriate habitats, snags and down woody 

material will be managed to be well-distributed 

across the landscape in sufficient quantity and 

34 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

quality to support species dependent upon these 

habitats. (Goals WF1, WF3, WF5, FW6, SE4) 

29.	 At the project level, dead and down woody material 

will be retained in amounts that are within the range 

of natural variability for the plant community, to the 

extent compatible with reforestation objectives, fire 

hazard reduction standards, and public safety. 

(Goals WF3, WF5, SR2, SE4) 

30.	 In grasslands and shrublands undergoing vegetation 

treatments such as the removal of conifer 

encroachment through mechanical thinning or 

prescribed burning, all trees and snags with 

characteristics of old forest structure will be left 

standing to the extent practicable. (Goals WF1, 

WF3, FW6, SE4) 

31.	 Management for wildlife values associated with 

large amounts of down wood and snags will be 

emphasized less in WUI areas to allow for fuels 

reduction projects that would reduce the potential 

for extreme wildland fire. (Goal FM5) 

Seasonal Restrictions 

32.	 Disturbance of crucial wildlife breeding areas such 

as known den sites or big game breeding or winter 

range will be minimized. Actions that cause 

disturbance will be minimized to reduce negative 

effects to special status and priority species during 

seasonally sensitive periods such as the breeding, 

nesting, winter, and roosting seasons. (Goals WF4, 

WF2, WF5, SE4) 

33.	 As identified through project-level NEPA analyses, 

seasonal timing restrictions on projects that cause 

disturbance to wildlife will be applied where needed 

to minimize the impacts of human activities on 

important seasonal wildlife habitat. The major types 

of seasonal wildlife habitat and the time periods in 

which restrictions may be needed are: big game 

winter and spring range (12/1 to 5/30), big game 

calving range/habitat (5/1 to 6/30), mountain goat 

nursery areas (5/1 to 7/15), mountain goat breeding 

areas (11/1 to 12/31), mountain goat winter range 

(10/15 to 5/15), grizzly bear spring and summer 

range (4/1 to 9/1), and grizzly bear denning habitat 

(10/1 to 4/30). These dates may be revised when 

new data become available. (Goals WF2, WF4, 

WF5, WR3, SE4) 

34.	 Noise disturbance and management activities will 

be avoided or minimized within 0.5 miles of raptor 

nests during the nesting and brood rearing period. 

(Goals WF2, SE4) 

Raptors 

35.	 BLM will close rock climbing on spires with active 

raptor nests and educate the public about the 

importance of avoiding such locations to minimize 

disturbance to raptors. (Goals WF5, SE4) 

36.	 Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs, rocky outcrops 

or in trees) will be protected from removal or 

destruction for 5 years, or the period a known 

preferred prey species fluctuates from population 

highs to lows. Nests will not have to be retained if 

physically damaged past the point of repair by 

raptors. In forested habitat types, a 0.25 mile buffer 

of suitable habitat around unoccupied nests will be 

maintained for 5 years. (Goals WF5, SE4) 

37.	 Bald eagle nesting and roosting habitats will be 

actively protected from loss due to fire, insect, or 

disease by reducing vegetation competition and 

encroachment in these habitats. (Goals WF5, SE4) 

Bats 

38.	 The BLM will emphasize protecting and restoring 

special habitat components or features that 

contribute to the productivity of bat species. These 

features include, but are not limited to, caves, cliffs, 

riparian areas and wetlands, and snags and down 

wood. (Goals WF3, WF5, SE4) 

39.	 Caves and abandoned mines will be surveyed and 

assessed for bat use of features. The BLM will 

determine the need for closures or seasonal closures 

for activities affecting caves and abandoned mines. 

Hibernacula closure dates will be approximately 

October 15 to May 1 and maternity closure dates 

will be approximately April 15 to September 30. 

(Goals WF5, AM3, SE4) 

40.	 Bat gates or other suitable measures will be used to 

protect bat habitat when bat use of caves or 

abandoned mines is determined. Public health and 

safety will take precedence over protection of bat 

habitat if hazardous mine openings cannot be 

remediated with installation of bat gates. Efforts 

will be made to safely remove resident bats prior to 

closure. (Goals WF5, AM3, SE4) 

41.	 Clearing of vegetation, except noxious weeds, will 

not be allowed within 250 feet of the entrance of 

caves and abandoned mines with bat populations, 

except when needed for public safety. Vegetation 

could be removed if necessary when installing bat 

gates, or when it becomes an obstruction to bat 

movement. (Goals WF3, WF5. NW1, AM1, SE4) 

Recreation 

42.	 BLM will develop and implement human food 

storage regulations and guidelines in grizzly bear 

distribution zones in coordination with MFWP and 

other agencies. (Goals WF4, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

43.	 As per Executive Order 13443, the BLM will 

facilitate the expansion of hunting opportunities and 

management of game species and their habitats. 

(Goals RM1, SE2) 

44.	 To prevent spread of non-native, invasive aquatic 

species, BLM will post educational signage at all 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

BLM boat ramps on waterborne invasive species. 

(Goals WF5, WR1, RM1, SE2, SE4). 

Fish/Aquatics 

45.	 The BLM will emphasize maintaining diverse, 

healthy, productive, well-distributed aquatic habitats 

and communities to increase populations of native 

fish and other aquatic species. (Goals WF2, WF5, 

RV1, RV2, WR1, WR4, SE4) 

46.	 The BLM will emphasize maintaining and/or 

restoring the structure, composition, and function of 

aquatic ecosystems to support a diversity of aquatic 

plant and animal species and emphasize hydrologic 

connectivity within watersheds to maintain and/or 

restore habitat and connectivity for populations of 

aquatic dependent species. (Goals WF2, RV1, RV2, 

WR1, WR4, SE4) 

47.	 The BLM will restore and/or maintain riparian 

structure, composition, and processes, including 

physical integrity of riparian ecosystems; amount 

and distribution of woody material to sustain 

physical and biological complexity; adequate 

summer and winter thermal regulation; water 

quality and hydrologic processes; distribution and 

diversity of riparian vegetative communities; and 

source habitats for riparian dependent species. 

(Goals WF2, WF3, RV1, WR1, WR4, SE4) 

48.	 BLM will opportunistically enhance or restore 

habitat for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout and Arctic grayling. The fisheries program will 

be coordinated with other programs to improve 

aquatic habitat. (Goals WF5, WF6, RV2, WR1, SE4) 

49.	 The distribution and abundance of native fishes and 

other aquatic species will be increased through the 

maintenance or restoration of habitat. (Goals WF5, 

WR1, WR4, SE4) 

50.	 In select areas identified for native fish restoration, 

BLM will collaborate with MFWP to remove nonnative fish species that out-compete or hybridize 

with native fish species through the use of 

electrofishing or other physical or chemical means. 

Genetically pure and slightly hybridized (less than 

20 percent hybridization) westslope cutthroat trout 

populations will be managed by maintaining or 

restoring high-quality habitats and by expanding 

populations. (Goals WF5, WF6, RV2, WR1, SE4) 

51.	 Transportation system effects on fisheries resources 

will be reduced. To the extent possible, roads will 

be located, designed and maintained to reduce 

sedimentation, identify and remove unnatural 

barriers, eliminate fish passage barriers (when 

desired), and restore or maintain riparian vegetation. 

(Goals WF2, WF5, TF1, RV1, RV2, WR1, WR3, 

WR4, SE4) 

52.	 Watershed restoration projects will be designed to 

promote the long-term ecological integrity of 

ecosystems, conserve the genetic integrity of native 

species, and contribute to meeting riparian 

standards. (Goals WF5, RV1, RV2, WR1, WR4, 

SE4) 

Monitoring 

Wildlife 

Vegetation transects, photo points, plot surveys as well 

as other appropriate sampling methods will be used to 

monitor wildlife habitat, including habitat used by 

special status and priority species, by determining plant 

species diversity, abundance, distribution and structure. 

Monitoring data will be used to assess changes in 

distribution, canopy, vegetative quality and composition 

of sagebrush/grasslands, coniferous forests and 

riparian/wetland habitats. This monitoring will be 

supplemented with data collected for riparian and 

wetland monitoring, rangeland health surveys, utilization 

surveys and timber stand monitoring to determine if 

goals and objectives are being met. 

Before vegetative treatments or habitat restoration 

activities, vegetation transects, photo points, and/or plots 

will be established to show the approximate percent of 

habitat types, structure, and cover. After vegetation 

treatments have been implemented, or natural events 

have occurred, changes in species composition and 

structure will be monitored and compared to pretreatment conditions. Monitoring will be used to assess 

the quality and change of habitat types before and after 

treatments. 

The monitoring of unique habitat features (e.g. caves) 

will be done in accordance with techniques designed for 

these features such as bat surveys. 

The quality and quantity of key habitats such as riparian 

zones, sagebrush, aspen, bitterbrush and mountain 

mahogany stands will be assessed and monitored. 

Monitoring of important habitats may include horizontal 

and vertical canopy cover, structure, browse condition, 

diversity of understory species and fragmentation of 

habitats. 

The Butte Field Office will support and assist MFWP in 

monitoring wildlife habitat and population goals through 

the Montana Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Strategy. 

Monitoring for special status wildlife species will be 

designed to assess the distribution, habitat condition, and 

trend of species populations known or suspected to be 

limited in distribution, uncommon within a specific area, 

or potentially vulnerable to certain activities occurring 

on public land. Monitoring for special status wildlife 

species may include visual surveys, transects, remote 

camera surveys, tracking surveys and radio telemetry 

tracking. Monitoring will be designed to aid in assessing 

36 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

the effects of management activities on special status 

species as well as to provide data that will be used in 

species status reviews. 

Monitoring of known populations of special status 

species (bald eagle, peregrine falcon, sage grouse, 

pygmy rabbit, and raptors, etc.), in conjunction with 

federal, state and private agencies or organizations will 

continue. Monitoring may include the use of research 

projects or periodic population/habitat inventories to 

determine habitat extent or population status. This 

monitoring may be accomplished through contracts 

and/or through partnerships. 

As stated in “The Effects of the Butte BLM Land 

Management Plan on Grizzly Bears Biological 

Opinion”, any conflicts between grizzly bear and 

humans will be tracked and reported to the USFWS by 

June 1 for the preceding calendar year. “Conflict” is 

defined by the IGBC (1986) as “a confrontation between 

man and/or his property and bear(s) in which the safety 

of man and/or bear(s) is jeopardized and/or property loss 

occurs.” 

Management and monitoring of wildlife populations and 

distribution is under the jurisdiction of MFWP. The 

Butte Field Office will continue to coordinate and 

cooperate with MFWP with monitoring wildlife on 

public lands. 

Special Status Plant Species 

Special status plant species monitoring is designed to 

assess the distribution, resource condition, and trend of 

species populations known or suspected to be limited in 

distribution, uncommon within a specific area, or 

potentially vulnerable to certain activities occurring on 

public land. Monitoring will be conducted in key areas 

and will be designed to best reflect the attribute that 

identified the species for a special status species 

category. 

Monitoring for special status plant species will show the 

effect of management and activities on populations of 

special status species plants and their habitats. 

Monitoring will provide data necessary for making 

determinations as to whether these plants should be 

listed as threatened or endangered, require further 

observation, or should be removed from consideration as 

a special status species. Monitoring of those species 

populations that have not been listed as threatened or 

endangered will be utilized to gain management 

information for conservation or recovery of those 

populations occurring in the Planning Area. 

Surveys will be conducted to determine the distribution, 

resource conditions, and trends of special status plant 

species and representative habitats. Monitoring methods 

will include establishing photo points and doing periodic 

ocular surveillance. Trends in special status plants and 

vegetation will be determined through such methods as 

demographic studies, density, cover, and frequency 

assessments (inside enclosures versus open areas). 

Methods to accomplish this could include establishing 

new rare plant enclosures to determine effects of 

livestock grazing use versus non-use, developing 

conservation agreements/conservation strategies, and 

conducting vegetative attribute sampling at appropriate 

intervals in accordance with BLM Technical Reference 

1730-1. 

Fish 

Methods such as greenline surveys, cover board studies, 

photo points, aquatic macroinvertebrate sampling, 

instream and fish habitat assessments, channel cross 

sections, bank stability and pebble counts will be used 

on westslope cutthroat trout and other fish bearing 

streams to track changes in streamside vegetation 

composition and to track changes to instream habitat 

structure and quality. This monitoring will be 

supplemented with data collected for riparian and 

wetland monitoring and water quality sampling to 

determine if goals and objectives are being met. 

Instream restoration projects will be monitored using 

habitat assessment surveys, channel cross sections, 

pebble counts and macroinvertebrate sampling to 

determine the effectiveness of projects and to track 

changes in aquatic habitat quality and quantity. 

BLM will continue to cooperate with MFWP and the 

Forest Service to sample and inventory those streams 

with native fish populations under BLM administration, 

and to monitor fish populations and distribution. 

Streams monitored for native fish species will be 

tracked, as will the number of habitat restoration or 

improvement projects initiated and completed. 

Travel Management and Access 

Travel management and access is addressed at two 

levels. Management is described at the Field Office level 

as part of the RMP decisions. In addition, there are five 

Travel Planning Areas (TPAs) for which site-specific 

management by individual travel routes are described 

under the subheading “Implementation Decisions”. 

The vision for travel management is to follow the 

regulations at 43 CFR 8342 to provide a range of high 

quality, safe, non-conflicting, motorized and nonmotorized opportunities; and to provide reasonable 

access for management while protecting natural 

resources, now and in the future. 

Goal 

Goal TM1 – Provide a balanced approach to travel 

management that provides a sustained flow of local 

economic benefits, minimizes user conflicts, safety 

concerns, and resource impacts while taking into 

consideration the unique attributes and values of the 

various Travel Planning Areas. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Objective (Goal TM1) 

In the context of route-specific travel planning within 

individual TPAs, BLM’s objective is to use a systematic 

process that considers the unique natural resource and 

resource use issues and social environments of each 

TPA. Specific attributes analyzed will be based on 

written criteria developed from public and 

interdisciplinary team input. Travel planning for areas or 

sub-areas not analyzed for route-specific management 

during the course of the RMP revision (due to 

complexity, controversy, lack of data, or time 

constraints) will be initiated as soon as possible upon 

completion of this RMP revision. Pending future 

completion of travel planning in these areas, the BLM 

will, to the extent possible, provide preliminary maps 

and interim travel management guidelines. 

Management Actions 

Allowable Uses (Goals TM1, RM1, SE2) 

Areas within the Decision Area are categorized as 

“Open”, “Closed”, and “Limited.” An “Open” area is 

where all types of vehicle use are permitted at all times, 

anywhere in the area. A “Closed” designation means all 

motorized use is prohibited. In accordance with the 2003 

Statewide OHV ROD (USDI-BLM 2003a), under the 

“Limited” designation, all cross-country motorized, 

wheeled travel (including big game retrieval) is 

prohibited unless otherwise managed. In the absence of 

other existing travel plan direction, all motorized 

wheeled travel is restricted to existing roads and trails. 

However, the OHV ROD provides several exceptions to 

this rule (refer to OHV ROD, pages 4-5) which are 

adopted in this Approved RMP. Examples include: 

•	 Any military, fire, search and rescue, or law 

enforcement vehicle for emergency operations; 

•	 Official BLM administrative business (prescribed 

fire, noxious weed control, range management, 

etc.); 

•	 Other government agency business (surveying, 

animal damage control, etc.); 

•	 Administration of a federal lease or permit (e.g., 

livestock permittee maintaining fence, delivering 

salt, etc.); and, 

•	 For dispersed camping within 300 feet of an 

existing open road. Site selection must be 

completed by non-motorized means, and accessed 

by the most direct route causing the least damage. 

A full range of management options will be used for 

routes with limited designations. Site-specific route 

management options include: travel limited to 

designated routes, types or modes of travel such as foot, 

equestrian, bicycle, motorized; limited to time or season 

of use; limited to certain types of vehicles (motorcycles, 

all-terrain vehicles, high clearance, full-size street-legal, 

etc.); limited to permitted vehicles or users; limited to 

BLM administrative use only; and other types of 

limitations as needed. Some pre-existing routes may be 

closed or decommissioned based on route-by-route 

travel planning evaluations. Earthen berms, fallen trees, 

or other techniques will be used to block off closed and 

decommissioned routes. Some decommissioned routes 

will be closed and rehabilitated to blend with the natural 

surroundings. All techniques used to decommission 

roads will eliminate resource impacts. 

Area designations Field Office-wide are shown for 

wheeled vehicles and snowmobile use in Table 10. 

Table 10 

Acres of Open, Closed and 

Limited Area Designations 

Designations Acres1 

Wheeled Vehicles 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

283 

31,500 

275,526 

Snowmobiles 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

112,682 

54,706 

139,921 

1 Acres are approximate. 

BLM will maintain current management of TPAs with 

pre-existing travel plans and area designations, with the 

following three exceptions, and one qualification. The 

exceptions are: 

1.	 The small, scattered open areas located within the 

Elkhorn Mountains are converted from open to 

limited. Existing routes located within the 

converted areas remain open to the public; 

2.	 A small (less than one acre) “warm up” area 

located in the Whitetail-Pipestone Travel 

Planning Area is converted from open to limited; 

and, 

3.	 Approximately one half of the 632-acre 

Radersburg open OHV use area is converted from 

open to limited. 

Regarding the qualification, the motorcycle hill climb 

located in the Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Planning Area 

will continue to be managed as open, unless resource 

problems warrant a change in designation at a later time. 

In addition, the recently acquired Iron Mask property 

will be managed under the limited area designation. Sitespecific travel management planning for Iron Mask will 

be conducted subsequent to the limited area designation, 

and will require an amendment to the Elkhorns Travel 

Plan. 

38 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Travel Planning Areas that have pre-existing travel plans 

are: 

1.	 Elkhorn Mountains – “limited” area designation – 

(with the exception of an approximately 632 acre 

“open” OHV use area near Radersburg); 

2.	 Clancy-Unionville – “limited” area designation; 

3.	 Whitetail-Pipestone – “limited” area designation 

– (with the exception of an approximately 5 acre 

“open” motorized motorcycle hill climb area); 

and, 

4. Sleeping Giant – “limited” area designation. 

Additional travel planning has previously been 

completed for several smaller “sub-planning” areas: 

Confederate Gulch, Sawlog Creek, the Great Divide Ski 

area, and Nez Perce Ridge Road. No additional sitespecific route management changes are being made for 

the Confederate Gulch, Great Divide Ski Area, and Nez 

Perce Road areas. Site-specific route management 

changes are being made with this planning effort for the 

Sawlog Creek area. 

Several “temporary area closures” in effect prior to this 

RMP revision are being given a permanent “limited” 

area designation. These areas include the North Hills, 

Sawmill Gulch, Ward Ranch, the McMasters Hills, 

Spokane Hills, and Iron Mask. Site-specific route 

management changes are being made with this planning 

effort for the North Hills, Ward Ranch, McMasters, and 

Spokane Hills areas. (See the Implementation Decisions 

section and associated maps). No site-specific route 

management changes are being made for the Sawmill 

Gulch area. 

BLM will use a range of route management options, 

including Open Yearlong, Open with Restrictions, 

Closed Yearlong, and Decommissioned to manage the 

road network Field Office-wide as shown in Table 11 

and described below. (Note: Field Office-wide total 

number of road miles and the breakdown by route 

management category will shift in the future as 

additional site-specific travel planning is conducted). 

•	 Open Yearlong - open year-round to public and 

administrative uses. 

•	 Open with Restrictions - open to public and 

administrative uses with seasonal and/or vehicle 

type limitations. 

•	 Routes designated for Game Retrieval will be 

managed to allow retrieval during big game hunting 

seasons, between the hours of 11:00 AM - 3:00 PM. 

Under this management, hunters who have tagged 

an animal will be allowed to use a motorized 

vehicle to assist in the retrieval. Motorized use is 

restricted to the designated Game Retrieval route 

only; no motorized off-road or off-trail use is 

allowed during the retrieval effort. Animals will 

Table 11 

Field Office-Wide Route Management Summary1 

Route Management Category Route Miles 

Administrative Access Only 0.8 

Open Yearlong 263.0 

Open/Restricted as Follows: 

Closed 2/14 to 4/16 3.3 

Closed 9/1 to 12/1 0 

Closed 10/2 to 5/15 0.7 

Closed 10/15 to 12/1 2.1 

Closed 10/15 to 5/15 19.1 

Closed 12/2 to 4/15 2.2 

Closed 12/2 to 5/15 117.9 

Closed 12/2 to 6/15 5.8 

Closed 12/2 to 7/15 0.8 

Closed 12/2 to 10/5 1.9 

Sub-Total Road Miles Open to 

Public 416.8 

Closed Yearlong 317.7 

Decommission 52.6 

Snowmobile Only 4.3 

Trails 14.5 

Game Retrieval Only 18.9 

Designated Motorcycle-Only Trails 6.1 

OHV Only (ATVs and motorcycles) 23.1 

OHV Only Closed 10/15 to 12/1 1.8 

Totals 856.4 

1

Mileages in table are based on available data “frozen” for 

the RMP in 2005. Some slight inaccuracies exist related to 

previous decisions made for pre-existing travel plans. For 

example, as the implementation of recent travel plans has 

progressed, an additional 8.8 miles of “OHV Only” trail 

from that reported in this table have been constructed in the 

Clancy area as per the travel plan decision there. As a 

result, a total of 31.9 miles of “OHV Only” trail is available 

in the decision area, instead of the 23.1 miles reported in 

the table. 

need to be dragged, or otherwise moved by nonmotorized means to the Game Retrieval route. 

•	 Closed Yearlong - closed to motorized public access 

and subject to administrative or permitted uses 

based on case-specific exceptions (such as for 

mining claimants with existing claims accessed by 

existing routes). Routes identified as closed will 

have a route bed left intact in case they are needed 

for valid existing rights only, or in the extended 

future for administrative purposes. Closed routes 

will be open to non-motorized use. 

•	 Decommissioned - route is closed and rehabilitated 

to eliminate resource impacts (for example, to 

eliminate erosion or to restore a riparian area if 

route is located within a riparian area) and is no 

longer useable for public or administrative uses. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 39 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Actions 

1.	 The BLM will continue to apply regulations at 

43CFR 8340 through 43CFR 8342.3 to identify 

route-specific management where activity plan level 

decisions are made for specific travel routes. (Goals 

TM1, WF2, RM1, RM4, SR1, WR1, WR3, SE2, SE4) 

2.	 In accordance with the 2003 Statewide OHV ROD 

and plan amendment, nine additional areas, all with 

“limited” area designations have been identified that 

need site-specific travel planning. The nine areas 

are: 

•	 Helena (focus area – Scratchgravel Hills). High 

Priority; 

•	 East Helena (focus area – North Hills). High 

Priority; 

•	 Lewis and Clark Country Northwest (focus area 

– Marysville). High Priority; 

•	 Boulder/Jefferson City. High Priority; 

•	 Upper Big Hole River. High Priority; 

•	 Missouri River Foothills. Moderate Priority; 

•	 Jefferson County Southeast. Moderate Priority; 

•	 Broadwater County South. Moderate Priority; 

and, 

•	 Park/Gallatin. Moderate Priority. (Goal TM1) 

3.	 The five high priority travel planning areas (TPAs) 

are addressed in the Implementation Decisions 

section below. Travel planning for the four 

moderate priority areas will be initiated by the BLM 

in as timely a manner as possible pending the 

availability of funding and workforce (Goal TM1) 

4.	 For those TPAs for which travel planning has not 

yet been undertaken, comprehensive travel route 

inventories will be conducted prior to initiation of 

the travel planning process. However, user-made 

routes determined to have been created since the 

2003 Statewide OHV ROD and plan amendment 

will not be brought forward for analysis and 

therefore will not be considered as part of the road 

network. (Goal TM1) 

5.	 During travel planning, existing routes will be 

evaluated for adequacy, relevance, and impacts to 

resources and resource uses. A range of travel 

management opportunities that provide a balanced 

approach among motorized, mechanized, and nonmotorized use will be developed. (Goals TM1, WF2, 

RM1, RM4, SR1, WR1, WR3, SE2, SE4) 

6.	 All designated routes will be mapped and signed as 

Open, or Open with Restrictions (seasonal use 

restriction, vehicle type use restriction, etc.), instead 

of taking the opposite approach and signing all 

closed routes as Closed. In other words, unless a 

route is specifically signed as Open (or Open with 

Restrictions), it is closed to motorized use, 

regardless of whether or not a route Closure sign is 

in place. This “Closed unless signed as Open” 

approach places a higher level of burden on the user 

to be cognizant of where, when, and how they are 

allowed to travel on public lands. It also eliminates 

a common act of vandalism - removing route 

closure signs in order to establish de facto “open” 

routes. Even so, BLM may still elect to use 

occasional route Closure signs as needed in areas 

experiencing compliance problems. Designated 

routes will be identified and signed using a 

combination of portal signs, bulletin boards (posted 

travel plan maps), and designated route “arrow” 

symbols. (Goals TM1, TF1) 

7.	 BLM will continue to participate with the 

Southwest Montana Interagency Travel 

Management Committee, maintaining map and sign 

consistency, and seasonal restrictions. (Goals TM1, 

RM1) 

8.	 BLM will continue to partner with the State Trails 

Program, seeking opportunities to improve existing 

as well as future trails and facilities. (Goals TM1, 

TF1, RM1, SE2) 

9.	 BLM roads within the travel area will continue to be 

available for a multitude of motorized vehicle travel 

(2-wheel, 4-wheel, motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles, 

and snowmobiles), provided safety concerns remain 

minimal. Should traffic volumes or user conflicts 

become prevalent and warrant restrictions, then 

priority will be given to vehicles legally registered 

to travel on public highways. (Goals TM1, TF1, 

RM1, SE2) 

10.	 In accordance with interagency trail width 

guidelines, all BLM Designated OHV trails, 

bridges, and cattleguards will be designed to 

accommodate OHV vehicles 50 inches in width or 

less. Vehicles wider than 50 inches will be unable to 

navigate BLM trails; and by default, will be in 

violation of the off road travel rule. (Goals TM1, 

TF1) 

11.	 Temporary routes could be constructed where 

needed and where other routes are not available 

under approved travel management plans. 

Construction of such routes will be to minimal 

standards, adhering to BMPs (Appendix B). 

Temporary routes are not intended to be part of the 

permanent or designated transportation network 

system and must be reclaimed when their intended 

purpose has been fulfilled. Complete reclamation of 

all temporary routes may not be desired or 

necessary in all situations. However, unless they are 

specifically intended for public use, they will not be 

made available for that use. (Goals TM1, WF2, SR1, 

WR1, WR3, SE4) 

40 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

12.	 Short, site-specific sections of road/trail realignment or reconstruction will continue to be 

implemented as needed to minimize resource 

damage and/or provide minor reroutes around 

private property. (Goals TM1, TF1, SR1, WR1, 

WR3, SE2, SE4) 

13.	 Opportunities will be sought to disperse or 

distribute users to help provide a quality 

recreational experience. (Goals TM1, TF1, RM1, 

SE2) 

14.	 Loop-road connections will be established, where 

appropriate, to enhance public access and 

enjoyment. (Goals TM1, TF1, RM1, SE2) 

15.	 Variances to travel plan designations may be issued 

on a case-by-case basis to conduct essential agency 

administrative actions and site-specific approved 

uses such as casual use mineral exploration. (Refer 

to Appendix D for details). (Goals TM1, EM1, 

EM2, SE1, SE2) 

16.	 Organized competitive and non-competitive 

motorized events will be considered and evaluated 

on a case-by-case basis for the Pipestone area only 

(existing management). Non-competitive motorized 

events will not be allowed outside Pipestone. 

However, competitive motorized events 

(timed/speed based) proposed on BLM lands 

outside Pipestone will be considered, but only if 

held in conjunction with use of adjacent lands 

(public or private). (Goals TM1, RM1, RM3, SE2) 

17.	 BLM will cooperate with the MFWP to adjust 

seasonal travel restrictions in accordance with big 

game hunting season extensions. (Goals TM1, RM1, 

RM4, SE2) 

18.	 BLM will provide for interagency travel 

management consistency and route connectivity 

with adjoining public lands. (Goals TM1, RM1, 

SE2) 

19.	 Throughout the course of implementing the RMP, 

site-specific route management decisions may need 

to be re-evaluated and adjusted by BLM in order to 

accommodate interagency (Forest Service) 

connectivity. Proposed changes will be addressed 

on a case-by-case basis by an interdisciplinary team. 

(Goal TM1) 

20.	 BLM will actively seek agency and public easement 

agreements in order to maintain current access for 

popularly traveled routes, and seek additional sitespecific opportunities as needed to gain agency and 

public access to BLM lands. (Goals TM1, SE2) 

21.	 Where private landowners have demonstrated 

willingness to provide public access across their 

lands, BLM will manage for public access from 

BLM lands across such private lands in travel plans. 

Exceptions include routes that BLM has proposed 

as closed, or are known to be posted or otherwise 

closed to the public by private property owners. The 

BLM has no control over private roads traveling 

through private land onto BLM lands. Access across 

private land is subject to change. Where public 

motorized access is contingent upon the governing 

consent of adjoining landowner(s), BLM will 

exercise a reciprocal “All or None” road use policy. 

This means that as long as the public is allowed 

access to these roads, no changes in travel 

management will occur. However, should the 

adjacent landowner refuse public access, then BLM 

will reciprocate by closing its roads to their use as 

well. (Goal TM1) 

22.	 Roads and trails closed yearlong that are not needed 

for specific authorized uses (fire 

prevention/suppression, mining claims, access to 

private lands, non-motorized travel, etc.) will be 

rehabilitated to blend into the surrounding area. 

Roads subject to special uses under authorized 

exceptions will be stabilized to prevent unnecessary 

and undue soil erosion and water quality 

degradation. A priority list for work will be 

developed after each travel plan is completed. 

(Goals TM1, NW1, WF2, SR1, WR1, WR3, SE4) 

23.	 BLM will replace barbed wire gates (and similar 

closures) with cattle guards and/or easily operated 

metal gates wherever problems are known to occur. 

(Goals TM1, LG1, TF1) 

24.	 The BLM will emphasize management of the 

transportation system to reduce impacts to natural 

resources from authorized roads and trails. The 

BLM will also stress closing and restoring 

unauthorized user created roads and trails to prevent 

resource damage. Ecologically sensitive areas 

within 300 feet of roads and trails could be closed to 

dispersed camping if resource damage is found to be 

occurring in these areas. (Goals TM1, NW1, WF1, 

SR1, WR1, WR3, SE4) 

25.	 Travel route densities will conform to the 

management prescriptions in the wildlife section in 

the RMP. (Goals TM1, WF2, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

26.	 BLM will minimize establishing travel routes in 

areas identified as being at risk for noxious weed 

infestations. (Goals TM1, NW1, WF1) 

27.	 In areas with sensitive soils, BLM will minimize 

establishing new routes and will consider closure, 

restriction (season or type of use), mitigation 

(relocation, reconstruction, etc.), or administrative 

management of existing travel routes. (Goals TM1, 

SR1, SR2) 

28.	 As roads and trails identified for decommissioning 

in site-specific travel plans are prioritized, site 

inventories will be conducted on cultural resources. 

To provide protection for known cultural resources 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

and those yet to be discovered, sites will be 

evaluated to determine eligibility for National 

Register of Historic Places. Ineligible heritage sites 

will be preserved in place if possible. If adverse 

effects threaten a site (on roads proposed for closure 

or open roads), one or more mitigation measures 

will be employed to lessen or avoid those effects. 

These may include: 

•	 Abandon the project. 

•	 Redesign the project to avoid adverse effect 

with protective measures such as signing, 

fencing, reroute, or closure of road/trail. 

•	 Data recovery and analysis that could require 

temporary closure of the area. 

•	 Avoidance by re-routing. (Goals TM1, CP1, 

CP2) 

29.	 Snowmobile use will be subject to restrictions 

outlined in specific travel plans. It is the rider’s 

responsibility to avoid locations where wind or 

topographic conditions may have reduced snow 

depth and created situations where damage to 

vegetation or soils could occur, or where vegetation 

is taller than the protective snow cover. Ecologically 

sensitive areas could be closed to snowmobiling if 

resource damage caused or exacerbated by 

snowmobile activity is found to be occurring in 

these areas. (Goals TM1, GS1, WF1, RM1, SE2, 

SE4) 

30.	 With some exceptions (pending site-specific travel 

plan NEPA analyses and decisions), cross-country 

snowmobile use will be allowed, as well as travel on 

all existing routes during the season of use 

(December 2 – May 15), snow conditions 

permitting. (Goals TM1, RM1, SE2) 

Implementation Decisions 

Nested within the Field Office-wide alternatives for 

travel planning, there are five Travel Planning Areas 

(TPAs) for which site-specific travel plan decisions are 

being made with this document. These areas include: 

Helena TPA, East Helena TPA, Lewis and Clark County 

NW TPA, Boulder/Jefferson City TPA, and Upper Big 

Hole River TPA. 

To address route designation criteria outlined under 43 

CFR 8342.1, the BLM used the interdisciplinary team 

process described in Appendix D to evaluate roads in 

each TPA with regards to their relative degrees of 

human uses and resource impacts. BLM specialist input 

from this process was used in concert with public input 

and working group recommendations to reach travel 

route decisions. 

Working Group Recommendations 

In an effort to help BLM develop site-specific travel 

management alternatives agreeable to the public as well 

as the agency, community based collaborative working 

groups were initiated. Two working groups representing 

a wide, balanced range of public land users were 

recruited and managed under the direct supervision and 

guidance of the Lewis and Clark County Board of 

Commissioners. One of the groups was assigned to assist 

with travel planning for the Helena (Scratchgravel Hills) 

and East Helena (North Hills) TPAs, and the other for 

the Lewis and Clark County NW (Marysville) TPA. 

Membership criteria included: Montana residency, 

familiarity with the Travel Planning Area(s), and a 

willingness to work collaboratively with people of 

differing viewpoints. Members were selected from three 

different interest categories (in accordance with the 

Western Montana Resource Advisory Council criteria) 

in order to provide for balanced representation. Refer to 

Appendix D for further details on membership 

selection, and the working group process. 

Each group held a series of five or six meetings. The 

meetings were attended by BLM representatives 

available to answer questions, provide information and 

feedback from the BLM’s interdisciplinary team, and 

provide written materials and maps as needed. Group 

recommendations for route-specific management were 

based on consensus. In the end, the working groups 

arrived at complete consensus for the Marysville (subset 

of Lewis and Clark County NW TPA) and North Hills 

(subset of East Helena TPA) areas, but only partial 

consensus for the Scratchgravel Hills (subset of Helena 

TPA) area. BLM incorporated working group 

recommendations into decisions for all three TPAs as 

much as possible, but also considered additional public 

comments. 

The following discussion describes site-specific travel 

plan decisions by TPA. 

Helena Travel Planning Area 

Map 4 shows travel route decisions for the entire Helena 

TPA. 

Cross-country snowmobile use will be allowed, as well 

as snowmobile travel on all existing routes during the 

season of use (December 2 – May 15), snow conditions 

permitting. 

Travel planning for the Helena TPA focused on the 

Scratchgravel Hills area. BLM received numerous 

verbal, as well as written comments during two public 

scoping meetings for the Scratchgravel Hills area. Many 

of the comments concerned conflicts between motorized 

and non-motorized use. Due to the high degree of user 

conflicts and illegal activity taking place, all interior 

roads in the Scratchgravel Hills will be closed to public 

wheeled motorized travel yearlong at the five proposed 

trailheads, with the exception of a few perimeter rightof-way routes and routes to private residences (Table 

12, Map 4). The BLM believes that this revised 

management will reduce problems with dumping and 

illegal activities after dark, and will be more manageable 

42 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 12 

Helena Travel Planning Area Miles of Road by 

Management Category 

Area available for wheeled, motorized 

use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

10,164 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

Seasonally Restricted 

Closed Yearlong 

Decommissioned 

9.8 

0 

36.0 

6.5 

Area availability for snowmobile use 

(in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

10,164 

0 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available 

for snowmobile travel 52.2 

Miles of motorized routes available 

for snowmobile travel only 0 

Miles of routes available for big game 

retrieval 0 

Miles of routes available for disabled 

hunter access 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails 

available1 38.6 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and 

decommissioned roads. 

and enforceable than the nighttime closure previously 

considered for this area. 

East Helena TPA 

Maps 5a-5d show travel route decisions for the entire 

East Helena TPA. Four sub-areas for the East Helena 

TPA are represented on the maps as follows: Map 5a -

North Hills Area; Map 5b – Ward Ranch Area; Map 5c 

– Spokane Hills Area; and Map 5d – Townsend Area. 

Decisions for the East Helena TPA represent a combined 

(merged) effort between the BLM and the communitybased collaborative working group for the North Hills 

sub-area. (Table 13, Map 5a). Route 516 will be open 

yearlong, providing primary access to a non-motorized 

trailhead at the junction with Route 517. The remaining 

road network will be seasonally restricted from February 

14 to April 16 to prevent soil erosion. An additional nonmotorized trailhead will be established at the end of 

Route 50108. The existing interagency block 

management hunting area will be brought forward. 

With a few minor changes, management of motorized 

use for the Ward Ranch, McMasters Hills (Map 5b), and 

Spokane Hills (Map 5c) areas will continue as it was 

prior to this planning effort. 

Table 13 

East Helena Travel Planning Area Miles of Road 

by Management Category 

Area available for wheeled, motorized 

use (in acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

20,266 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

Seasonally Restricted -

Closed 10/15 to 12/1 

Closed 9/1 to 12/1 

Closed 2/14 to 4/16 

Closed Yearlong 

Decommissioned 

13.7 

0 

0 

3.3 

41.9 

4.7 

Area availability for snowmobile use 

(in acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

6,362 

13,904 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available to 

snowmobile travel 

(in “Limited” areas during season of 

use, 12/2 to 5/15) 

21.5 

Miles of motorized routes available for 

snowmobile travel only 0 

Miles of routes available for big game 

retrieval 7.0 

Miles of routes available for disabled 

hunter access 7.0 

Miles of non-motorized trails 

available1 47.1 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and 

decommissioned roads 

Minor changes for the Ward Ranch area include: routes 

050134 and 050137 will be open yearlong to the public 

up to the private property boundaries. 

The Ward Ranch Trailhead will be brought forward as 

managed currently: with no motorized use allowed 

beyond the current trailhead location. For the McMasters 

Hills area, motorized access will continue to be 

restricted to three established, non-motorized trailheads, 

per the existing temporary closure. Motorized access for 

the area located on the west side of Prickly Pear Creek 

(south of Black Sandy) will be restricted to several, 

primary residential access routes and two recreation use 

access routes (EH025, EH034). Motorized access to the 

“Big Bend” area (located northwest of Devils Elbow) 

will be restricted to route EH037. A non-motorized 

trailhead will be constructed on the ridgetop, near the 

end of EH037 (Map 5b). 

With the exception of two changes, management for the 

Spokane Hills area (Map 5c) will continue as it was 

prior to this planning effort. Motorized access will be 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 43 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

restricted to a non-motorized trailhead at the end of route 

EH087A. The two changes are as follows: 

•	 The southern portion of Spokane Hills will be 

available for motorized access during the big game 

hunting season for persons with disabilities. During 

a two week period, a limited number of hunters 

possessing a valid Montana State Disabled 

Conservation License or Permit to Hunt from a 

Vehicle may be allowed to access the southern 

Spokane Hills area using identified routes. This 

access program will be managed through a permit 

system. The permit requirements or restrictions will 

be coordinated with the Montana Department of 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks to ensure hunter safety and 

a quality hunting experience. 

•	 Outside the special hunt period, the general public 

will be allowed to use these same identified routes 

for game retrieval from 11:00 A.M. – 3:00 P.M 

during big game hunting seasons. One route will be 

available for public access in the Townsend area. 

Snowmobile management will be as follows: crosscountry travel will be allowed, as well as travel on all 

existing routes (during the season of use 12/2 – 5/15, 

snow conditions permitting), for the Townsend area, 

North Hills, Dana’s Bar, and the area located to the west 

of Prickly Pear Creek. The remaining areas (e.g., 

McMaster Hills, Ward Ranch, and Spokane Hills, etc.) 

will be closed to all cross-country travel, including travel 

on existing roads and trails. See Maps 5a-d. 

Lewis and Clark County NW TPA 

Maps 6a and 6b show travel route decisions for the 

entire Lewis and Clark County NW TPA. Two sub-areas 

for the Lewis and Clark County NW TPA are 

represented on the maps as follows: Map 6a – 

Marysville Area; and Map 6b – Lincoln/Sieben Ranch 

Area. 

Decisions for the Marysville Area represent a combined 

effort between the BLM and the community-based 

collaborative working group. With the exception of a 

portion of the northwest corner of the Marysville area, 

all major motorized access routes will remain available 

for motorized use (Table 14, Map 6a). The routes 

within the upper northwest portion will be closed to help 

provide big game security and for protection of 

threatened and endangered species (grizzly bear, Canada 

lynx). 

Cross-country snowmobile travel will be allowed 

throughout the entire travel planning area, with two 

exceptions: within the Great Divide Ski area (existing 

Table 14 

Lewis & Clark County NW Travel Planning Area 

Miles of Road by Management Category 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use 

(in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

16,997 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

Seasonally Restricted (Closed 12/2 to 5/15) 

Closed Yearlong 

Decommissioned 

13.8 

14.3 

26.8 

10.9 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in 

Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

12,649 

888 

3,463 

Miles of motorized routes available to 

snowmobile travel 49 

Miles of motorized routes available for 

snowmobile travel only 1.8 

Miles of routes available for big game 

retrieval 0 

Miles of routes available for disabled hunter 

access 

0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1 37.7 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and 

decommissioned roads 

management will continue), and the area identified in the 

northwest portion of the TPA. Snowmobile use in these 

areas will be restricted to designated routes only during 

the season of use (12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions 

permitting. 

The majority of routes in the Lincoln/Sieben Ranch area 

will remain available for public access, while most of 

the routes located in the Stemple Pass and Lincoln areas 

(Map 6b) will be closed due to lack of public access and 

resource impact issues. 

Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning Area 

Map 7 shows travel route decisions for the entire 

Boulder/Jefferson City TPA. Most major motorized 

access routes will remain available to the public (Table 

15, Map 7). Area-wide cross-country snowmobile use 

will continue to be allowed, and snowmobile travel on 

all existing routes during the season of use (12/2 – 5/15) 

will still be allowed, snow conditions permitting. 

44 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 15 

Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning Area Miles 

of Road by Management Category 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use 

(in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

14,487 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

Seasonally Restricted (Closed 12/2 to 5/15) 

Closed Yearlong 

Decommissioned 

3.7 

25.1 

29.0 

2.7 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in 

Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

14,487 

0 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available to 

snowmobile travel 60.5 

Miles of motorized routes available for 

snowmobile travel only 0 

Miles of routes available for big game 

retrieval 0 

Miles of routes available for disabled 

hunter access 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1 33.2 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and 

decommissioned roads 

Table 16 

Upper Big Hole Travel Planning Area Miles of 

Road by Management Category 

Area available for wheeled, motorized 

use (in acres) 

Open 0 

Closed 0 

Limited 63,249 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 37.1 

Seasonally Restricted (Total) 59.4 

Closed 10/15 to 12/1 0.2 

Closed 10/15 to 5/15 14.5 

Closed 12/2 to 4/15 2.2 

Closed 12/2 to 5/15 39.0 

Closed 12/2 to 6/15 0.9 

Closed 12/2 to 7/15 0.8 

Closed 47.8 

Decommissioned 28.2 

OHV Only – Open Yearlong 1.5 

OHV Only Closed 10/15 to 12/1 0.3 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in 

acres) 

Open 13,243 

Closed 46,932 

Limited 3,032 

Miles of motorized routes available to 

snowmobile travel 53 

Miles of motorized routes available for 

snowmobile travel only 2.5 

Miles of routes available for big game 

retrieval 1.1 

Miles of routes available for disabled 

hunter access 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1 83.5 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and 

decommissioned roads 

Upper Big Hole River Travel Planning Area 

Maps 8a-8c show travel route decisions for the entire 

Upper Big Hole River TPA. Three sub-areas are 

represented on the maps as follows: Map 8a – Humbug 

Spires Area; Map 8b – Jimmie New Area; Map 8c – 

Fishtrap Area. 

Existing management under the Southwest Interagency 

travel plan will remain in effect in some sub-areas of the 

Upper Big Hole TPA, but would change in other areas. 

Several sub-areas of the Southwest Interagency travel 

plan, originally designated in 1993 as open to wheeled 

cross country (off road) travel, have been converted to a 

limited designation in accordance with the 2003 

Statewide OHV ROD. Some existing routes within these 

converted limited areas will be managed as open 

yearlong to wheeled vehicles while others will be 

changed from open yearlong, to seasonally restricted (as 

needed) in order to maintain consistency with the 

Southwest Interagency travel plan (see Table 16, Maps 

8a-8c). 

Major motorized access routes located between Humbug 

Spires and Camp Creek will remain available to the 

public. Some existing seasonal use restrictions will be 

changed to enhance high elevation hunting opportunities 

(refer to routes BH200, 010113, 0115, and BH150, 

(Map 8a). 

Most major motorized access routes located in the 

Jimmie New Creek area will remain available to the 

public. Existing management for the Nez Perce Ridge 

Road and the Sawmill Gulch area will remain in effect. 

Changes from the current condition include a moderate 

reduction in road density for the area located north of 

Highway 43, bounded by the Johnson and Jerry Creek 

access routes. The reduction in road density will help 

provide big game security as well as enhanced 

opportunities for non-motorized recreation (Map 8b). 

For the Fishtrap Creek area, the most notable change 

concerns Sawlog Creek, a popular big game hunting area 

located approximately 2 miles southwest of the Fishtrap 

fishing access site on the south side of the Big Hole 

River. Prior to this planning effort, yearlong motorized 

access has been allowed (fording the river). Under this 

decision, motorized wheeled vehicle access will be 

seasonally restricted (closed 12/2 to 7/15). (See Route 

189009B, Map 8c). This change will help prevent 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 45 
 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

resource damage by minimizing the number of vehicular 

crossings of the Big Hole River, improve big game 

security, and help provide public safety during high 

water conditions (spring run-off). 

In the future, BLM may pursue closing route 189009b 

and providing alternate access to the Sawlog area via 

route BH252 or routes 189003 and BH001. Route 

BH252 is the preferable alternate access route. BH252 

provides a safer river crossing and quicker access to the 

higher elevations that most users (big game hunters) 

seek. Access via route BH252 will require USFS and 

State cooperation; the USFS has already indicated 

interest in pursuing this option. Further coordination 

with Montana Department of Natural Resources will be 

needed to pursue this alternate access. Another 

alternative route to access this area is via Routes 

BH189003 and BH001. These routes eliminate the need 

for a river crossing at all; but require several miles of 

travel in order to reach the Sawlog area. Access across 

these routes is largely dependent on private landowner 

cooperation. 

Snowmobile management will continue to remain 

substantially in effect as represented by the 1996 

Southwest Interagency Visitor/Travel Map. However, 

several additional areas will be closed to cross-country 

travel, and others restricted to existing designated routes 

and trails during the season of use (December 2 – May 

15), snow conditions permitting. Cross-country closures 

include the area located between the Soap Gulch and 

Camp Creek roads, the Goat Mountain/Maiden Rock 

area and the Sawmill Gulch/Nez Perce Ridge area. 

Snowmobile use in the Dewey area will be restricted to 

designated routes and trails during the season of use 

(12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions permitting. 

Monitoring 

Monitoring for RMP Decisions 

BLM personnel will implement signing for travel 

management area designations in the Approved RMP as 

needed. Signing will be monitored and maintained 

during periodic field visits by BLM personnel. BLM 

personnel will monitor and track conditions on the 

ground and any alterations to area designations or route 

designations (i.e., newly acquired access easements), to 

ensure that visitor use travel planning maps are being 

updated appropriately as needed. 

BLM will track planning and implementation efforts for 

the four site-specific moderate priority travel planning 

areas identified in the RMP for which travel planning 

has not yet been completed (Missouri River Foothills, 

Jefferson County Southeast, Broadwater County South, 

Park/Gallatin), to ensure they are completed in as timely 

a manner as possible. 

Monitoring for Travel Plan Implementation 

Decisions 

BLM will conduct periodic monitoring for the five sitespecific travel plans addressed with this RMP revision 

(Helena TPA, East Helena TPA, Boulder/Jefferson City 

TPA, Lewis and Clark County NW TPA, and Upper Big 

Hole River TPA) to ensure they are being implemented 

in as timely a manner as possible. Visitor use travel plan 

maps, information kiosks (including a large map, 

brochure maps, visitor information), travel signs (portal 

signs, route designation signs), approved trailheads, etc. 

will be monitored through site visits to ensure that these 

features are in place and functioning appropriately, and 

that they provide correct information in accordance with 

final travel plan decisions. 

Decommissioned routes will be reviewed through site 

visits by BLM staff to ensure that any adverse resource 

impacts have been addressed (eliminated/minimized) 

and that they have been properly implemented to prevent 

motorized travel. 

During routine patrols BLM staff will monitor 

designated routes to ensure that they are in a safe, 

useable condition, and have been maintained in a 

manner that avoids or minimizes resource impacts such 

as soil erosion and water quality impacts. 

Both implementation and effectiveness monitoring will 

be largely conducted by “trail rangers” (seasonal travel 

management staff). Trail rangers will patrol busy travel 

planning areas (in particular, designated OHV recreation 

areas), providing public information, educating riders, 

and ensuring travel plan compliance. Trail rangers can 

help determine the effectiveness of travel plan 

implementation through direct observation, photodocumentation, and visitor contacts. Effectiveness 

monitoring will be documented, and reviewed in the 

context of the following objectives and indicators. 

Physical/Biological Objectives/Indicators 

Public compliance will be assessed through periodic site 

visits to monitor for unauthorized off trail/road travel 

and/or vandalism to facilities such as signs and kiosks. 

Illegal off trail/road travel could be measured as a linear 

disturbance, or as an area impact, depending on the level 

and type of use that occurred. Trail rangers will make 

certain that any new user created trails or roads are 

closed and mitigated to prevent further use/resource 

damage. 

Visitor use will be measured and monitored by 

collecting information such as types of vehicles used, 

numbers of vehicles and people, average length of stay 

(number of hours, day-use, overnight use), and areas of 

use. This information will be collected through direct 

observation and visitor contact by BLM personnel, trail 

registers, and trail/road counters. These indicators will 

provide useful information for determining degrees of 

use and effectiveness of resource management. 

46 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Resource impacts such as loss of protective vegetative 

cover, loss of soil through erosion (hydrological or 

mechanical), increased trail width and depth, and 

success of site restoration will be monitored through site 

visits, photo-documentation, and written documentation. 

Social Objectives/Indicators 

Reducing conflict between motorized and non-motorized 

users while providing adequate recreational 

opportunities is one of the most important and 

challenging goals of travel planning. As a result, BLM’s 

travel management plans have been developed to 

provide a balanced approach among motorized, 

mechanized, and non-motorized users. Visitor feedback 

(field contacts, written trail register comments, phone 

calls, etc) will be used to monitor whether this important 

goal has been realized. 

Visitor feedback will also be used to monitor whether 

travel management areas have been clearly mapped and 

signed for the public. The level of non-compliance and 

law enforcement incidences will also help monitor and 

assess this goal. Implementation activities will include: 

installing informational kiosks (bulletin boards) at major 

ingress/egress points and trailheads. The kiosks will be 

posted with site-specific travel management maps as 

well as assorted general visitor information (travel 

management, recreation opportunities, etc.). The kiosks 

will be stocked (brochure box attached) with small field 

sized maps (81⁄2” x 11” size) for public use. 

Travel signing will be carried out using a minimum of 

standardized signs, with clear, consistent text and 

graphics; and utilizing a “signed as Open” management 

philosophy. In general, portal signs will be installed at 

all major ingress/egress points and trailheads. Route 

management and designated route arrow signs will be 

installed throughout each travel planning area as needed. 

Route closure signs may be installed at site-specific 

locations to help reinforce closures, but are not integral 

to route management or required for law enforcement. 

Signing will be monitored through field visits (and 

maintenance) to ensure they are intact and functioning 

properly. 

Transportation and Facilities 

Goal 

Goal TF1 – Maintain facilities, roads, and trails to 

provide for public and/or administrative use and safety 

while mitigating impacts to resources. 

Management Actions 

1.	 Comprehensive assessments will be conducted for 

all maintained roads and facilities and maintenance 

actions will be implemented as needed. (Goal TF1) 

2.	 Roads and trails will be maintained in accordance 

with Travel Management Plan guidance and BLM 

policy. After site-specific travel plan decisions are 

made, roads included in the transportation system 

will be assigned maintenance levels, if needed. 

Roads will be managed in accordance with assigned 

maintenance levels and in consideration of resource 

issues. All roads and trails will be maintained in 

accordance with standards and guidelines in BLM 

Handbook 9113-2 and Manual Section 9114. Roads 

and trails will be inspected on an established 

schedule in accordance with the Bureau’s Condition 

Assessment guidance. (Goals TF1, TM1) 

3.	 Recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings, and 

bridges will be maintained within Bureau standards 

to reduce deferred maintenance costs; meet public 

health and safety requirements; provide universal 

accessibility as appropriate and to enhance visitor 

experiences. These activities will be coordinated 

with other federal, state, and local government 

agencies, private landowners and the general public 

as needed. (Goals TF1, RM1, RM2, SE2) 

4.	 New roads and trails determined to be necessary for 

permanent or long-term use as part of BLM’s 

transportation system will be constructed subject to 

project-level NEPA analysis and approved 

engineering standards. Consideration will be given 

to use demands, location, safety, and resource 

constraints when determining the level of road 

necessary, in accordance with Manual Section 9113. 

Where a new permanent road will provide better 

access, existing routes in the vicinity will be 

identified for closure and decommissioning in order 

to meet travel plan guidance and resource mitigation 

concerns (wildlife displacement, habitat 

fragmentation, VRM, ROS, soil stability, water 

quality, etc). (Goals TF1, WF2, TM1, SR1, WR3, 

VR1) 

5.	 Roads will be built to the minimum standard 

necessary that allows reasonable access and has the 

least impact on resource values. (Goals TF1, TM1) 

6.	 If an existing road is substantially contributing to 

Land Health Standards not being met, the road will 

be considered for redesign, closure, or 

decommissioning to minimize the adverse impacts. 

(Goals TF1, TM1) 

7.	 Road designs will include at a minimum: 

•	 Minimizing road and landing locations in 

Riparian Management Zones; 

•	 Minimizing sediment delivery to streams from 

road surfaces; 

•	 Outsloping roadway surfaces where possible, 

except in cases where outsloping would 

increase sediment delivery to streams or where 

outsloping is infeasible or unsafe; 

•	 Routing road drainage away from potentially 

unstable stream channels, fills and hill slopes; 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

•	 Minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic 

flow paths; and, 

•	 Minimizing sidecasting of soil or snow. (Goals 

TF1, RV1, WF3, WR1, WR3, WR4) 

8.	 Roads will be designed and maintained in a manner 

that provides for water quality protection by 

controlling placement of fill material, keeping 

drainage facilities open, installing and maintaining 

appropriately-sized culverts at stream crossings, and 

by repairing ruts and failures to reduce erosion and 

sedimentation of aquatic habitats. (Goals TF1, RV1, 

WF3, WR1, WR3, WR4) 

Monitoring 

The condition of BLM facilities will be assessed in 

accordance with the schedules identified in the latest 

edition of BLM’s Montana State Asset Business Plan 

(ABP). In this Asset Business Plan, the Butte Field 

Office has identified condition assessment schedules for 

buildings, recreation and administrative sites, dams, 

bridges and major culverts. The intervals for completing 

these condition assessments differ by asset type. 

Condition assessments for all assets will be completed 

within the intervals established by the Department of 

Interior. This interval is currently once every five years. 

BLM is presently finalizing the condition assessment 

schedules for roads and trails. 

The official electronic repository for the inventory of 

owned, constructed real property assets is the BLM 

Facility Asset Management System (FAMS). The 

FAMS program provides standard assessment reports 

and inventory sheets to assist in completing 

Comprehensive Condition Assessments (CCAs) and 

Periodic Inspections (PIs) within the designated 

schedules. From these inventories, BLM generates work 

orders to complete any noted deficiencies. 

The BLM has developed several major constructed real 

property asset classes. The current asset classes are:

 Administrative Site Buildings

 Recreation Site Buildings

 Administrative Sites

 Recreation Sites 

 Roads 

Trails

 Dams

 Bridges (includes Major Culverts). 

Protocols for assessing the condition of roads and trails 

are currently in the final stages of development. 

Schedules for assessing these road and trail assets will 

be included in future Asset Business Plans. With all 

facilities, informal inspection and “discovery” will be a 

major part of the condition monitoring program. 

Information provided by BLM employees and the public 

on problems or concerns as a result of storms, 

vandalism, and normal wear and tear will also be used to 

monitor the condition of BLM facilities. 

Recreation Management 

Goals 

Goal RM1 – Provide a diverse array of recreational 

opportunities while maintaining healthy public land 

resources. 

Goal RM2 – Establish, manage, and maintain quality 

recreation sites and facilities to meet a broad range of 

public needs subject to appropriate resource constraints. 

Goal RM3 – Manage commercial, competitive, or 

special events with special recreation permits that 

eliminate or minimize impacts on resources and conflicts 

with other users. 

Goal RM4 – Manage recreation opportunities to provide 

a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect 

non-market economic values. 

Objectives (Goals RM1, RM2, RM4, SE2) 

1.	 The BLM will manage Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum classes for desired recreation 

opportunities, experience levels, facility 

developments, and other resource uses. Appendix E 

contains a description of ROS categories. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum settings will be 

managed in accordance with the classifications in 

Table 17 and Maps 9a-c. 

Table 17 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Classifications 

ROS Class Acres1 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 36,800 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 71,800 

Roaded Natural 171,100 

Roaded Modified 16,600 

Rural 11,000 

1

 Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 100. 

2.	 Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

will be managed to meet the needs of their primary 

recreation tourism markets in conjunction with the 

ROS category into which they fall and the 

recreation opportunities identified for each SRMA. 

Management Actions 

General 

1.	 “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices 

will be promoted to enhance the sustainability of 

resource-based activities. (Goals RM1, RM4, SE2) 

2.	 BLM will support events that emphasize 

collaborative outreach and public awareness such as 

National Public Lands Day, National Fishing Week, 

Great Outdoors, National Trails Day, and others to 

promote public stewardship. (Goals RM1, SE2) 

48 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

3.	 BLM will support and utilize volunteer participation 

and recruit and train volunteers to provide effective 

visitor contact assistance. (Goal RM2) 

4.	 BLM will continue to provide a diverse range of 

quality recreation opportunities and experiences 

within the BFO commensurate with public 

demands, resource considerations, and management 

capabilities. (Goals RM1, RM4, SE2) 

5.	 The BFO will follow BLM program direction for 

managing recreation on public lands by 

incorporating “The BLM’s Priorities for Recreation 

and Visitor Services”, applicable sections of 

Appendix C of the Land Use Planning Handbook 

(USDI-BLM 2005), and other BLM directives that 

are related to recreation management. (Goals RM1, 

RM2, RM4) 

6.	 Comparable, cost effective and value based fee 

systems will be established for services and 

facilities provided to public users in accordance 

with the Butte Field Office Recreation Fee Area 

(MT-02) Business Plan, BLM directives and the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. BLM 

will strive to update the business plan every five 

years to ensure site fees are appropriate over time 

using fair market values and cost recovery 

assessments. (Goals RM2, RM3) 

7.	 At present there are no known significant caves or 

karsts in the Decision Area. Should these resources 

be discovered, BLM will develop management 

plans that address management, marketing, 

monitoring and administrative needs appropriate for 

the specific resource in accordance with Bureau 

directives. (Goals RM1, RM4) 

8.	 BLM will conduct periodic visitor satisfaction 

surveys and distribute annual fee collection and 

accomplishment reports to the public and encourage 

continual feedback from visitors. (Goals RM1, 

RM4, SE2) 

9.	 BLM will strive to enhance voluntary compliance 

among recreation users through effective public 

education outreach efforts. (Goals RM1, RM2, SE2) 

10.	 The BLM will continue to establish partnership 

agreements that are mutually beneficial to BLM and 

the public and maintain them to enhance 

comprehensive planning, collaborative 

management, and collective funding. 

•	 The highly successful partnership with 

Pennsylvania Power and Light – Montana 

(PPLM) will be continued during the life of the 

project license within the Missouri River 

corridor and agreements made under the 

Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation 

Plan will be fulfilled. 

•	 Challenge Cost Share opportunities and grants 

to offset funding shortages will be sought and 

utilized. 

•	 Working relationships with tourism 

organizations, recreation interest groups, and 

local/state/other federal governments will be 

maintained and expanded to enhance visitor 

services, management efficiencies, and 

recreation opportunities. 

•	 BLM will strive to maintain the existing 

agreement with MFWP that establishes 

partnership efforts and responsibilities to 

collectively manage the Black Sandy and White 

Sandy sites on Hauser Lake. 

•	 BLM will strive to establish additional 

partnerships with MFWP to jointly manage 

areas along rivers where each agency has 

common interests. 

•	 BLM will pursue opportunities to expand dayuse parking capacities on Holter Lake in 

cooperation with the Missouri/Madison 

Comprehensive Recreation Plan. (Goals RM1, 

RM4, SE2) 

Special Recreation Permits 

11.	 BLM will continue to issue special recreation use 

permits as appropriate for non-motorized 

commercial, competitive, and special events subject 

to 2930 Handbook guidance, resource capabilities, 

social conflict concerns, professional qualifications, 

public safety, and public needs. New permits that 

directly conflict with established special recreation 

use permits will not be authorized. Existing 

permittees will be given preference. (Goal RM3) 

12.	 Day-use Special Recreation Permits will be issued 

for commercial fishing and floating uses at BLM 

river access sites. Outfitters will be annually billed 

an advance flat fee (currently $95.00) established by 

the Director based on the Implicit Price Deflator 

Index. In the long-term, the BLM will continue to 

coordinate with MFWP to enhance river/corridor 

land management and to possibly develop a multiagency statewide fee system for the commercial 

uses of river access sites. (Goals RM3, SE2) 

13.	 In accordance with policy guidance (IM No. 2004­

150), a greater priority will be placed on extending 

appropriate, reoccurring permits from five years to 

10 years. (Goal RM3) 

14.	 Commercial camping permits (special recreation 

use permits) within developed fee sites will not be 

allowed during the fee season of Memorial Day 

weekend to Labor Day weekend. (Goals RM1, RM2, 

RM3, SE2) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

15.	 In order to reduce user conflicts and resource 

impacts, special recreation use permits during the 

hunting season will be limited to day-use activities 

with the exception that camping uses will be 

considered within developed recreation sites with 

hardened camping units during the non-fee season 

(October 15 – May 15). (Goals RM1, RM2, RM3, 

SE2) 

Recreation Sites 

16.	 BLM will continue to manage all established 

recreation sites as listed below: Holter Dam, Holter 

Lake, Log Gulch, Departure Point, Beartooth 

Landing, Woodsiding Trailhead (TH), Sleeping 

Giant TH, White Sandy, Devil’s Elbow, Two 

Camps Vista, Clark’s Bay Day Use Site, Ward 

Ranch Historical Site, Spokane Bay, Spokane Bay 

TH, McMaster Hills East TH, McMaster Hills West 

TH, French Bar, Spokane Hills TH, Crimson Bluff, 

Lower Toston, Toston Dam, Lombard, Echo Lane 

TH, Head Lane TH, Tumbleweed TH, Norris TH, 

John G. Mine TH, Ohio Gulch OHV TH, Sheep 

Mountain TH, Duck Creek, Radersburg OHV TH, 

Crow Creek, Galena Gulch, Sheep Camp, Ringing 

Rocks, Four Corners OHV TH, Pipestone OHV TH, 

Whiskey Gulch OHV TH, Maiden Rock East, 

Divide Bridge CG, Sawmill Gulch TH, Divide 

Bridge Day Use Site, Jerry Creek Bridge, Dickie 

Bridge, East Bank, Bryant Creek, Sawlog Gulch, 

Pintlar Creek, Moose Creek TH, Buffalo Hump and 

Carbella. (Goal RM2) 

17.	 Human food storage regulations will be developed 

and implemented for all recreation sites with high 

potential and/or known encounters between people 

and bears. (Goals RM1, RM2, WF4, WF5) 

18.	 Priority funding and management efforts will be 

given to developed recreation sites that receive the 

heaviest visitation rates. Sites that cannot be 

managed to acceptable health and safety standards 

will be closed until deficiencies are corrected. 

(Goals RM2, TF1) 

19.	 Boat-in camping at dispersed sites (excluding 

Beartooth Landing) on BLM lands along the east 

shoreline of Holter Lake will be limited to 

designated sites only. Site availability will be 

determined through field evaluations by an 

interdisciplinary team. Suitable sites where impacts 

to other important resources (wildlife, cultural 

resources, riparian, vegetation, etc.) are acceptable 

will be designated, signed, and available to the 

public on a first-come, first-served basis. A similar 

management system will be undertaken for BLM 

lands on Hauser Lake should resource concerns and 

conditions warrant. (Goals RM1, RM2, RM4, SE2, 

SE4) 

20.	 BLM will coordinate with MFWP to manage 

appropriate uses at BLM launch sites as necessary 

to ensure that quality recreation opportunities and 

experiences on state waters and affected BLM lands 

are collectively managed. (Goals RM1, RM4, SE2) 

21.	 Recreation sites and facilities will be maintained 

and managed to promote resource value protection, 

public safety and health, quality facilities, visitor 

experiences, management efficiency, and value 

based returns. (Goals RM2, TF1, SE2) 

22.	 New sites will be developed commensurate with 

public demand, resource constraints, and 

management capabilities. Priority will be given to 

new sites that have partnership funding strategies 

and are consistent with established ROS and SRMA 

management guidelines. (Goals RM1, RM2) 

23.	 If an existing developed recreation site significantly 

contributes to Land Health Standards not being met, 

the impacts from the site will be minimized to the 

extent possible. (Goals RM1, RM2, RM4) 

24.	 Personal property of recreational users cannot be 

unattended for more than 24 hours at developed 

recreation sites or for more than 10 days on other 

BLM lands. (Goals RM1, RM4) 

25.	 BLM will continue to conduct periodic 

accessibility, safety, and condition assessments in 

accordance with Bureau policy at developed 

recreation sites. Available funds will be prioritized 

to resolve deferred and corrective maintenance 

needs. (Goals RM2, TF1) 

26.	 BLM will conduct annual evaluations of all fee sites 

that address project needs, support equipment, 

visitor services, public comments, administrative 

needs, fees, site regulations, and conflict concerns. 

(Goals RM2, TF1, SE2) 

27.	 BLM will establish and maintain information kiosks 

with site maps, brochures, interpretive and 

educational information, important contacts, and 

site regulations at recreation sites. (Goal RM2) 

28.	 Until or unless different regulations are 

promulgated, recreation users will be limited to 14­

day camping stays with the following exceptions: 

•	 The 7-day camping limit at Holter Lake Sites 

(Holter Dam, Holter Lake, Log Gulch, and 

Departure Point) will continue during the highuse fee season (Memorial Day to Labor Day) 

weekends. 

•	 The 7-day rule will be implemented, as needed, 

at other developed sites if camping demands 

frequently exceed capacities during the highuse fee season (Memorial Day to Labor Day) 

weekends. 

•	 The BFO will comply with new Bureau 

directives governing camping stays in 

undeveloped areas and lower-use developed 

50 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

sites throughout the Field Office. (Goals RM1, 

RM2, SE2) 

29.	 Variances for the general public to the existing 

camping limits during the hunting season will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis by the Field 

Manager subject to the following considerations: 

resource impacts, social conflicts, sanitation 

concerns, livestock use, or whether commercial 

activities would be involved. Preference will be 

given to developed recreation sites during this low 

use period since they provide hardened camping 

units, toilet facilities, and good access. (Goals RM1, 

RM2, SE2) 

30.	 BLM will maintain and develop a web-site of BLM 

recreation sites and areas that provides access 

information and available opportunities. (Goals 

RM1, RM2) 

Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

31.	 Nine SRMAs are designated for priority 

management as listed below and depicted on Map 

10: 

•	 Hauser Lake, 

•	 Humbug Spires, 

•	 Lower Holter Lake/Missouri River, 

•	 Pipestone, 

•	 Scratchgravel Hills, 

•	 Sheep Mountain, 

•	 Sleeping Giant/Missouri River, 

•	 Upper Big Hole River, and 

•	 Uppermost Missouri River. (Goals RM1, RM2, 

RM4) 

32.	 Table 18 indicates the primary recreational 

management strategy (primary recreation tourism 

market, needed recreation management zones, ROS, 

and primary recreation opportunities) for each of the 

SRMAs. (Goals RM1, RM2, RM4) 

33.	 Implementation plans for Special Recreation 

Management Areas (SRMAs) and delineated 

Recreation Management Zones will be developed 

where specific management, marketing, monitoring 

and administrative guidance is needed. Planning 

guidance will include area-specific travel 

management plans, recreation site plans, ROS and 

VRM classifications, and other directives. (Goals 

RM1, RM2, RM4, TM1) 

34.	 The remaining BLM lands not designated as 

SRMAs will be managed as an Extensive RMA. 

This area will be managed on a lower priority basis 

with a few exceptions at some specific 

sites/locations due to use concentrations, resource 

concerns, and/or public demand. (Goals RM1, RM4) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 51 
Table 18 Management of Special Recreation Management Areas SRMA Recreation Tourism Market Recreation Management Zones ROS Primary Recreation O

Hauser Lake Community One Hauser Lake: primarily Roaded Natural Hauser Lake: Developed camping, la

fishing, swimming, picnicking, and gr

Humbug Spires Undeveloped One Semi-primitive, Non-motorized Hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, p

and hunting. Lower Holter 

Lake/Missouri River 

Community One Rural 

Developed camping and day-use activmotorized boating, fishing, swimminggatherings. 

Pipestone Community One Roaded Natural OHV riding, driving for pleasure, sem

hunting, horseback riding, hiking and 

Scratchgravel Hills Community One Rural Hiking, mountain biking, horseback riSheep Mountain Community 

Two sub-units 

separated by Sheep 

Mountain Access 

road 

Northern sub-unit; Semi-primitive, Nonmotorized 

Southern sub-unit; Roaded Natural 

Northern sub-unit; Hiking, rock climbviewing. Southern sub-unit; OHV riding, drivindeveloped camping, and hunting. 

Sleeping Giant/ Missouri River Undeveloped 

Two subunits: 

Sleeping Giant 

ACEC/Preliminarily 

suitable WSR reach 

of Missouri R. 

above Holter Lake 

and non-ACEC 

portion of Sleeping 

Giant 

ACEC/Eligible W&SR Lands; SemiPrimitive, Non-motorized 

Non-ACEC; Semi-primitive, Motorized 

ACEC; Eligible W&SR Lands; Primitfishing, hiking, hunting, horseback ridNon-ACEC; Limited motorized travelhorseback riding and natural viewing. 

Upper Big Hole River Destination One Primarily Roaded Natural Semi-developed camping, limited mot

river access for floating and fishing, fanatural viewing. 

Uppermost Missouri River Community One Primarily Rural Semi-Developed camping, lake access 

motorized boating, fishing, picnicking 

Butte Proposed RMP/Final EIS 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

Designations 

ROS settings will be monitored as needed to ensure that 

appropriate recreation activities, user experiences, 

facility developments and managerial efforts are 

provided in a manner that is compatible with the area 

rating or classification. Priority will be given to Special 

Designation Areas. 

Special Recreation Management Areas 

Priority management efforts will be conducted as 

needed in these areas and recreation management zones 

to ensure that recreation settings, opportunities, 

amenities and experiences are consistent with identified 

recreation-tourism market demands. Monitoring will 

focus on the social, environmental and administrative 

indicators and standards to ensure quality opportunities 

and experiences are provided. Field monitoring patrols 

will address signing, informational displays, facilities, 

visitor uses, social conflicts, public safety concerns and 

resource conditions. Methods to obtain more reliable 

visitation counts will be considered where appropriate 

to determine trends and management priorities. 

Recreation Sites 

The BLM will continue collecting visitor use data at 

highly developed recreation sites annually using traffic 

counters, fee envelopes and visitor logs to assist with 

recreation planning, management and annual reports. 

Important data needs include party size, length-of-stay, 

geographic origin of users, daily visitation levels, 

primary uses and age groups. 

Fee compliance monitoring will be conducted at 

established fee sites on a daily basis subject to 

management capabilities to ensure BLM is receiving 

fair value returns for the services and facilities provided 

to the public. 

User compliance monitoring will continue to be 

conducted daily as needed to ensure that site regulations 

are being followed in order to minimize social conflicts, 

provide quality experiences, protect resources and 

promote public safety. Law enforcement personnel will 

be requested when needed to assist with this effort. 

Visitor surveys will be conducted periodically utilizing 

approved BLM methods, partnership efforts under the 

Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation Plan, and 

on-site public suggestion boxes to assess site facility 

and service needs, user satisfaction levels, desired 

experiences and public safety concerns. 

Recreation site condition assessments will be conducted 

routinely in accordance with the Bureau’s Facility 

Asset Management System. See the Transportation and 

Facilities section for more discussion. High use 

facilities such as docks, toilets, water systems, fish 

cleaning stations, pay stations, swim beach areas, 

information kiosks etc. will be monitored daily during 

the high use season within fee sites and at least biweekly in non-fee sites. 

Trailhead registers and traffic counters will be utilized 

as appropriate to monitor use levels and user 

satisfaction into back-country areas. 

Seasonal weed monitoring and control efforts will 

continue to be a high priority within developed fee 

areas. 

Special Recreation Permits 

Monitoring of Special Recreation Permits will be 

conducted as needed to ensure compliance with permit 

terms, conditions, stipulations, operating plans and 

established fees to ensure resources are protected, social 

conflicts are mitigated and uses are conducted in a safe 

and professional manner. 

Methods for monitoring permitted users and their 

activities shall include post-use reports, field 

observations, patrol logs, photos, client information and 

permittee performance. The level and types of 

monitoring should be commensurate with the resource 

values at risk, type of activity, potential for social 

conflicts, permittee trust and concerns for public safety. 

Special Designations - Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) 

Goal 

Goal AC1– Designate ACECs and manage them 

appropriately where special management attention is 

required to protect relevant and important values. 

Management Actions 

Allowable Uses (Goal AC1) 

Four ACECs are designated totaling 70,644 acres. 

These areas are: 

• Sleeping Giant (11,679 acres), 

• Elkhorns (50,431 acres), 

• Humbug Spires (8,374 acres), 

• Ringing Rocks (160 acres). 

Information on the relevant and important values of 

these four ACECs is summarized in Table 19. 

In the event that WSAs designated as ACECs become 

designated as wilderness, ACEC management will be 

dropped upon development of wilderness management 

plans. 

For areas of overlap between WSAs and ACECs, WSA 

management will take precedence. Management 

direction below for ACECs will be in effect if it is 

consistent with WSA management. Where ACEC 

management described below is not consistent with 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 19 

Designated ACECs 

ACEC Relevant and Important Values 

Elkhorn 

Mountains 

• Important cultural/historic sites. 

• Diverse upland and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish. 

• Unique National management area. 

Humbug Spires • Outstanding scenic qualities. 

• Diverse upland and aquatic habitat for plants, animals, and fish. 

Ringing Rocks • Rare and unique geological rock feature. 

Sleeping Giant • Outstanding scenic qualities. 

• Diverse upland and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish. 

WSA management for these overlap areas, ACEC 

management will be considered “fall back” 

management if these areas are eliminated from 

wilderness consideration by Congress. 

Actions 

In discussions of each individual ACEC below, general 

management direction is characterized by major 

management activity category. Special management 

prescriptions are designated in italic font. 

Elkhorn Mountains ACEC (Map 11) 

The Elkhorn Mountains ACEC (50,431 acres) will be 

managed under the following management guidance. 

Management direction is characterized by critical 

resource and resource use categories below. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

1.	 Majority of the area will be managed as Roaded 

Natural. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

2.	 Elkhorns Tack-on WSA will be managed as SemiPrimitive Non-motorized. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

3.	 Wood-Horse Gulch area north of BPA road will be 

managed as Semi-Primitive Motorized. (Goals 

AC1, RM1, SE2) 

4.	 Nursery-Golconda Creek area northwest of WSA 

will be managed as Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

(Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

5.	 Parcels between Dutchman and Prickly Pear Creek 

will be managed as Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

(Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

6.	 Johnny-Keating area will be managed as Roaded 

Modified. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

Motorized Travel Management 

7.	 Motorized travel will be “limited” to designated 

routes in order to protect wildlife and nonmotorized recreation values. (Goals AC1, TM1, 

RM1, SE2, SE4) 

8.	 No new permanent roads or motorized trails will be 

authorized for public use (road relocation will be 

allowed to protect resources, maintain access 

and/or protect human safety). (Goals AC1, WF2, 

TM1, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

9.	 Existing road closures will be maintained and 

enforced per the 1995 Elkhorns travel plan. BLM 

will re-evaluate and/or monitor routes to determine 

if changes to existing plan are required. (Goals 

AC1, TM1, SE2, SE4) 

10.	 Non-motorized recreation will be promoted and 

emphasized. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

Visual Resource Management 

11.	 The majority of the area will be managed as VRM 

Class III and IV. (Goals AC1, VR1, SE4) 

12.	 The Elkhorns Tack-on WSA will be managed as 

VRM Class II (if Congress releases it from 

wilderness consideration). (Goals AC1, VR1, SE4) 

13.	 High visibility lands along Missouri River, canyon 

cliffs along Indian Creek and scattered parcels 

adjacent to USFS north and west boundaries will 

be managed as VRM Class II. (Goals AC1, VR1, 

SE4) 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

14.	 All BLM lands within the ACEC will be retained in 

BLM public ownership. (Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, 

CP2, SE4) 

15.	 The area will be classified as not suitable for 

Recreation and Public Purposes patent actions. 

(Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, CP2, SE4) 

16.	 Priority will be given to acquire lands (fee 

title/easements) to “block up” BLM lands within 

and adjacent to the ACEC to enhance relevant and 

important values, manageability and public access 

to or within the area. (Goals AC1, WF5, LR1, CP2, 

SE4) 

54 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Land Use Authorizations 

17.	 The ACEC will be open to new rights-of-way (with 

some exceptions – see Allowable Uses-Land Use 

Authorizations section of this document) and 2920 

Permits and Leases with restrictions to protect 

area values. (Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, CP2, SE4) 

18.	 The area will be classified as not suitable for 

Recreation and Public Purposes lease actions. 

(Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, CP2, SE4) 

Leasable Minerals (including Oil and Gas) 

19.	 No Surface Occupancy will be allowed in Muskrat 

Creek Watershed. (Goals AC1, RV2, WF3, WF5, 

WR1, WR3, WR4, SE4) 

20.	 No Surface Occupancy will be allowed in Crow 

Creek Campground. (Goals AC1, RM2, SE2, SE4) 

21.	 No Surface Occupancy will be allowed in sensitive 

plant population locations. (Goals AC1, WF5) 

22.	 Remaining area will be subject to all other 

stipulations for oil and gas exploration in this 

Approved RMP. (Goals AC1, EM1, EM2, SE1) 

Locatable Minerals 

23.	 ACEC lands will be open to operations under the 

Mining Laws. An approved Plan of Operations will 

be required for surface disturbing activity greater 

than casual use. (Goals AC1, EM1, EM2, SE1) 

Salable Minerals 

24.	 Salable minerals sales will be allowed in ways that 

minimize impacts to wildlife and recreation. (Goals 

AC1, EM1, EM2, SE1) 

Vegetation Management 

25.	 The Elkhorns will be managed as an ecological 

unit across political boundaries for the purpose of 

sustaining ecological systems, including the full 

range of potential biological diversity and 

ecosystem processes. (Goals AC1, GS1, FW1, 

FW2, FW3, FW4, FW5, FW6, WF1, SE4) 

26.	 No timber salvage will be allowed unless beneficial 

to ACEC values or needed for human safety. 

(Goals AC1, WF3, WF5, SE4) 

Wildlife 

27.	 Current direction outlined in the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) signed by MFWP, USFS, 

and BLM will be followed within a modified 

boundary from the one described in the MOU 

(Map 11). (Goals AC1, WF1, WF2, WF5, WF6, 

SE4) 

28.	 Wildlife and wildlife habitats will be managed to 

support populations of species associated with 

endemic vegetative communities, with emphasis on 

providing the necessary habitat components for 

those species with special needs. (Goals AC1, GS1, 

FW1, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, WF6, WF7, 

SE4) 

29.	 Management activities will have long-term benefits 

to wildlife and will minimize short-term impacts 

(with the exception of mining). (Goals AC1, WF1, 

WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, WF6, WF7, SE4) 

30.	 The BLM will seek opportunities to convert sheep 

allotments to cattle allotments at the time an 

allotment is vacated, sold, or transferred. Existing 

sheep allotments will remain in effect unless 

permittees are interested in working with the BLM 

to convert to cattle. (Goals AC1, WF5, SE4) 

31.	 BLM will continue to actively participate in 

partnerships. (Goals AC1, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, 

WF5, WF6, WF7, SE4) 

32.	 BLM will continue to work with MFWP and the 

USFS to resolve issues in the Elkhorn Mountain 

Range. (Goals AC1, WF1, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, 

WF6, WF7, SE4) 

33.	 Activity timing restrictions for burning, noise and 

ground disturbance will be enforced. (Goals AC1, 

WF4, WF5, SE4) 

Fire/Fuels Management 

34.	 BLM will seek opportunities with surrounding 

landowners (private/FS) to allow natural fires to 

burn when within established prescriptions. (Goals 

AC1, GS1, FW1, FM1, FM2, FM4) 

35.	 BLM will continue following the existing Elkhorns 

Fire Management Plan but evaluate all 

opportunities for natural fire use. (Goals AC1, 

FM1, FM2, FM3, FM4, FM5) 

Livestock Grazing 

36.	 BLM will place a priority on management to 

ensure against unauthorized livestock grazing 

(maintain/build boundary fences, cattle guards and 

closely monitor livestock trailing). (Goals AC1, 

LG1, LG2, LG3) 

37.	 Management activities will be allowed only to 

maintain or enhance ecosystems, natural qualities, 

and scenic values. (Goals AC1, LG1, LG2, LG3, 

VR1, SE4) 

Cultural Resources 

38.	 BLM will refrain from developing any additional 

permanent roads to prevent further degradation to 

historic ditches, dams, and reservoirs. (Goals AC1, 

CP2) 

Humbug Spires ACEC (Map 12) 

The Humbug Spires ACEC (8,374 acres) will be 

managed under the following management guidance. 

Management direction is characterized by critical 

resource and resource use categories below. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

1.	 ACEC will be managed for Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized experiences. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

Motorized Travel Management 

2.	 Area will be closed yearlong to all motorized travel 

in order to protect natural and scenic values. (Goals 

AC1, WF2, VR1, SE4) 

3.	 No new roads or motorized trails will be 

authorized. (Goals AC1, TM1, WF2, SE4) 

4.	 Motorized route closures will be managed within 

the area in accordance with the Upper Big Hole 

River Travel Plan. (Goals AC1, TM1) 

Visual Resource Management 

5.	 ACEC will be managed for VRM Class II 

objectives (if Congress releases it from wilderness 

consideration). (Goals AC1, VR1, SE4) 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

6.	 All BLM lands will be retained in the ACEC. 

(Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, VR1, SE4) 

7.	 High priority will be given to acquiring inholding 

lands or interests and adjacent lands along Moose 

Creek on east boundary from willing landowners to 

enhance management and ACEC values. (Goals 

AC1, WF5, LR1, VR1, SE4) 

8.	 Area will be classified as not suitable for 

Recreation and Public Purposes patent actions. 

(Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, VR1, SE4) 

Land Use Authorizations 

9.	 Area will be closed to all new rights-of-way and 

2920 Permits and Leases. (Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, 

VR1, SE4) 

10.	 Area will be classified as not suitable for 

Recreation and Public Purposes lease actions. 

(Goals AC1, WF5, LR2, VR1, SE4) 

Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

11.	 Oil and Gas activities will be subject to No Surface 

Occupancy (would apply if the Humbug Spires 

WSA were released from wilderness 

consideration). (Goals AC1, WF5, VR1, SE2) 

12.	 The area will be unavailable to all other mineral 

leases. (Goals AC1, WF5, VR1, SE2) 

Locatable Minerals 

13.	 ACEC values will be protected from unnecessary 

and undue degradation. (Goals AC1, EM1, EM2, 

SE1) 

14.	 A Plan of Operations will be required for any 

surface disturbing activity greater than casual use 

in the ACEC. (Goals AC1, EM1, EM2, SE1) 

Salable Minerals 

15.	 The area will be unavailable to salable minerals. 

(Goals AC1, WF5, VR1, SE4) 

Vegetation Management 

16.	 Management activities will be allowed to restore 

ecosystems provided natural, primitive recreation, 

native wildlife and scenic values are protected. 

(Goals AC1, GS1, FW1, WF1, WF2, WF3,WF4, 

WF5, SE4) 

Fire/Fuels Management 

17.	 BLM will seek opportunities with surrounding 

landowners (private/USFS) to allow natural fires to 

burn when they are within established prescriptions 

and beneficial to ACEC values. (Goals AC1, GS1, 

FW1, FM1, FM2, FM4) 

18.	 Prescribed fires will only be used in situations that 

would benefit ACEC values. (Goals AC1, GS1, 

FW1, WF5, VR1, EM2, SE4) 

Livestock Grazing 

19.	 Management will ensure against unauthorized 

livestock grazing (maintain/build boundary fences, 

cattle guards and closely monitor livestock 

trailing). (Goals AC1, LG1, LG2, LG3) 

20.	 Management activities will only be allowed to 

protect or enhance ecosystems and ACEC values. 

(Goals AC1, LG1, LG2, SE4) 

Additional Special Management 

21.	 BLM will assess alternatives and implement 

measures to minimize visitor encounters and 

enhance solitude experiences along the established 

hiking trail. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2) 

22.	 The existing trail will be rerouted/maintained to 

address erosion and water quality concerns. 

(Goals AC1, RV2, SR1, WR1, WR3, SE4) 

23.	 Outfitter camping use within 200 feet of existing 

trail will be eliminated. (Goals AC1, RM3, SE2) 

24.	 Special permit uses will be eliminated during 

summer holiday weekends if conflicts arise with 

other public visitors. (Goals AC1, RM3, SE2) 

25.	 BLM will close rock climbing on spires with active 

raptor nests to outfitter uses and educate the public 

about the importance of avoiding such locations. 

(Goals AC1, WF3, WF5, SE4) 

26.	 The interpretative information displayed at the 

Moose Creek Trailhead will be improved to: 

•	 Describe the area and its important/relevant 

characteristics. 

•	 Educate visitors about resource protection and 

Leave No Trace principles. 

56 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

•	 Display a quality map of the area. (Goals 

AC1, WF5, VR1, SE4) 

Ringing Rocks ACEC (Map 13) 

The Ringing Rocks ACEC (160 acres) was withdrawn 

from mineral entry in 1965. The Montana Bureau of 

Mining and Geology evaluation concluded that while 

the greater surrounding area has high mineral potential, 

the Ringing Rocks withdrawal area has low to no 

mineral potential. 

The Ringing Rocks is a geologic feature resulting from 

a combination of chemical composition and jointing 

patterns which chime when struck. Rocks removed 

from the formation do not ring. The only other ringing 

rocks formation known in the United States is located 

in Pennsylvania. 

If the Ringing Rocks feature was changed in any way, 

including mining, it could not be reclaimed to the extent 

that the rocks would once again ring. 

The Ringing Rocks ACEC will be managed as an 

ACEC under the following management guidance. 

Management direction is characterized by critical 

resource and resource use categories below. 

Salable Minerals 

1.	 The area will be unavailable to salable minerals. 

(Goals AC1, EM3) 

Vegetation Management 

2.	 Vegetation treatments will be planned to ensure 

that the visual qualities of the 160-acre area are 

not adversely impacted. (Goals AC1, EM3, VR1) 

Additional Special Management 

3.	 Interpretative information displayed at the site will 

be improved to: 

•	 Discuss the uniqueness of the rock formation. 

•	 Educate visitors about the importance of 

protecting the rock features 

•	 Describe the cultural/mining history of the 

area. (Goals AC1, CP2, EM3, SE2) 

4.	 Collection/removal of rocks within the formation 

will not be allowed. (Goals AC1, EM3) 

5.	 The nearby abandoned mine shaft will be 

reclaimed. (Goals AC1, AM2) 

6.	 Cultural features at risk will be protected. (Goals 

AC1, CP2) 

Sleeping Giant ACEC (Map 14) 

While the Sleeping Giant ACEC was identified as being 

11,609 acres when it was originally designated, more 

accurate GIS calculations based on its original 

boundaries indicate a size of 11,679 acres. 

Sleeping Giant ACEC will be managed under its 

original management plan (USDI-BLM 1988) with the 

following modifications. 

1.	 Area will be closed to all new rights-of-way. 

Maintenance of the existing Towhead/Falls Gulch 

Power line will be allowed. Future upgrades will 

be authorized provided that ACEC resources are 

not degraded. (Goals AC1, LR2) 

2.	 Discretionary management actions will only be 

allowed to protect or enhance ecosystems, and 

long-term ACEC values (naturalness, primitive and 

unconfined forms of recreation, solitude 

experiences, visual resources, native wildlife, and 

cultural resources). (Goals AC1, GS1, FW1, WF1, 

WF2, WF5, RM1, VR1, CP2, SE4) 

3.	 For the entire river/lake shoreline, the existing 

livestock grazing restrictions outlined in the 

current grazing lease and Oxbow Allotment 

Management Plan will continue to be implemented. 

BLM will cooperatively work with the lessee to 

restrict and/or manage livestock grazing along the 

river/lake shoreline from Memorial Day weekend 

through Labor Day weekend to enhance primitive 

recreation experiences, soil/water quality 

conditions, visual resources, and natural values. 

(Goals AC1, LG1, RM1, SE4) 

4.	 BLM will seek opportunities to allow for 

prescribed natural fires and develop a coordinated 

management plan if appropriate. (Goals AC1, FM1, 

FM2, FM4) 

5.	 In addition to controlling noxious weeds through 

chemical and biological means, mechanical (hand 

pulling) efforts will also be utilized where 

practical. (Goals AC1, NW1, WF1) 

6.	 ROS management for the ACEC will be semiprimitive non-motorized. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2, 

SE4) 

7.	 With the exception of the Beartooth Landing Site, 

docks will not be authorized at the primitive 

shoreline sites. (Goals AC1, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

8.	 Cutting of dead and down material for firewood 

will not be allowed unless specifically authorized. 

(Goals AC1, WF3) 

9.	 Aerial spraying within 300 feet of streams or the 

river will be prohibited. (Goals AC1, RV1, RV2, 

WF3, WR1) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 57 
Approved Resource Management Plan 

6556 ft. 

6030 ft. 

5897 ft. 

6673 ft. 

6994 ft. Dry 

Mountain 

6785 ft. 

6510 ft. 

5591 ft. 

5271 ft. 

5125 ft. 

5294 ft. 

5024 ft. 

4857 ft. 

4825 ft. 

4726 ft. 

Pipestone 

Hot Springs 

Beaverhead / 

Deerlodge 

National Forest 

Delmoe Lake 

Road 

Pipestone 

(Exit 241) 

Pipestone 

Road 

Spire Rock 

Flats 

Pipestone 

OHV Trailhead 

Township 3 North 

Township 2 North 

Range 6 West

Range 5 West 

31 

6 

36 

Trailhead 

Interstate Highway 

Public Access Route 

Non-BLM Route 

ACEC Area 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Private Ownership 

State of Montana 

US Forest Service (USFS) 

Contour interval is 100 feet 

BLM Open / Restricted Route 

Ringing 

Rocks 

ACEC 

Miles 

0 1 1 inch equals 0.76 miles 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in January 2009 

UTM Zone 12 North (NAD 1983) Projection 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual 

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may 

not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and information may be updated without notification. 

Map 13: Ringing Rocks Area of
 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Approved Resource Management Plan
 

58 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Monitoring 

ACEC monitoring will be routinely conducted to assess 

status of relevant and important values in accordance 

with Section 103(a) of FLPMA. Objectives for 

monitoring will be to protect and prevent irreparable 

damage to relevant and important values for each 

ACEC, and to provide for visitor health and safety. 

Visual observations and trend conditions based on 

indicators will be used where needed to document 

impacts, potential causes and develop necessary 

management changes. 

Where outstanding scenic quality is a relevant and 

important value (Humbug Spires and Sleeping Giant 

ACECs), monitoring will be conducted to protect 

against unauthorized trespass actions and to ensure that 

identified proposed projects conform with VRM Class 

II objectives (for non-WSA areas and WSA areas 

released from wilderness consideration by Congress) 

and Scenic Quality A ratings. Visual contrast ratings, 

described in BLM Manual 8400 will be conducted for 

proposed actions as appropriate to minimize visual 

resource impacts and to assess the effectiveness of 

implemented design features and mitigation measures. 

VRM compliance monitoring will be conducted and 

findings recorded annually. Documentation methods 

available include photographs, simulations, videos, and 

written reports. 

Where upland and aquatic habitats constitute relevant 

and important values (Elkhorn Mountains, Humbug 

Spires, and Sleeping Giant ACECs), monitoring will be 

conducted as indicated for these resources in the 

Wildlife, Fish, Wildlife Habitat, Special Status and 

Priority Plant and Animal Species section above. 

To monitor wildlife habitats in these ACECs with 

upland habitats as a relevant and important value, 

vegetation transects, photo points, plot surveys as well 

as other appropriate sampling methods will be used to 

monitor vegetation to determining plant species 

diversity, abundance, distribution and structure. 

Monitoring data will be used to assess changes in 

distribution, canopy, vegetative quality and 

composition of sagebrush/grasslands, coniferous forests 

and riparian/wetland habitats. 

In light of the important cultural/historic sites as a 

relevant and important value in the Elkhorn Mountains 

ACEC, the Butte Field Office will dedicate a portion of 

its annual cultural resource monitoring commitment to 

the Elkhorn Mountains ACEC. The number of sites 

monitored will be different from year to year in order to 

respond to various issues affecting cultural resources 

such as tribal concerns, vandalism, and changes in the 

number and type of public interpretation venues. 

While the relevant and important values in the Elkhorn 

Mountains ACEC are centered on upland and aquatic 

habitat as well as cultural resources, the Elkhorn 

Mountains are an area with high mineral potential for 

locatable mineral resources and additional monitoring 

by resource specialists associated with any mineral 

activity will be routinely incorporated into field work in 

the Elkhorns. Compliance monitoring will be conducted 

and findings recorded as field work is completed. 

Documentation methods will include photographs and 

written reports. 

In the Ringing Rocks ACEC, monitoring will be 

conducted to protect against unauthorized mineral 

trespass actions and to ensure that any nearby identified 

proposed projects conform with protecting the unique 

geologic feature here. Compliance monitoring will be 

conducted and documented. Documentation methods 

available include photographs and written reports. 

Special Designations - National Trails 

Goal 

Goal NT1 – Manage National Trails to promote public 

enjoyment and protect their designated values. 

Management Actions 

1.	 The Continental Divide National Scenic Trail will 

be managed cooperatively with the USFS in 

accordance with national policy guidelines. The 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail will be 

managed cooperatively with the National Park 

Service (NPS) in accordance with national policy 

guidelines. (Goals NT1, RM1, RM2, SE2, SE4) 

2.	 BLM will seek opportunities to cooperatively 

manage National Trails through partnerships. 

(Goals NT1, RM1, RM2, SE2, SE4) 

3.	 BLM will continue cooperative efforts with 

Pennsylvania Power and Light of Montana (PPLM) 

and other partners to collectively manage the Lewis 

and Clark National Historic Trail under the 

Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation 

Plan. All recreation sites within the trail corridor 

will continue to be managed in a manner that 

promotes public accessibility, resource protection, 

visitor safety, and interpretive education. (Goals 

NT1, RM1, RM2, SE2, SE4) 

4.	 The two National Trails (Continental Divide 

National Scenic Trail and Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail) will be managed to protect 

natural resource values, minimize recreation 

conflicts, and enhance recreation opportunities and 

experiences. Lands within these extensive corridors 

will be retained in public ownership. Additional 

management guidance will be established in 

accordance with the ROS classes, VRM classes, 

travel plan direction, and oil and gas stipulations 

established elsewhere in this Approved RMP. 

(Goals NT1, RM1, RM2, SE2, SE4) 

5.	 BLM will evaluate opportunities to re-route the 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail segment 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 59 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

(occupied by a road) in coordination with the 

USFS to enhance non-motorized opportunities; 

reduce current needs for use easements/acquisitions 

through private lands; and remove motorized 

conflicts associated with the motorized road. 

(Goals NT1, RM1, RM2, SE2, SE4) 

Monitoring 

The BLM will periodically monitor BLM lands along 

the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and the 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail to ensure that 

management actions are in conformance with VRM, 

ROS, SRMA, ACEC and OHV travel designations and 

guidelines so that opportunities and user experiences 

are protected. Data will be collected and documented 

using patrol logs, surveillance reports and photographs. 

Efforts to prevent unauthorized uses will include law 

enforcement patrols, area surveillance by BLM staff 

and volunteers, boundary signing, educational 

materials, news releases and project compliance visits. 

Unauthorized actions will be mitigated so that natural 

settings are retained to the extent possible. 

The BLM segment of the Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail above Marysville will be monitored 

annually to protect the visual and natural qualities of 

the BLM corridor lands as seen from the trail. In 

addition the existing trail will be annually monitored so 

that unacceptable safety hazards are corrected, resource 

damages are mitigated and appropriate uses are 

occurring. 

Periodic monitoring will be done along segments of the 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail managed by 

the Butte Field Office to ensure that management 

actions are not adversely impacting the historical 

values. The Butte Field Office will continue to promote 

applicable management guidelines as an active partner 

of the Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation 

Plan. 

Special Designations - Wild and Scenic 

Rivers 

Goal 

Goal WSR1 – Identify river segments suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System 

and manage appropriately for Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values. 

Objectives (Goal WSR1) 

Protective management objectives for river segments 

being recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic 

River designation include: 

•	 Free-flow characteristics will not be modified by 

stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, 

or riprap. 

•	 Each segment will be managed to protect identified 

outstandingly remarkable values, and to the extent 

practicable such values will be enhanced. 

•	 Development of the eligible river and its corridor 

will not be modified to the extent that the eligibility 

or tentative classification would be affected. 

These objectives for protective management under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act will be applied to 

recommended suitable segments until they are either 

designated by Congress or released to multiple use. 

Protective management will be subject to valid 

existing rights and to actions within BLM’s authority. 

Any proposed activities will be reviewed to ensure that 

Wild and Scenic River eligibility and tentative 

classification will not be affected. 

Management Actions 

1.	 In cooperation with other agencies, local 

governments, and special interest groups, 

management will be conducted in a manner to 

protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable 

values for each river being recommended as 

suitable for Wild and Scenic River designation. 

Table 20 depicts the outstandingly remarkable 

values and tentative classifications of the two river 

segments being recommended as suitable for 

designation. (Goal WSR1) 

Table 20 

Recommended Suitable Wild and Scenic River 

Segments 

WSR Segment 

Name 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

Missouri River Recreational 

Wildlife 

Scenic 

Scenic 

Muskrat Creek Fish Scenic 

2.	 Muskrat Creek (2.6 miles located in T7N, R3W, 

sections 31-33) is recommended as suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System (NWSRS). (Goals WSR1, RV1, RV2, WF3, 

WR1, SE4) 

3.	 Missouri River (3.1 miles located in T12N, R3W, 

section 13; and T12N, R2W, sections 18, 19, 29, 

30) is recommended as preliminarily suitable, but 

will only be recommended for inclusion in the 

NWSRS pending USFS (Helena National Forest) 

concurrence and coordination. This river segment 

is bordered by BLM lands on one side and Helena 

National Forest lands on the other. A joint 

recommendation by BLM and the USFS will be 

necessary to forward the Missouri River segment 

as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. (Goals 

WSR1, RV1, RV2, WF3, WR1, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

60 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Monitoring efforts will be conducted for suitable and 

preliminarily suitable WSRs (Muskrat Creek and 

Missouri River) in order to ensure protection of the 

river’s free flowing character, tentative classification 

and identified outstandingly remarkable values until 

such time as Congress makes a final decision on 

whether or not to designate these river segments. Onthe-ground surveillance will be conducted at least 

annually. Monitoring log books will be established for 

recording visits, documenting use compliance and 

violations, and recording resource specific data that is 

responsive to identified outstandingly remarkable 

values. Efforts to prevent unauthorized uses include law 

enforcement patrols and area surveillance by BLM staff 

and volunteers. Unauthorized impacts will be mitigated 

so that identified values are protected. 

Special Designations - Wilderness Study 

Areas 

Goal 

Goal WSA1 – Manage Wilderness Study Areas 

(WSAs) to maintain their suitability for potential 

wilderness designation. 

All BLM lands were evaluated to determine whether 

additional lands other than existing WSAs have 

wilderness characteristics (blocks of land at least 5,000 

acres in size with naturalness and opportunities for 

primitive and unconfined recreation). Lands obtained 

through acquisitions since previous wilderness reviews 

were considered in concert with pre-existing BLM 

lands. No additional BLM lands were identified as 

having wilderness characteristics because no areas with 

naturalness and opportunities for primitive and 

unconfined recreation met the size criteria. (Goal 

WSA1) 

Management Actions 

1.	 All six WSAs (Black Sage – 5,917 acres, Elkhorns 

Tack-on – 3,575 acres, Humbug Spires – 11,320 

acres, Sleeping Giant – 6,666 acres, Sheep Creek – 

3,801 acres, and Yellowstone River Island – 69 

acres) will continue to be managed under the 

Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for 

Lands under Wilderness Review (BLM Handbook 

H-8550-1 dated 1995) until such time as Congress 

either designates them as wilderness or releases 

them from further consideration as wilderness. The 

wilderness characteristics (naturalness, outstanding 

opportunities for solitude, and outstanding 

opportunities for primitive and unconfined 

recreation) of each of the six WSAs will continue 

to be protected under the IMP directives. (Goals 

WSA1, WF2, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

2.	 Any areas designated wilderness by Congress will 

be managed per the Wilderness Act of 1964, as 

amended, Public Law 88-577 (16 United States 

Code 1131-1136). In addition, an area-specific 

wilderness management plan will be developed. 

(Goals WSA1, WF2, RM1, SE2, SE4 ) 

3.	 WSAs will continue to be managed in accordance 

with the established monitoring and sign plans for 

each WSA. (Goal WSA1) 

4.	 In addition to the Interim Management Protection 

mandates, both the Sleeping Giant and the Sheep 

Creek WSAs will continue to be managed as part 

of the Sleeping Giant ACEC under its management 

plan written in 1988 as well as the management 

direction indicated in the ACEC section in this 

Approved RMP for the Sleeping Giant ACEC. 

(Goals WSA1, AC1, WF2, RM1, SE2, SE4) 

5.	 WSAs released from further consideration as 

wilderness will be managed consistent with 

surrounding lands and prescriptions identified in 

this land use plan. (Goal WSA1) 

6.	 If released, the Sleeping Giant, Sheep Creek, 

Humbug Spires, and Elkhorns Tack-on WSAs will 

be managed as ACECs. These administrative 

designations will promote continued protection of 

many of the existing wilderness characteristics for 

these four areas. In the event that these WSAs 

designated as ACECs become designated as 

wilderness, ACEC management will be dropped 

upon development of wilderness management 

plans. See the ACEC section of this Approved 

RMP for detailed descriptions of ACEC 

management of these areas. (Goals WSA1, AC1) 

7.	 Should the USFS lands adjacent to the Elkhorns 

Tack-on WSA be removed from wilderness review, 

this Section 202 (FLPMA) WSA will be dropped 

from further wilderness consideration. This small 

WSA is not capable of providing outstanding 

opportunities for solitude or primitive and 

unconfined recreation on its own and does not meet 

minimum size criteria for wilderness characteristics 

in and of itself. (Goal WSA1) 

8.	 If the Black Sage WSA were to be released from 

wilderness consideration, it would continue to be 

managed to provide semi-primitive, motorized 

recreation opportunities. Motorized travel within 

the area would be designated as “limited” and the 

availability of established routes would be 

determined through an area-specific travel 

management plan. New permanent roads would not 

be authorized although re-routes may be 

considered to minimize resource impacts, public 

safety issues, or access concerns. The visual 

resource classification of the area would be 

modified from VRM Class I to VRM Class II 

management. (Goals TM1, RM1, VR1) 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 61 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Land ownership would be managed for retention 

and exchanges would be considered to improve its 

configuration and manageability. The area would 

be open to rights-of-way subject to mitigations. 

Management would emphasize restoration and 

maintenance of natural processes and conditions 

when considering the appropriateness of other 

resource uses. Locatable minerals would be open 

and subject to requirements to prevent unnecessary 

or undue degradation. All salable and leasable 

minerals with the exception of oil and gas would 

remain unavailable. Oil and gas development 

would be subject to Field Office-wide stipulations 

approved in this RMP. All other resources and uses 

would be managed in accordance with 

management direction in this RMP. (Goals LR1, 

LR2, GS1, FW1, WF1, EM1, EM2, SE1) 

9.	 If released from wilderness consideration, the 

Yellowstone Island would continue to be managed 

to provide semi-primitive, non-motorized 

recreation opportunities. The island would remain 

closed to motorized travel. The visual resource 

classification of the area would be modified from 

VRM Class I to VRM Class II management. Land 

ownership would be managed for retention and the 

island would be closed to rights-of-way. (Goals 

RM1, TM1, VR1, LR2, SE2) 

The island would be open to locatable mineral 

entry subject to requirements to prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation. Oil and gas 

development activities would be subject to 

stipulations approved in this RMP. This area would 

be closed to all other leasable and salable mineral 

actions. Livestock grazing and forest management 

practices would not be allowed. All other resources 

and uses would be managed in accordance with 

management direction described in this RMP. 

(Goals EM1, EM2) 

Monitoring 

WSA monitoring will be conducted to protect 

wilderness characteristics and prevent impairment of an 

area’s suitability for wilderness designation. WSAs are 

currently protected and managed under BLM Handbook 

H-8550-1 (Interim Management Policy and Guidelines 

for Lands Under Wilderness Review). Monitoring 

includes on-the-ground and aerial surveillance, 

conducted at a minimum of once per month during the 

season the area is accessible to the public. Areas not 

accessible by vehicular means will be monitored at least 

once per year. Data will be collected and documented 

using patrol logs, surveillance reports and photographs. 

Efforts to prevent unauthorized uses include law 

enforcement patrols, area surveillance by BLM staff 

and volunteers, boundary signing, WSA maps, 

educational materials, news releases and project 

compliance visits. Unauthorized actions will be 

mitigated promptly subject to funding constraints. 

Air Quality 

Goal 

Goal AQ1 – Ensure BLM authorizations and 

management activities protect the local quality of life 

and sustain economic benefits by complying with tribal, 

local, state, and federal air quality regulations, 

requirements and implementation plans. 

Management Actions 

1.	 BLM will continue to participate in local, state, and 

federal ambient air quality monitoring programs, as 

required. Management of non-attainment areas 

within the Planning Area will be guided by the 

state. (Goal AQ1) 

2.	 BLM will comply with local, state, and federal 

regulatory requirements (Goal AQ1). 

3.	 Management will minimize or prevent air quality 

degradation throughout the Planning Area by 

applying mitigation measures to projects. (Goals 

AQ1, SE1) 

4.	 Air resources will continue to be evaluated on a 

case-by-case basis as part of project level planning 

to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal 

regulatory requirements. Evaluations will consider 

the significance of the proposed project and the 

sensitivity of air resources in the affected area. 

Mitigation measures will be developed as 

appropriate to ensure compatibility of projects with 

air resource management. (Goal AQ1) 

5.	 Before approval of an application for permit to drill 

(APD) for oil and gas or a Sundry Notice 

application that would involve surface disturbance, 

the appropriate level of NEPA analysis (in most 

cases an EA) will be completed. This document 

will analyze effects on all appropriate resources 

and resource uses including air quality as 

identified. (Goals AQ1, EM2, SE1) 

Monitoring 

Air quality is monitored by the State of Montana to 

identify and quantify the effects of all uses and 

activities within the state. Except for wildland fire 

activities and events, BFO management activities do 

not affect air quality to an extent that requires 

monitoring or mitigation. 

An air quality monitoring process for wildland fire 

activities has been developed for Montana (the Smoke 

Monitoring Unit of the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group, 

in coordination with the Montana DEQ) that will help 

quantify air quality standards. Annual review of this 

process to ensure procedures are being followed at the 

implementation stage (i.e. fire prescriptions and 

mitigation measures shall be reviewed and records of 

acreages/tonnages burned shall be maintained and 

62 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

reported) will ensure the air quality goal in the RMP is 

being met. 

Soil Resources 

Goals 

Goal SR1 – Manage uses to minimize accelerated soil 

erosion and compaction and maintain surface soil water 

infiltration based on site-specific conditions. 

Goal SR2 – Maintain or improve soil health and 

fertility, prevent or minimize erosion and compaction 

while supporting multiple use management. 

Objectives (Goals SR1, SR2, RV1, WR1, WR3) 

Soil management objectives include: 

•	 Reduce soil erosion associated with steeper slopes, 

granitic soils, and high recreational use areas. 

•	 Reduce sediment delivery to creeks and streams. 

•	 Reduce soil mass movement (primarily from 

accelerated water erosion) resulting from burned 

areas, aboveground disturbances (primarily roads), 

and accelerated streambank erosion. 

Management Actions 

1.	 BLM will continue to implement soil conservation 

measures and BMPs to meet these management 

objectives. Examples of measures and BMPs that 

will be applied throughout the BFO include: 

•	 Seasonal or yearlong closures of specific road 

and trail sections to reduce soil erosion 

•	 Design, enhancement, and maintenance of 

vegetated filter strips along critical waterways 

•	 Integration of soil, groundwater, and surface 

water management to minimize stream 

channel degradation and improve groundwater 

and surface water quality. (Goals SR1, SR2, 

RV1, RV2, WR1, WR3, WR4) 

2.	 Soil conservation practices and soil BMPs will 

provide the basis for maintaining soil productivity, 

fertility, and stability, and maximizing infiltration 

of natural precipitation and minimizing runoff, soil 

erosion, and sedimentation. (Goals SR1, SR2,FW1, 

FS1, RV1, WR4) 

3.	 Consideration of soil conditions and types and their 

influence on management actions will occur on a 

case-by-case basis. Best Management Practices and 

mitigation measures will be implemented at the 

site-specific project level to maintain or improve 

the soil resource. Soils susceptible to compaction 

and erosion will receive greater consideration when 

assessing proposed activities. (Goals SR1, SR2, 

WR4) 

4.	 Soil compaction and erosion problems will be 

diagnosed using Land Health Standards. (Goals 

SR1, SR2) 

5.	 Appropriate mitigation or seasonal restrictions will 

be applied to activities in areas with significant soil 

compaction or accelerated erosion. (Goals SR1, 

SR2) 

6.	 The BLM will re-seed disturbed areas where 

needed based on site-specific assessments. (Goals 

SR1, SR2, GS1, FW1, WF1) 

Monitoring 

Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that 

management actions conform to laws, regulations and 

applicable standards pertaining to soil quality including 

soil compaction, erosion and productivity. Information 

on soil/site stability, derived from assessments of Land 

Health Standards, is typically inferred from other 

monitoring information, such as vegetative cover and 

density, litter cover, and stream sediment loading and 

turbidity. It can be assumed, in the absence of 

measurable and observable soil erosion, and in the 

presence of healthy vegetative communities, that soil 

processes are functioning correctly. 

Water Resources 

Goals 

Goal WR1 – Restore and/or maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of water resources to 

protect designated beneficial uses and achieve water 

quality standards. 

Goal WR2 – Maintain existing or acquire new water 

rights on lands in the Decision Area to ensure water 

availability for multiple-use management. 

Goal WR3 – Minimize erosion and subsequent 

sedimentation for improved stream and watershed 

health. 

Goal WR4 – Maintain or improve morphological 

conditions to a stable state that can fully support 

beneficial uses. 

Goal WR5 – Protect water quality for municipal, 

industrial, agricultural, recreation, and residential 

purposes by adopting protective measures to meet 

tribal, state, and local water quality requirements. 

Objectives (Goals WR1, WR3, WR4, WR5) 

Management will seek to prevent water quality 

degradation, and improve watershed function 

throughout the Planning Area. 

The objective on Decision Area lands is for water 

bodies to have measurable attributes within sitespecifically appropriate ranges (including meeting state, 

tribal, and local water quality standards). From a 

morphological standpoint these ranges may be based on 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 63 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

reference conditions or other scientifically accepted 

methods. For proper functioning condition in streams, 

entrenchment, width/depth ratio, sinuosity, channel 

substrate, and slope should be within the ranges 

identified for channel types. 

Management Actions 

1.	 BMPs will be used to prevent non-point source 

water pollution and mitigation measures will be 

applied to activities on a case-by-case basis. (Goals 

WR1, WR3, WR 4, WR5, RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

2.	 Permits pertaining to projects affecting water 

quality, wetlands, or streams will be obtained, and 

outside applicants will be required to provide 

copies of pertinent permits prior to BLM authorization. (Goals WR1, WR3, WR4, WR5, FW1, RV1, 

RV2, WF3, SE4) 

3.	 BLM will use the State of Montana BMPs to 

address non-point source water pollution 

(Appendix B). (Goals WR1, WR3, WR4, WR5, 

RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

4.	 BLM will comply with the non-degradation 

provisions of the Montana Water Quality Act. 

(Goals WR1, WR3, WR5) 

5.	 Water rights and instream flow reservations will be 

maintained subject to Montana water law. BLM 

will participate in the Montana Statewide water 

adjudication process and comply with Montana law 

for water rights. (Goals WR1, WR2, WR5, RV1, 

RV2, WF3, SE4) 

6.	 Existing water rights will be maintained to ensure 

water availability for multiple-use management and 

proper functioning riparian and upland areas. 

(Goals WR1, WR2, WR5, RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

7.	 BLM will consider acquiring water rights from 

willing sellers. (Goals WR1, WR2, WR5, RV1, RV2, 

WF3, SE4) 

8.	 Projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis 

to minimize impacts to water quality. BLM will 

use “reasonable land, soil, and water conservation 

practices” (MDEQ 2009) to prevent harm to public 

health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild 

animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife. (Goals WR1, 

WR3, WR4, WR5, RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

9.	 BLM will continue to coordinate and cooperate 

with Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ) and communities in the 

development of Water Quality Restoration Plans 

(WQRPs) and Source Water Protection Plans. 

(Goals WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR5, RV1, RV2, 

WF3, SE4) 

10.	 BLM will participate in the development, 

implementation and monitoring of water quality 

restoration plans and TMDL plans in watershed 

planning areas in which BLM is a significant land 

manager or water user. (Goals WR1, WR2, WR3, 

WR4, WR5, RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

11.	 BLM will examine Water Quality Restoration 

Plans (WQRPs) to determine if reduction targets of 

pollutants (TMDLs) are reasonable and attainable. 

WQRPs will be implemented as funding becomes 

available. (Goals WR1, WR2, WR3, WR4, WR5, 

RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

12.	 Burned areas will be monitored for weed 

infestations and accelerated soil erosion. Where 

sedimentation from burned areas impacts adjacent 

streams, erosion will be remediated. (Goals WR1, 

WR3, WR4, WR5, RV1, RV2, WF3, SE4) 

Monitoring 

Water quality will be monitored to establish baseline 

conditions, identify areas of concern, and document 

progress from mitigation measures. 

Water resources monitoring is primarily designed to 

measure water quality attributes as an indicator of reach 

or watershed scale condition relative to identified 

beneficial uses (e.g. salmonid habitat) and standards 

prescribed under the Clean Water Act. Water quality 

monitoring is primarily in the context of effectiveness 

monitoring, relying on monitoring of other resources, 

such as vegetation, that generally indicate an earlier 

response to land management activities and function as 

surrogate measures of water quality. The prioritization, 

intensity, and scale (watershed, subwatershed or 

reach/site) of implementation and effectiveness 

monitoring will be determined through watershed or 

reach/site assessments, activity plans, or WQRPs. 

Identification of specific riparian attributes of 

vegetation, hydrology/geomorphology and 

erosion/deposition to be monitored will be identified 

through PFC assessments and activity level planning. 

The relevance of vegetation management to the 

maintenance, restoration, or improvement of water 

quality and quantity will be reflected in monitoring the 

implementation and effectiveness of BMPs, and may 

include a variety of techniques to assess condition and 

trend. 

Visual Resources 

Goal 

Goal VR1 – Manage visual resources in accordance 

with VRM classifications described below. 

Objectives (Goals VR1, SE4) 

Management classifications are established for all BLM 

lands based on visual resource characteristics (scenic 

quality, sensitivity level and distance zones) and 

management considerations. Generally, areas that have 

lower Visual Resource Management (VRM) 

64 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

classifications have higher visual resource values and 

protection measures. 

Objectives for visual resources are to manage BFO 

lands in accordance with the following acreages by 

VRM classes: 

•	 Approximately 31,500 acres will be managed as 

VRM Class I. These lands include all six WSAs. 

The objective of this class is to preserve the 

existing character of the landscape. This class 

provides for natural ecological changes; however, 

it does not preclude very limited management 

activity. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be very low and must not attract 

attention. 

•	 Approximately 48,900 acres will be managed as 

VRM Class II. The objective of this class is to 

retain the existing character of the landscape. The 

level of change to the characteristic landscape 

should be low. Management activities may be seen, 

but should not attract the attention of the casual 

observer. Any changes must repeat the basic 

elements of form, line, color, and texture found in 

the predominant natural features of the 

characteristic landscape. 

•	 Approximately 125,200 acres will be managed as 

VRM Class III. The objective of this class is to 

partially retain the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape should be moderate. Management 

activities may attract attention but should not 

dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes 

should repeat the basic elements found in the 

predominant natural features of the characteristic 

landscape. 

•	 Approximately 101,700 acres will be managed as 

VRM Class IV. The objective of this class is to 

provide for management activities which require 

major modifications of the existing character of the 

landscape. The level of change to the characteristic 

landscape can be high. These management 

activities may dominate the view and be the major 

focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt 

should be made to minimize the impact of these 

activities through careful location, minimal 

disturbance, and repeating the basic elements. 

Maps 15a-15c depict the location of these classes 

throughout the Butte Field Office. 

Management Actions 

1.	 Visual resource design techniques and best 

management practices will be used to minimize 

short and long-term visual impacts. (Goals VR1, 

SE4) 

2.	 Contrast ratings will be completed for proposed 

projects in Class I and II areas, and for proposed 

projects in Class III and IV areas that are high 

impact projects or located in highly sensitive areas. 

(Goals VR1, SE4) 

3.	 VRM Class I objectives for all WSAs will be 

maintained. (Goals VR1, SE4) 

Monitoring 

Monitoring will be conducted to ensure that identified 

project design features and/or mitigation measures are 

performed in a manner that conforms to established 

VRM class objectives. Visual contrast ratings, 

described in BLM Manual 8400 will be conducted as 

appropriate to minimize visual resource impacts and to 

assess the effectiveness of implemented design features 

and mitigation measures. VRM implementation 

monitoring will be tracked and recorded. 

Documentation methods available include photographs, 

simulations, videos, and written reports. 

Cultural Resources, Traditional 

Cultural Properties and Paleontological 

Resources 

Goals 

Goal CP 1 – Identify cultural resource sites, traditional 

cultural properties, and paleontological localities and 

mitigate impacts from natural or human-caused 

deterioration. 

Goal CP2 – Preserve and protect eligible cultural 

resource sites, traditional cultural properties, and 

paleontological localities to ensure that they are 

available for appropriate uses by present and future 

generations. 

Objective (Goals CP1, CP2) 

As an inventory objective, BLM will identify areas with 

a high potential for various archeological/historical site 

types, and conduct 200 acres of proactive inventory in 

those areas each year. One hundred acres of low 

potential areas will be inventoried each year for 

comparison. 

Management Actions 

Cultural Resources and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

1.	 At the project level, the BLM will conduct 

inventories for the purpose of gathering resource 

information, as per Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, in order to avoid 

disturbance to cultural resources in the Area of 

Potential Effects (APE). The BLM will continue 

Section 106 compliance by working through the 

State Protocol Agreement with the Montana State 

Historic Preservation Office. BLM will continue to 

make determinations of eligibility or non-eligibility 

for historic properties on land it manages and 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

document all inventories and decisions affecting 

cultural resources in an annual report. If the project 

cannot be redesigned to avoid disturbance, the sites 

will be evaluated for their eligibility for listing on 

the National Register for Historic Places. If eligible 

sites cannot be avoided, the BLM will, in 

consultation with the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office, facilitate mitigation to recover 

data that would otherwise be lost. The BLM will 

also conduct inventories to gather information 

about cultural resources, as per Section 110 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. (Goals CP1, 

CP2) 

2.	 BLM’s consultation process for historic mining 

sites will continue in accordance with the Historic 

Placer and Lode Mining Properties Programmatic 

Agreement that, among other things, specifies 

creation of a historic preservation plan to organize 

and compile what is known about various historic 

mining districts. (Goals CP1, CP2) 

3.	 BLM will continue to work with Native American 

tribal governments and their representatives, as 

well as those members who are recognized cultural 

leaders, elders, and Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officers. In addition to cultural resource 

specialists, the BLM will include other tribal 

resource specialists who may have an interest in 

project planning and management issues. Tribal 

consultation will be most frequent with those 

entities who historically occupied the Planning 

Area. Meetings with tribal representatives will be 

conducted at least once a year to coordinate 

consultation requirements and to maintain a good 

working relationship. (Goals CP1, CP2, TT1) 

4.	 All recorded sites will be assigned a use category 

to facilitate management of those cultural 

resources. See Definitions of Use Categories in 

Appendix F, section .42, A-F. (Goals CP1, CP2) 

5.	 During the oil and gas leasing process, the 

following stipulation (from IM 2005-003) will be 

attached to lease parcel review documents: This 

lease may be found to contain historic properties 

and/or resources protected under the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act, Native American 

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, E.O. 

13007, or other statutes and executive orders. The 

BLM will not approve any ground disturbing 

activities that may affect any such properties or 

resources until it completes its obligations under 

applicable requirements of the NHPA and other 

authorities. The BLM may require modification to 

exploration or development proposals to protect 

such properties, or disapprove any activity that is 

likely to result in adverse effects that cannot be 

successfully avoided, minimized, or mitigated. 

(Goals CP1, CP2, EM2, SE1) 

6.	 Educational and public outreach programs on 

cultural resources will be provided as requested. 

(Goals CP1, CP2) 

7.	 Eligible historic buildings will be maintained 

consistent with National Park Service standards as 

funding permits. Deteriorating cultural resources 

falling under the Experimental or Scientific Use 

Categories eligible for listing on the National 

Register of Historic Places will be mitigated by 

intensive recordation or data recovery. (Goal CP2) 

Paleontological Resources 

8.	 At the project level, BLM will continue to map 

fossil localities so as to avoid those localities 

during project implementation. If the locality 

cannot be avoided, permitted institutions or 

individuals will be contacted to properly map, 

record, and/or recover, if necessary, 

paleontological resources. Public education and 

outreach will be conducted as time and funding 

permit. (Goals CP1, CP2) 

9.	 Fossil localities will be afforded the same 

consideration as historic sites in project planning. 

The BLM will identify and assess potential impacts 

from federal actions on significant paleontological 

resources, so as to implement proper mitigation 

measures when necessary to protect those 

resources. If projects cannot be redesigned to avoid 

fossil localities, then specimens will be excavated 

by permitted paleontologists. Assistance from 

permitted institutions and/or individuals will be 

routinely sought in order to properly map and 

record fossil localities. (Goals CP1, CP2) 

10.	 Opportunities for public outreach and education 

will be pursued as staffing and funding resources 

permit. (Goals CP1, CP2) 

Monitoring 

Natural and human-caused damage to cultural and 

paleontological resources will be documented as a first 

step towards mitigating that damage. Sites recorded in 

the Butte Field Office will be assigned a “Use 

Category” to segregate those properties which do not 

require active management from those that do. 

Monitoring of recorded sites will keep those 

assignments up to date and provide data to make the 

proper management decision if/when the “Use 

Category” needs to be changed: such as an incident of 

vandalism in a historic building. NHPA-eligible historic 

buildings will be monitored to ensure maintenance 

needed to retain eligibility (as funding permits). 

Priorities for the Butte Field Office for site and locality 

selection for monitoring will be based on a combination 

of public use, and the status of the property in question. 

An eligible site located in an area with very little public 

use does not face the same pressure as an eligible 

property in a location with heavy use, erosive soils, or 

66 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

active river floodplains that may erode quickly and 

destroy the primary context. In the Butte Field Office, 

sites and localities located in Boulder batholith soils are 

generally the most at-risk due to the combination of 

their highly erosive nature and motorized vehicle 

recreational developments. Since some Boulder 

batholith sites face a combination of all three of the 

pressures listed above, they could be monitored every 

five years, or more often, as the need arises. Cultural 

resources and paleontological localities elsewhere could 

be monitored every 10 years, or as the need arises. 

Lands and Realty 

Goals 

Goal LR1 – Seek opportunities to acquire non-federal 

land or interest in non-federal land with important 

resources and resource uses. 

Goal LR2 – Provide land-use opportunities 

contributing to a sustained flow of economic benefits 

and meet local infrastructure needs while protecting or 

minimizing adverse impacts to resources and resource 

uses. 

Management Actions 

Allowable Uses – Land Use Authorizations 

No new rights-of-way will be authorized in identified 

exclusion areas (approximately 33,323 acres). With the 

exception of corridors identified in this RMP, new 

rights-of-way in identified avoidance areas will not be 

allowed unless there are no other routing options 

(approximately 75,727 acres). Valid existing rights-ofway in avoidance and exclusion areas will be 

recognized, and holders of such authorizations will be 

allowed to maintain their facilities (Maps 16a-16c). 

(Goals LR2, AC1, SE4) 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for 

Designation of Energy Corridors on Bureau of Land 

Management-Administered Lands in the 11 Western 

States (USDI-BLM 2009), hereafter called WWEC 

ROD (for West-Wide Energy Corridor Record of 

Decision), was published in January 2009. This 

document amended the Headwaters RMP. Decisions 

from that Record of Decision will be carried forward in 

this Approved RMP. 

Corridors on BFO lands (Maps 16a-c) identified in the 

WWEC ROD include: 

•	 Segment #229-254 with a width of 1,000 feet, 

restricted to electric only; 

•	 Segment #51-204 with a width of 3,500 feet 

and is multimodal; 

•	 Segment #51-205 with a width of 3,500 feet 

and is multimodal; 

•	 Segment #50-51 with a width of 3,500 feet and 

is multimodal. 

Multimodal corridors identified in the WWEC ROD 

represent preferred locations on BLM lands for future 

electric transmission lines and oil, gas, and hydrogen 

pipelines. (Goals LR2, SE1) 

Actions – Land Use Authorizations 

1.	 Land uses will be authorized by various means 

such as right-of-way grants, road use agreements 

and associated temporary use permits under several 

different authorities: leases, permits, and 

easements under section 302 of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA); 

airport leases under the Act of May 24, 1928, as 

amended (49 U.S.C. Appendix, 211-213); and 

Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases. 

(Goals LR2, SE1, SE2) 

2.	 Requests for land use authorizations will be 

analyzed and mitigation measures applied on a 

case-by-case basis in compliance with the NEPA 

process. Interim management policy and guidelines 

for land use authorizations in WSAs will be 

followed as appropriate. In accordance with current 

policy, land use authorizations will not be issued 

for uses which would involve the disposal or 

storage of materials which could contaminate the 

land (hazardous waste disposal sites, landfills, rifle 

ranges, etc.). Rights-of-way, leases, permits, or 

easements will not be required for those activities 

that are considered casual use of public lands. 

(Goals LR2, WSA1, SE2) 

3.	 New right-of-way facilities will be located within 

or adjacent to existing rights-of-way, to the extent 

practicable, in order to minimize adverse 

environmental impacts and the proliferation of 

separate rights-of-way. Right-of-way applications 

across roads that have been closed or have seasonal 

restrictions will be analyzed on a case-by-case 

basis. (Goals LR2, SE2) 

4.	 New communication site users will be grouped into 

existing facilities at established communication 

sites to reduce impacts and expedite application 

processing. Site plans will be completed prior to 

authorizing communication site uses in new areas. 

The use of alternative power sources will be 

considered where electric power is not available. 

(Goals LR2, SE1, SE2) 

5.	 BLM will provide recreation and public purposes 

leases or patents on BLM land that meets 

classification criteria. (Goals LR2, SE2) 

6.	 Proposals for renewable energy development will 

be considered on a case-by-case basis. No 

proposals for alternative energy development, other 

than wind power are anticipated to occur in the 

foreseeable future. Two areas, one near Whitehall 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

and one near Livingston, are anticipated to have 

wind energy development in the future (Maps 16a16c). Current BLM guidance and Guidelines and 

Best Management Practices (BMPs) from the Wind 

Energy Development Programmatic EIS (ROD 

signed December 2005) will be used when 

considering wind energy projects on BLM land. 

The latest version of Suggested Practices for 

Raptor Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 2006) 

will be implemented in the construction and 

operation of right-of-way facilities. (Goals LR2, 

SE1) 

7.	 Owners of non-federal land surrounded by public 

land managed under FLPMA will be allowed an 

appropriate degree of access across public land 

which would provide for the reasonable use and 

enjoyment of the non-federal land. (Goals LR2, 

SE1, SE2) 

8.	 The use of certain rights-of-way constructed on 

public lands prior to FLPMA will be recognized as 

a valid use even though the laws under which they 

were authorized were repealed by FLPMA. The 

BLM will not renew grants issued prior to the 

passage of FLPMA. Holders of such authorizations 

must apply for a new FLPMA grant. (Goals LR2, 

SE2) 

9.	 The existing Communication Sites at Boulder, Bull 

Mountain, Limestone Hills, Montana City, Mt. 

Belmont, Spokane Butte, Toston, and Wickes are 

formally designated as communication sites for the 

BFO. BLM will consider applications for new 

communications facilities and limit those uses to 

the designated sites. Maps 16a-16c show the 

existing sites. Any new facilities to be located 

within the designated sites will be required to 

conform to the existing site plans and the 

designated uses of sites identified in Table 21. 

Once the designated communications sites are 

filled to near capacity, new site location(s) may be 

authorized after site management plans and 

appropriate site-specific NEPA analyses are 

completed. (Goals LR2, SE1, SE2) 

10.	 Access to and along right-of-way corridors and use 

areas necessary to maintain existing facilities and 

construct new facilities will be provided across 

public lands. Other uses of right-of-way corridors 

and use areas will be permitted to the extent that 

they do not interfere with or preclude the use of 

these locations for their intended purposes and are 

consistent with this Approved RMP. (Goals LR2, 

SE1, SE2) 

11.	 New leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements 

will be authorized in a manner consistent with 

meeting Land Health Standards and applicable 

Best Management Practices. Renewals of existing 

authorizations will be analyzed, and if required, 

Table 21
 

Communication Sites and Locations in the BFO
 

Communication Legal Description 

Site (Principle Meridian, Montana) 

Boulder T.6N., R.4W., Sec. 19, SE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 

Bull Mountain T.2N., R.3W., Sec. 18, SW1⁄4 SE1⁄4 

Limestone Hills T.6N., R.1E., Sec. 20, NE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 

Montana City T.9N., R.3W., Sec. 25, W1⁄2 NW1⁄4 

Mount Belmont T.12N., R.6W., Sec. 34, Lot 9 

Spokane Butte T.9N., R.1W., Sec. 15, NW1⁄4 NE1⁄4 

Toston T.4N., R.3E., Sec. 8, SE1⁄4 NW1⁄4 

Wickes T.7N., R.4E., Sec. 28, Lot 10 

special stipulations will be added to meet or move 

toward meeting Land Health Standards. The BLM 

will attempt to negotiate changes in existing 

authorizations where improvements could be made 

to meet or move toward meeting Land Health 

Standards. (Goals LR2, SE1, SE2, SE4) 

Allowable Uses – Withdrawals and 

Classifications (Goals RM1, RM2, WR5, EM3) 

A total of approximately 6,300 acres of land are 

currently withdrawn from locatable mineral entry 

primarily for Public Water Reserves in the vicinity of 

the Chain of Lakes on the Missouri River (with some 

exceptions). These withdrawals do also include the 

Devil’s Elbow (142 acres), Holter Lake (80 acres) and 

Ringing Rocks (160 acres) recreation areas, totaling 

382 acres that will remain in effect in order to safeguard 

infrastructural investments; protect resource values; and 

ensure quality visitor use experiences. 

Actions – Withdrawals and Classifications 

1.	 In compliance with Section 204(1) of FLPMA, 

existing withdrawals will be reviewed prior to the 

end of the withdrawal period or as otherwise 

required by law to determine if they should be 

extended, revoked, or modified. Withdrawals no 

longer needed, in whole or in part, for the purpose 

for which they were withdrawn will be 

recommended for revocation or modification. 

Other agency requests for withdrawal 

relinquishments, extensions, or modifications will 

be considered. (Goal LR2) 

2.	 Department of Interior and BLM policy will be 

followed in the consideration of any new 

withdrawals. New withdrawal proposals will be 

considered where land would transfer from one 

federal agency to another or where resource values 

or agency investments are best protected by 

withdrawal. Lands proposed to be withdrawn 

should be the minimum area required for the 

intended use and where applicable alternative 

prescriptions such as the use of rights-of-way, 

68 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

leases, permits, or cooperative agreements are 

inadequate to protect the resource values. (Goal 

LR2) 

3.	 Priority for new withdrawals will be all developed 

recreation sites, followed by new acquisitions 

through exchange, purchase or donation, and in 

ACECs to protect resources and values as needed, 

in accordance with current withdrawal and mineral 

policy. (Goals LR2, RM2, AC1) 

4.	 A Legislative Environmental Impact Statement has 

been prepared by the Department of Army, in 

cooperation with the BFO, for the withdrawal of 

approximately 20,000 acres of BLM land in the 

Limestone Hills west of Townsend. These lands 

were segregated from the public land laws by the 

Federal Register Notice of August 13, 2007, and 

are not currently open to surface entry or mining 

for a period of two years from the date of 

publication of the notice. Congressional action 

resulting from this proposal/Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement will subsequently 

amend this Approved RMP. (Goal LR2) 

5.	 Land classifications, as “de facto” withdrawals, 

will be reviewed to determine if they should be 

continued or terminated. Any remaining 

Classification and Multiple Use Act retention 

classifications will be terminated. (Goal LR2) 

6.	 All new classifications will comply with the 

requirements of 43 CFR 1600 and criteria in 43 

CFR 2400. There is a “Recreation and Public 

Purpose” classification on 200 acres at the old 

Deep Creek Ski Area in T2N, R12W, Section 20: 

E1⁄2SW1⁄4, W1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4. This area is no 

longer being used for recreation purposes; 

therefore this classification will be terminated and 

opened by publication of a Notice of Realty 

Action. (Goal LR2) 

7.	 The Last Chance Handgunners at Boulder have 

expressed interest in a patent, under the Recreation 

and Public Purposes Act, to their shooting range in 

T6N, R5W, Section 24: Lot 2 and Section 25: 

NE1⁄4NE1⁄4NW1⁄4. This parcel has already been 

classified as suitable for R&PP lease. This R&PP 

classification will be revised to allow for R&PP 

patent. (Goals LR2, SE2) 

Allowable Uses – Land Ownership Adjustment 

(Goals LR1, LR2, WF4, WF5, RM2, WSA1, 

WSR1, NT1) 

Lands identified for retention and disposal are 

displayed on Maps 17a-17c. Approximately 299,104 

acres are in the retention category. These are lands that 

are generally not subject to land ownership adjustments. 

High priority lands for retention and potential future 

acquisition by the BLM include those in and 

immediately adjacent to special designation areas 

(ACECs, WSRs, WSAs, National Trail Corridors, 

SRMAs, and recreation sites) as well as habitat for 

priority and special status species. The goal of potential 

acquisitions in these areas will be to enhance the 

following attributes: resource values identified for the 

area, public access to and within the area, recreation 

opportunities that are compatible with the specific area, 

manageability of the area or sites, and wildlife habitat. 

Land acquisitions in these areas are considered to be 

consistent with this RMP and therefore plan 

amendments will not be required. 

Approximately 8,741 acres of land are identified as 

available for disposal. These lands are available for 

exchange or sale, subject to the criteria described in 

Appendix G and project level NEPA analysis. Legal 

descriptions of these parcels are located in Appendix 

G. No Butte Field Office lands are suitable for disposal 

under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act 

(FLTFA) of 2000. Lands leased or conveyed under the 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act, will be classified 

for such disposal under Sec 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

(42 USC 315f) and 43 CFR 2400. 

All right-of-way (ROW) holders shall be informed of 

the options pertaining to their ROW grant when the 

land encumbered by the grant is considered for 

disposal, which may be constrained by the legal 

authority of the proposed disposal. The ROW holder 

will have the following options: 

a)	 Maintain the ROW under its current terms and 

conditions, including expiration date (status 

quo). The patent would be issued “Subject To” 

the ROW, and the patentee would succeed to 

the interest of the United States, including 

administration of the ROW and the ability to 

collect future rent. 

b)	 Negotiate an easement with the prospective 

patentee that would become effective at the 

time of patent issuance. 

c)	 Submit an application to the BLM to amend 

the ROW, or portion thereof, to a perpetual 

easement (30-year term easement for Mineral 

Leasing Act [MLA] grants). 

The BLM will administer the ROW grant according to 

option “a” above unless requested differently by the 

grant holder. 

Actions – Land Ownership Adjustment 

1.	 Land ownership adjustment refers to those actions 

that result in the disposal of BLM-administered 

land and/or the acquisition of non-federal land or 

interests. In this context, BLM land is categorized 

as either “retention” or “disposal”. Generally, lands 

in the retention category will be retained and 

managed by BLM and lands in the disposal 

category will be available for land ownership 

adjustment. Methods of adjustment include 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

exchanges, sales, transfers, fee acquisition, and 

donation. Land ownership adjustments will be 

considered on a case-by-case basis. Specific land 

ownership adjustment criteria developed for 

retention, disposal, and acquisition will be 

followed. (See Appendix G) (Goals LR1, LR2, 

SE2, SE4) 

2.	 Public lands with high resource values will 

generally be retained in federal ownership. All 

proposed land ownership adjustment actions will 

be analyzed in project-specific environmental 

reviews. (Goals LR1, LR2, SE4) 

3.	 Public access will be maintained or improved 

through all land ownership adjustment transactions. 

Land transfers to other public agencies will be 

considered where improved management 

efficiency would result. BLM lands could be made 

available for community expansion if there are no 

other lands available. (Goals LR1, LR2, SE2) 

4.	 Direct purchase will be limited to cases where no 

practical alternatives exist and high public values 

will be acquired. Lands and interests in lands 

obtained with Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) appropriations will not be available for 

disposal by any means, nor will such lands be open 

to locatable or salable mineral entry. (Goals LR1, 

LR2, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, SE4) 

5.	 The need to protect newly acquired lands will be 

considered as part of the analysis prior to 

acquisition. If withdrawn, acquired lands will be 

managed under the terms and conditions of the 

withdrawal. (Goals LR1, SE4) 

6.	 Disposal parcels will be made available for all 

means of disposal (sale, exchange, R&PP, etc.). 

Some lands identified for disposal could be 

retained in public ownership based on site-specific 

application of the land ownership adjustment 

criteria. (See Appendix G) (Goals LR1, LR2, SE1, 

SE2) 

7.	 In addition to meeting the disposal criteria, lands to 

be sold will meet the following disposal criteria 

from FLPMA: 

•	 Such land is difficult and uneconomic to 

manage as part of the public land base, and 

must not be suitable for management by 

another federal department or agency. 

•	 Such land was acquired for a specific purpose 

and must no longer be required for that or any 

other federal purpose. 

•	 Disposal of such tract will serve important 

public objectives, including but not limited to, 

expansion of communities and economic 

development, which cannot be achieved 

prudently or feasibly on land other than public 

land and which outweigh other public 

objectives and values, including, but not 

limited to, recreation and scenic values, which 

would be served by maintaining such tract in 

federal ownership. (Goals LR2, SE1, SE2) 

8.	 If, over the life of the plan, land status updates 

identify additional parcels administered by BLM, 

those lands will be managed in the same manner as 

adjacent parcels or those in the same vicinity in 

regard to retention or disposal. (Goals LR2, SE1, 

SE2) 

9.	 Federal minerals underlying non-federal surface 

will generally be retained in federal ownership. 

However, an exchange of this type of mineral 

estate may be considered on a case-by-case basis if 

found to be in the public interest. The sale of this 

type of mineral interest under section 209(b) of 

FLPMA could be considered only if the 

requirements of the same were met. (Goals LR2, 

SE1, SE2) 

10.	 No BLM lands in the BFO are suitable for Desert 

Land Entry. (Goal LR2) 

Actions - Access 

1.	 Access refers to the physical ability and legal right 

of the public, agency personnel, and authorized 

users to reach public land. BLM will acquire legal 

public access and administrative access to BLM 

land from willing landowners. Easement 

acquisition will be the predominant method of 

obtaining legal access. However, other methods of 

accomplishing this could include fee purchase, 

exchange, donation, reciprocal rights-of-way, 

and/or long-term land use agreements. If necessary, 

when BLM parcels are patented in land ownership 

adjustments, existing access could be retained 

using appropriate patent reservations. (Goals LR2, 

RM1, SE2) 

2.	 BLM will follow specific access criteria outlined in 

Appendix G for obtaining new access and 

managing existing access to BLM administered 

lands. Acquisition efforts will be focused on those 

routes designated as “open” in travel plans that 

lack legal public access. (Goals LR2 , RM1, SE2) 

Actions – Unauthorized Land Use 

1.	 BLM will abate realty-related unauthorized use 

through prevention, detection, and resolution. 

Unauthorized use of BLM administered land will 

be resolved through termination, short or long-term 

authorization, sale, or exchange as appropriate. 

(Goal LR2) 

2.	 Resolution of trespasses will require settlement of 

trespass liabilities and reclamation of any resource 

damage. Resolution of trespasses will be conducted 

in accordance with 43 CFR 9230. (Goal LR2) 

70 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Monitoring 

Monitoring of realty related land uses, including those 

for renewable energy development and military 

activities, shall be undertaken to assess compliance with 

requirements for mitigation, restoration of the lands, 

and other terms and conditions of the authorizing 

document. Monitoring of these types of activities 

typically involves inspection and photo documentation 

of the site. If deficiencies are noted during the 

inspection, the proponent is notified and corrective 

measures taken until compliance is achieved. Longterm land uses are frequently inspected during the 

initial construction phase. Once in operation, these land 

uses are inspected less frequently, concentrating 

monitoring efforts during periods of reconstruction, 

major maintenance, or land restoration activity. 

Development in sensitive areas, or activities with a high 

potential for greater than usual effects, would be 

inspected more frequently than those in less sensitive 

areas or those having less effect potential. 

Energy and Minerals 

The BLM Energy and Non-Energy Mineral Policy, 

which references several existing acts, recognizes the 

nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, energy, 

and other resources and the responsibilities concerning 

the discovery, development, production and acquisition 

of minerals and metals. 

Goals 

Goal EM1 – Ensure that federal minerals are available 

for energy and mineral exploration and development. 

Goal EM2 – Manage exploration and development of 

mineral resources and ensure they are conducted in an 

environmentally sound manner. 

Goal EM3 – Where possible, conserve significant or 

unique geological features. 

Management Actions 

General 

1.	 All Energy and Minerals exploration, development, 

and production activities will be managed to 

prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. (Goals 

EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

2.	 For all exploration and mining proposals BLM will 

ensure operations take all practical measures to 

maintain, protect, or minimize disturbances to 

resources. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

3.	 Future changes to Endangered Species Act listings 

of species or occupied habitats may require 

changes or modifications of proposed activities to 

comply with the requirements of the act. (Goals 

EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

4.	 Where no alternative to road construction exists, 

roads (including roads in riparian areas) will be 

kept to the minimum necessary for the approved 

mineral activity. When no longer required for 

mineral or land management activities, roads and 

facilities will be closed and the landscape 

rehabilitated. (Goal EM2) 

Leasable Solid Minerals 

5.	 BLM will consider proposals for developing 

leasable minerals (coal, phosphate, sodium, potash, 

sulphur, oil shale, native asphalt, and solid and 

semi-solid bituminous rock) under the 

administration of the federal government on a caseby-case basis. Site-specific environmental analysis 

will be required to lease these minerals. (Goals 

EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

Allowable Uses - Leasable Fluid Minerals 

(Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

Approximately 632,045 acres are available for oil and 

gas leasing (Maps 18a-18d), subject to the stipulations 

in Table 22 or Standard Lease Terms. 

Approximately 28,774 acres in the six Wilderness 

Study Areas (Black Sage, Elkhorns Tack-on, Humbug 

Spires, Sheep Creek, Sleeping Giant, and Yellowstone 

Island) are unavailable for oil and gas leasing. None of 

the lands within the Sheep Creek, Black Sage, Sleeping 

Giant, Elkhorns Tack-on, Humbug Spires, or 

Yellowstone Island Wilderness Study Areas will be 

available for oil and gas leasing unless they are released 

from their existing status, at which point they will be 

managed under the conditions described in the 

Wilderness Study Area section of this Approved RMP. 

(Goals EM2, WSA1, SE4) 

Lands available for oil and gas leasing will be subject to 

the stipulations listed in Table 23. Stipulations are a 

part of the lease only when environmental and planning 

records show the need for them. Three types of 

stipulations describe how lease rights are modified: no 

surface occupancy, timing limitation (seasonal 

restriction), and controlled surface use. (For 

descriptions, see Appendix H). Stipulations may be 

changed by application of waivers, exceptions, or 

modifications. The decision whether to grant waivers, 

exceptions, or modifications generally occurs during 

the Application for Permit to Drill approval process. 

Waivers are a permanent exemption from a lease 

stipulation. This occurs when the resource does not 

require the protection of stipulation. Exceptions are 

granted on a case-by-case basis. Each time the lessee 

applies for an exception, the resource objective of the 

stipulation must be met. Modifications are fundamental 

changes to the provisions of a lease stipulation either 

temporarily or for the term of the lease. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 22 

Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Available or 

Not for Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Acres Available for Oil and Gas 

Leasing1 632,045 

No Surface Occupancy 280,831 

Timing Limitations 294,906 

Controlled Surface Use 38,365 

Standard Lease Terms 17,943 

Acres Unavailable for Oil and 

Gas Leasing 28,774 

Non-discretionary 28,774 

Discretionary 0 

1- Acreages by subcategory were calculated such that 

the sum of the subcategories adds up to the total 

available acres for leasing based on the following 

general concepts where multiple stipulations overlapped: 

No Surface Occupancy stipulations override and are 

more restrictive than Timing Limitations, Controlled 

Surface Use, and Standard Lease Terms. Timing 

Limitation stipulations override and are more restrictive 

than Controlled Surface Use and Standard Lease Terms. 

Controlled Surface Use stipulations override and are 

more restrictive than Standard Lease Terms. 

The BLM will authorize oil and gas leasing on 

available federal mineral estate lands. An oil and gas 

lease grants the lessee the right to explore for, extract, 

remove, and dispose of oil and gas deposits that may be 

found on the leased lands. 

The lessee may exercise the rights conveyed by the 

lease, subject to lease terms and any lease stipulations 

(listed in Table 23), and permit approval requirements. 

On Bureau of Reclamation lands, in addition to the 

resource specific stipulations listed in Table 23, 

stipulations that are recommended by the Bureau of 

Reclamation will be used (see Appendix H). 

Actions - Leasable Fluid Minerals 

1.	 The terms of existing oil and gas leases will not be 

changed by the decisions in this document. When 

existing leases expire, subject areas will be 

managed for oil and gas according to the decisions 

reached in this document. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, 

SE5) 

2.	 For federal oil and gas where the surface is 

managed by another federal agency, the BLM will 

consult with that agency before issuing leases. In 

areas where oil and gas development may conflict 

with other resources, the areas may be closed to 

leasing in accordance with decisions made from 

this document. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

3.	 The BLM will allow for the lease of lands that are 

otherwise unavailable for leasing if oil and gas is 

being drained from such lands. If the unavailable 

lands were under the jurisdiction of another 

agency, leasing of such lands would only occur 

following consultation, and consent if necessary, 

from the surface managing agency. (Goals EM1, 

SE1) 

4.	 Lands unavailable for leasing will be leased only if 

a state or fee well is proposed or completed within 

the same spacing unit, or if the lands are within a 

producing unit. These lands will be leased with a 

no surface occupancy and no subsurface occupancy 

stipulation without any waiver, modification or 

exception provisions. There will only be a paper 

transaction with no physical impacts on the 

unavailable lands. There will be no exploration or 

development (drilling or production) within the 

unavailable lands. After issuance of a lease, the 

lease will be committed to a communitization 

agreement and the United States will then receive 

revenue in proportion to its acreage interest as it 

bears to the entire acreage interest committed to the 

agreement. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

5.	 Additional information can be provided to the 

lessee in the form of a lease notice. This notice 

does not place restrictions on lease operation, but 

does provide information about applicable laws 

and regulations, and the requirements for additional 

information to be supplied by the lessee. (Goals 

EM1, EM2) 

6.	 New information may lead to changes in existing 

resource inventories. New use areas and resource 

locations may be identified, or use areas and 

resource locations that are no longer valid may be 

identified. These resources usually cover small 

areas requiring the same protection or mitigation as 

identified in this plan. Identification of new areas 

or removal of old areas that no longer have those 

resource values may affect geographic specificity 

of where stipulations apply, but the content of the 

stipulations proper will not be affected. Changes to 

the existing data inventory will be made without a 

plan amendment. In cases where the changes 

constitute a change in resource allocation outside 

the scope of this plan, a plan amendment will be 

required. (Goals EM2, SE1, SE5) 

7.	 After lease issuance, the lessee may conduct lease 

operations with an approved permit. Proposed 

drilling and associated activities must be approved 

before beginning operations. The operator must file 

an Application for Permit to Drill or Sundry Notice 

that must be approved according to (1) lease 

stipulations, (2) Onshore Oil and Gas Orders, and 

(3) regulations and laws. (See Appendix H) (Goals 

EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

72 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 23 

Lease Terms and Stipulations 

Key 

TL = Timing Limitation Stipulation NSO = No Surface Occupancy Stipulation 

CSU = Controlled Surface Use Stipulation 

Distances are enumerated and those equal to or greater than 100 are feet and those 3 or less are miles. Time periods are 

month/day. 

Resource Stipulation 

Wildlife 

Grizzly Bear – Recovery Zone NSO 

Grizzly Bear – Denning Habitat (Distribution Zone) TL 4/1-6/30, 9/15-10/15 

Gray Wolf Dens – NW MT Recovery Area TL 4/15-6/30 1 

Prairie Dog Towns NSO 

Sage Grouse Winter/Spring Range TL 12/1-5/15 

Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds (leks) NSO 1⁄4 

Sage Grouse Breeding Habitat TL 3/1-6/30 3 

Wildlife Management Areas NSO 

Big Game Winter/Spring Range TL 12/1-5/15 

Elk Calving/Big Game Birthing Areas TL 4/1-6/30 

Bighorn Sheep Yearlong Range TL 11/1-6/30 

Bighorn Sheep Core Areas NSO 

Bald Eagle Nest Sites/Breeding Habitat 

NSO 1⁄2 + 

TL 2/1-8/31 1 

Raptor Breeding Territories (Golden eagle, Prairie falcon, Swainson’s Hawk) TL 3/1-7/31 1⁄2 

Peregrine Falcon Nest Sites/Breeding Habitat NSO 1 

Ferruginous Hawk Breeding Territories NSO 1⁄2 

Threatened and Endangered Species CSU 

Fisheries 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat (90-99% pure) NSO 1⁄2 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat (99-100% pure) NSO 1⁄2 

Fluvial/Adfluvial Arctic Grayling Habitat NSO 1⁄2 

Bull Trout Habitat NSO 1⁄2 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Habitat (90-100% pure) NSO 1⁄2 

Streams with High Restoration Potential – Native Fish NSO 1⁄2 

Class 1 Fisheries (Blue Ribbon) NSO 1⁄2 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Table 23 

Lease Terms and Stipulations 

Key 

TL = Timing Limitation Stipulation NSO = No Surface Occupancy Stipulation 

CSU = Controlled Surface Use Stipulation 

Distances are enumerated and those equal to or greater than 100 are feet and those 3 or less are miles. Time periods are 

month/day. 

Resource Stipulation 

Recreation 

Developed Sites NSO 1⁄4 

Special Recreation Management Areas CSU 

 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Inventory Requirement CSU 

National Register of Historic Places Eligible Properties/Districts and 

Paleontological Localities NSO 300 

Traditional Cultural Properties NSO 1⁄2

 Visual Resources 

VRM Class II, III & IV Areas CSU 

Vegetation, Wetlands, Riparian and Water Quality 

Wetlands, Floodplains and Riparian Areas NSO 

Special Status Plant Habitats CSU 

Known or Discovered Special Status Plants or Populations NSO 1⁄4 

Municipal Watersheds NSO

 Soils 

Areas of mass wasting, unstable land areas, slopes >20 percent on Boulder 

Batholith Soils or >30 percent on non-Boulder Batholith Soils CSU 

Trails, Rivers and Special Designations 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Marysville) NSO 1⁄2 

Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail NSO 1⁄2 

Rivers Suitable for WSR Designation NSO 1⁄2

 Lands and Realty 

R&PPs and 2920 Authorizations NSO 

Lands Acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds NSO 

74 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Geothermal Energy 

8.	 Lands in the Decision Area will be available for 

geothermal leasing, unless located within 

wilderness or WSAs or in instances where it is 

determined that issuing the lease will cause 

unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands 

or resources. A site-specific environmental analysis 

will be prepared should interest be expressed in 

exploring for or developing geothermal resources 

in the Decision Area. This analysis will address the 

application of stipulations and develop any 

additional mitigating measures over and above the 

lease stipulations required. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, 

SE5) 

9.	 Stipulations developed in this document for oil and 

gas leases will be applied to any geothermal lease 

issued if appropriate. Geothermal exploration and 

production activity is sufficiently different from oil 

and gas that the stipulations developed for oil and 

gas may not be appropriate and could be modified. 

(Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

10.	 Direction in the December 2008 Record of 

Decision and Resource Management Plan 

Amendments for Geothermal Leasing in the 

Western United States (USDI –BLM 2008) will be 

followed. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

Geophysical Exploration 

11.	 The BLM will manage oil and gas geophysical 

activity as per regulations found at 43 CFR 

Subparts 3150, 3151, and 3154. Additional 

guidance is found in BLM Manual Section 3150 

and Handbook 3150. Geophysical operations will 

be managed in accordance with the “Geophysical 

Operations” portion of the oil and gas section of 

Appendix H. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

12.	 The BLM will review Notices of Intent to Conduct 

Geophysical Exploration in the Decision Area and 

develop appropriate mitigation measures so as not 

to create unnecessary or undue degradation. A sitespecific environmental analysis will be prepared 

for each NOI filed. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE5) 

Allowable Uses - Locatable Minerals 

A total of approximately 6,300 acres of land are 

withdrawn from locatable mineral entry (with some 

exceptions primarily for Public Water Reserves). These 

lands will remain withdrawn. (Goal WR5) 

The Devil’s Elbow and Holter Lake recreation areas 

totaling 171 acres located on Hauser Lake will continue 

to be withdrawn due to their high level of visitation, 

development, and exclusive use for concentrated 

recreation activities. These recreation areas include four 

developed sites (Devil’s Elbow, Clark’s Bay, Two 

Camps Vista, and Holter Lake). (Goals RM2, SE5) 

The Ringing Rocks area totaling 160 acres will 

continue to be withdrawn from mineral entry in order to 

protect this unique geological feature. (Goal EM3) 

Approximately 11,200 acres of land acquired with Land 

and Water Conservation Funds since development of 

the Headwaters RMP and Dillon Management 

Framework Plan will not be opened to locatable or 

salable mineral entry. (Goals WF2, WF4, WF5, WR1, 

SE4) 

Actions – Locatable Minerals 

1.	 BLM will provide opportunities for mineral 

exploration and development. (Goals EM1, SE1) 

2.	 BLM will ensure accessibility to mineralized areas 

for exploration and development. (Goals EM1, 

TM1) 

3.	 No casual use areas of concern or suction dredge 

use areas are identified or designated. (Goal EM2) 

4.	 BLM will strive to provide for timely permit 

evaluation and processing of federal energy and 

solid mineral exploration and development 

proposals. (Goal EM1) 

5.	 A Plan of Operations will always be required 

(instead of a Notice) when there are lands or waters 

known to contain federally proposed or listed 

threatened or endangered species or their proposed 

or designated critical habitat, unless BLM allows 

for other action under a formal land-use plan or 

threatened or endangered species recovery plan. 

Land tracts where resource values (i.e., sensitive 

status or priority species, visual corridors, adjacent 

land restrictions, substantial cultural resource sites 

and fossil localities, etc.) may require special 

measures to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation during mineral exploration (and 

geophysical exploration) and development will be 

identified. (Goals EM1, EM2, WF4) 

6.	 BLM will develop and implement measures to 

prevent unnecessary and undue degradation from 

exploration, mining, and reclamation activities. 

BLM will also develop conditions of approval and 

implementation guidelines (BMPs) to minimize 

impacts to natural resources including significant 

cultural resource sites and fossil localities caused 

by locatable mineral development. (Goals EM1, 

EM2, WF2, WF3, WF4, WF5, CP1, SE1) 

7.	 Reclamation and restoration activities will be 

monitored to determine effectiveness of the 

practices. (Goals EM2, SE1) 

8.	 For locatable minerals, especially placer mining 

operations, reclamation activities will be required 

to restore stream channels and riparian habitats to 

functioning condition as close to pre-mining 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 75 
 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

conditions as possible. (Goals EM2, RV1, RV2, 

WF3, WR1, WR3, WR4) 

9.	 As information becomes available, known areas of 

geological hazards (for example landslide prone 

areas, avalanche areas, rock fall areas and unstable 

ground) will be mapped. (Goal HM1) 

10.	 In addition to the approximately 6,300 acres of 

existing withdrawals from mineral entry previously 

described, approximately 198 acres are proposed 

for withdrawal from mineral entry upon 

completion of withdrawal actions. These acres are 

in highly visited and developed recreation sites that 

are exclusively used and contain substantial 

financial investments by the BLM (Table 24, Map 

10). (Goal RM2) 

Table 24 

Recreation Areas Proposed For Withdrawal 

From Mineral Entry 

Site Name Approximate Acres 

Departure Point 5 

Divide Bridge 8 

Divide Campground 17 

French Bar 44 

Holter Dam 13 

Log Gulch 39 

Spokane Bay 8 

White Sandy 64 

Total Acres 198 

Actions - Salable Minerals 

1.	 BLM will dispose of salable minerals on unpatented 

mining claims only for a public purpose when no 

reasonable alternative exists. Salable mineral sites 

will have an approved mining and reclamation plan 

and an environmental analysis prior to being opened. 

Mineral material will be sold at a fair market value to 

the public, but will be free to state, county, or other 

local governments when used for public projects. 

Mineral material sales will be processed on a caseby-case basis. (Goals EM1, EM2, SE1, SE2) 

2.	 The BLM will continue to authorize the purchase of 

salable minerals (common varieties of sand, stone, 

gravel, pumice, cinders, clay, and petrified wood) 

from the federal government through a contract of 

sale (by the ton or cubic yard) or a free-use permit 

unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise. 

Extraction of materials from previously disturbed 

sites will be encouraged. All development and 

operating impacts to natural resources and local 

residences will be minimized. (Goals EM1, EM2, 

SE2) 

Monitoring 

Monitoring for locatable, leasable, and salable energy and 

minerals exploration and development will be designed 

case-specifically to provide compliance with applicable 

laws, regulations, policy, and site specific plans. In 

addition, monitoring helps to provide compatibility with 

other resource management objectives, and other resource 

uses, and helps to provide for protection of public lands. 

Inspections of minerals operations or activities may also 

be conducted in response to issues that may be identified 

by other resource specialists conducting field work. 

Leasable Fluid Minerals 

Periodic field inspections of leasable mineral activities 

will be done to ensure compliance with applicable laws, 

regulations, conditions of leases, and the requirements of 

approved exploration and development plans, applications 

for permit to drill, and sundry notices. 

The extent of oil and gas drilling/production activities in 

the planning area (including non-federal) will be 

monitored based on surface area of ground disturbance. 

Total gross surface disturbance and net surface 

disturbance from all drilling (regardless of mineral 

ownership) will be tracked, based on the following 

formulas: 

•	 Gross surface disturbance = current (existing) 

disturbance + new disturbance 

•	 Net surface disturbance = current (existing) 

disturbance + new disturbance – reclaimed 

acreage. 

These acreage figures will be compared to the total acres 

of disturbance anticipated in the RMP as a result of 

projected well drilling and field development. 

In addition, the total number of wells drilled will be 

tracked for comparison with the number forecast in the 

RMP. 

Additional analysis and/or amendment of the plan will 

be considered if the net surface disturbance acreage or 

number of wells exceeds the total forecast in the RMP. 

An accurate accounting of production will also be 

tracked on producing leases. Total acres of new 

disturbance, total acres reclaimed, and production 

numbers from producing federal leases will be tracked. 

Locatable Minerals 

For locatable minerals, monitoring of activities on 

mining claims shall be conducted primarily to provide 

compliance with the 43 CFR 3802/3809/3715 

regulations and site-specific plans. These regulations 

allow locatable minerals activities on public lands while 

preventing unnecessary or undue degradation; require 

76 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

reclamation of disturbed areas; and provide for 

coordination with other agencies. The 43 CFR 3809 

regulations state that the BLM may inspect minerals 

exploration and mining operations at any time. Those 

regulations further establish minimum inspection 

frequencies for mining operations as follows: at least 

four times each year, the BLM shall inspect all 

operations that are using cyanide or other leachate, or 

where there is significant potential for acid rock 

drainage. There is no stated frequency for inspections 

for all other activities. According to BLM policy, 

activities in sensitive areas or activities with a high 

potential for greater than usual effects shall be 

inspected more often than annually. 

For leasable minerals, inspections shall be conducted to 

ensure compliance with 43 CFR 3100/3200/3500 

regulations and site specific plans. If mineral 

production occurs, inspections will show: (1) an 

accurate accounting of material removed; (2) proper 

compensation to the federal government; and (3) 

protection of the environment, public health, and safety. 

Activities in sensitive areas or activities with a high 

potential for greater than usual effects shall be 

inspected more frequently, according to BLM policy. 

Salable Minerals 

Inspections of saleable minerals operations shall be 

conducted primarily to determine compliance with 43 

CFR 3600 regulations and site-specific plans. Where 

mineral production occurs, inspection will show: (1) 

an accurate accounting of materials removed; (2) proper 

compensation to the federal government; (3) protection 

of the environment, public health, and safety; and (4) 

identification and resolution of salable mineral trespass. 

Activities in sensitive areas or with a high potential for 

greater than usual effects shall be inspected more 

frequently, according to BLM policy. 

Abandoned Mine Lands (AML) 

Goals 

Goal AM1 – Reclaim AML sites on public land to 

improve water quality, plant communities, and diverse 

fish and wildlife habitat. 

Goal AM2 – Reduce and/or eliminate risks to human 

health from hazardous mine openings. 

Goal AM3 – Protect historic resources and wildlife 

habitat commonly associated with AML sites. 

Management Actions 

1.	 To the extent possible on BLM lands, the BLM 

will strive to meet state and federal water quality 

standards in watersheds impacted by historic 

mining. (Goals AM1, AM2, AM3, RV1, RV2, WF3, 

WR1) 

2.	 To the extent possible on BLM lands, the BLM 

will strive to meet state and federal air quality 

standards in the interest of protecting human health 

potentially impacted by fugitive dust emissions. 

(Goals AM1, AM2, AM3, AQ1) 

3.	 Closures of dangerous inactive and abandoned 

mine sites will be designed to reduce the risks to 

human health and safety, restore the environment, 

and protect geological and cultural resources. 

(Goals AM1, AM2, AM3, CP1, CP2, SE4) 

4.	 BLM will assess levels of risk at AML sites and 

prioritize them for reclamation based on 

standardized risk assessment. Reclamation will be 

implemented at the highest risk sites first. (Goals 

AM1, AM2, AM3) 

5.	 Where deemed appropriate by BLM personnel, the 

BLM will restore severely impacted soils and 

watersheds as closely as possible to pre-disturbed 

conditions that support productive plant 

communities and ensure properly functioning 

watersheds. (Goals AM1, AM3, SR2, WR1, WR3, 

WR4) 

6.	 Operation, maintenance, and evaluation activities 

will be conducted in a manner to ensure the 

effectiveness of the selected remediation. (Goals 

AM1, AM2, AM3) 

7.	 All resource activities will be required to reclaim 

and restore AML or hazard reduction sites to the 

extent necessary to protect work performed on the 

site. (Goals AM1, AM2, AM3) 

Monitoring 

Abandoned Mine Lands reclamation and remediation 

sites will be monitored to protect and safeguard human 

health, prevent/restore environmental damage and to 

limit BLM’s liability. This monitoring includes: 

conducting periodic well, soil and water sampling; 

monitoring for revegetation of reclaimed areas; 

monitoring of dust control, soil erosion and other signs 

of potential impacts to human health and the 

environment. 

Reclamation and mitigation work done on abandoned 

mine sites will be monitored by the AML program to 

insure compliance with laws and regulations. An 

inventory of known abandoned mine hazards, 

reclamation efforts and monitoring results will be 

maintained in the BLM’s site cleanup database. 

Monitoring at AML sites may be conducted: 

1)	 prior to reclamation as required; 

2)	 in watersheds to assess impacts as required; 

3)	 at reclaimed mine sites and repositories; 

4)	 as part of operations and maintenance; 

5)	 in collaboration with other agencies and 

partners. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Hazardous Materials Management 

Goal 

Goal HM1 – Minimize threats and reduce risks to the 

public and environment from hazardous materials or 

sites. 

Management Actions 

1.	 BLM will comply with all appropriate laws and 

regulations regarding hazardous materials. 

Disposal of hazardous materials on public lands 

will not be permitted. When the use or storage of 

hazardous materials is authorized (i.e. in mining 

operations or other types of commercial activities), 

special stipulations will be applied to comply with 

appropriate laws, regulations, and policies. In the 

event of hazardous materials incidents on public 

land, standard operating procedures will be used to 

respond. Cleanups and reclamation will be 

conducted in accordance with the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

and site-specific NEPA decisions. (Goals HM1, 

RV1, RV2, WF3, WR1, SE4) 

2.	 BLM will promote and support the appropriate use 

and recycling of hazardous materials in public 

facilities and on public land to prevent or minimize 

the generation and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

(Goals HM1, SE4) 

3.	 BLM will minimize and remediate hazardous 

materials spills or incidents. (Goal HM1) 

4.	 Environmental Site Assessments will be conducted 

for land acquisitions, land disposals, and for rightsof-way if applicable. Land uses will be authorized 

and managed to reduce the occurrence and severity of 

hazardous materials incidences on public land. 

(Goals HM1, LR1, LR2) 

5.	 BLM will assess level of risk at hazard sites and 

conduct remediation at highest priority sites that are 

the greatest risks to the public and environment. 

(Goal HM1) 

6.	 Pollutants, such as flammable liquids and lubricants, 

will be prevented from entering streams by storing 

outside of riparian areas, having a spill prevention 

and control plan, and not allowing refueling within 

riparian areas (with the exception of permitted 

mining activities, fire suppression activities, 

reclamation work and chainsaw re-fueling). (Goals 

HM1, RV1, RV2, WF3, WR1, SE4) 

Monitoring 

Clean-up sites will be monitored to protect and safeguard 

human health, prevent environmental damage, restore 

environmental functions and limit the BLM’s liability. 

Monitoring will include such activities as conducting 

periodic water and soil sampling, monitoring for 

revegetation of reclaimed areas, dust and erosion, and 

other signs of potential impacts to human health and 

environmental harm. Monitoring of specific sites or 

project areas will continue until there is no threat to 

human health or the environment. 

An inventory of hazardous materials sites, clean-up 

efforts and monitoring results will be maintained in the 

BLM’s site cleanup database. 

The number of sites (if any) will be tracked and reported 

as necessary. 

Wild Horses and Burros 

Herd areas are public lands identified as being habitat 

used by wild horses and burros at the time of passage of 

the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act (Act). 

At the time of the passage of the Act, a Wild Horse Herd 

Area called the Devils Fence Herd Area was designated 

within the Planning Area. This herd area is between 

Townsend and Radersburg (Map 19). 

The herd area is predominantly private and state lands 

intermingled with BLM and USFS lands dispersed in a 

fragmented manner throughout the area. Of the 

approximately 69,725 acres in the Devils Fence Herd 

Area, there are 49,592 acres of private lands (71 

percent); 16,231 acres of BLM (23 percent); 2,868 acres 

of state land (4 percent); 1,032 acres of USFS land (2 

percent), and 2 acres of local government land. 

Additionally, several fences partition this area among the 

many landowners which further inhibits the free roaming 

nature of said horses. This area has not been used by, or 

managed to support wild horses since 1977 due to 

habitat limitations and land ownership patterns. In 1977 

the area was closed to wild horse use and twelve wild 

horses were gathered and removed from the Devils 

Fence area in compliance with the Act. Conditions have 

changed little since 1977 when this herd was eliminated. 

Under the current situation as well as the foreseeable 

future, the Devils Fence Herd Area is not conducive to 

long-term maintenance and management of wild horses 

that would result in healthy self-sustaining wild horses 

in a thriving natural ecological balance. In order to 

manage for wild horses in this area, private land owners 

would have to request that large portions of their 

private property be made available to the BLM, and 

private fences would have to be removed to allow 

animals to freely roam between land owners. As a 

result, the Devils Fence Herd Area will not be managed 

for wild horse use, and will not be designated herd 

management area (HMA) status. 

78 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
Approved Resource Management Plan 

R. 3 W. R. 1 W. R. 1 E. 

Canyon 

Ferry T. 8 N. 

Helena 

National Forest 

Reservoir 

Elkhorn 

Mountains 

Jefferson 

County 

Broadwater 

County 

Limestone 

Hills 

Townsend 

T. 6 N. 

Radersburg 

T. 4 N. 

City
 

Interstate
 

US Highway
 

State Highway
 

County Boundary
 

Herd Area
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Bureau of Reclamation
 Gallatin 

Private County 

State 

US Forest Service (USFS) T. 2 N. 

Water 

Miles 

0 1 inch equals 5 miles 10 Map 19: Devils Fence Herd Area 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

UTM Zone 12 North (NAD 1983) Projection 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in January 2009 

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual 

or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may Butte Field Office 

Approved Resource Management Plan not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through 

digital means and information may be updated without notification. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Social and Economic Environment 

Goals 

Goal SE1 – Provide opportunities for economic 

benefits while minimizing adverse impacts on resources 

and resource uses. 

Goal SE2 – Provide for a diverse array of activities that 

result in social benefits for local residents, businesses, 

visitors, interested citizens, and future generations, 

while minimizing negative social effects. 

Goal SE3 – Sustain, and where appropriate, restore the 

health of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian 

ecosystems administered by the BLM to provide a 

sustained flow of economic benefits within the 

capability of the ecosystem. 

Goal SE4 – Protect visual quality, wildlife habitats, and 

recreation opportunities to sustain non-market values. 

Goal SE5 – Make resource commodities available to 

provide a sustainable flow of economic benefits within 

the capability of the ecosystem. 

Management Actions 

1.	 Identified Special Recreation Management Areas and 

the remaining Extensive Recreation Management 

Area will be managed for identified user markets, 

activities, and experience levels. (Goals SE1, SE2, 

RM1, RM4) 

2.	 Collaborative and/or stewardship processes will be 

used in the analysis and treatment of all resources and 

uses, as possible. (Goals SE1, SE2, SE3, SE4, SE5) 

3.	 BLM will provide opportunities for traditional and 

nontraditional uses of forest and forest products by 

incorporating sound ecological principles while 

contributing to the economic stability of the 

community. (Goals TT1, SE2, SE3, SE4, SE5, FW2) 

4.	 Use of new and developing technologies and 

industries will be encouraged in achieving healthy 

forest, stewardship, biomass utilization, and fuel 

management goals. (Goals SE1, SE2, SE3, SE5) 

Monitoring 

Economic Conditions 

Increasing human population and changing development 

and land use will influence the demand for nearby public 

land and mineral uses as well. Public land use decisions 

and policies in the RMP that are appropriate today may 

need to be revisited in the future. 

Evaluations and monitoring are appropriate to determine 

whether resource management issues, land use plan 

decisions, and NEPA analyses are still valid and whether 

the plan is being implemented. Monitoring may help 

determine if decisions remain relevant to current issues, 

decisions are effective in achieving desired outcomes, and 

decisions need to be revised. Monitoring demographic, 

economic, and land use trends is appropriate for the Butte 

RMP. The following indicators will be monitored 

whenever RMP evaluations occur (approximately every 

five years). 

•	 Demographic Trends: Substantial changes in local 

population may result in corresponding changes in 

resource management issues, BLM land uses, and 

related economic conditions. Local population levels 

and trends may be monitored by checking the 

Economic Profile System, IMPLAN, or other 

credible sources. 

•	 BLM Land Uses: Substantial changes in annual 

levels of BLM land uses (e.g. recreation use, 

livestock grazing, timber harvest, fuels treatments, 

fire suppression efforts, rights-of-way), may result in 

substantial local economic impacts on attributes such 

as employment, income, and public revenues. These 

BLM land use changes may be monitored by 

checking use levels shown in BLM annual reports, 

authorizations, annual revenues to the state and 

counties, and other sources. If information on these 

annual BLM land use levels is available, 

IMPLAN/FEAST modeling can be used to identify 

the current role of BLM-related contributions to the 

area economy for employment and income, i.e. BLM 

as a percent of total for each major industrial sector. 

•	 Private Land Developments: Five major trends in 

rural development that may influence BLM 

land/mineral uses and management policies under 

the Butte RMP are: 

o	 Rural homes tend to be concentrated near 

water and on highly productive soils. 

o	 Development of remote home sites 

encourages conversion of nearby natural 

areas. 

o	 Natural amenities, such as rivers, vistas, 

and protected public lands attract growth. 

o	 High amenity towns are more likely to 

attract nearby rural development. 

o	 The strongest driver of growth is the 

location of transportation infrastructure 

and services. 

A related planning concern is that sprawling 

development, especially “leap frog” subdivisions 

constructed away from existing development, 

encourages further development of nearby natural 

areas. This occurs because the infrastructure and 

services that accompany “leap frog” subdivisions 

facilitate further development of nearby land. If natural 

areas on private lands in the region are converted to 

development, or if public access to undeveloped private 

lands decreases substantially in the future, more 

demands may be placed on public lands. 

80 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

Private land developments may be monitored by 

checking the Montana Department of Revenue 

Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal System (CAMA) 

database (to identify density of rural housing 

developments) and help determine whether conditions 

in the planning area have changed to a degree that 

warrants modification of the RMP. 

Social Conditions 

The social goal for the RMP is to “provide for a diverse 

array of activities that result in social benefits for local 

residents, businesses, visitors, interested citizens and 

future generations, while minimizing negative social 

effects.” Social monitoring needs to evaluate how 

successfully this social goal has been met. 

Implementation monitoring applies directly to resource 

protection and resource use programs and activities. 

However, monitoring for social changes could occur 

during effectiveness monitoring to see if the 

implemented activities have had the desired 

consequences. This type of social monitoring is cited 

under the individual resource or resource use. For 

instance, under Travel Management and Access, 

Implementation Monitoring, Social Objectives and 

Indicators are included. The major example where 

social monitoring will be useful is in assessing whether 

the travel plans have successfully reduced or minimized 

conflict between motorized and non-motorized users. 

Information from social monitoring could also be 

helpful for the five year RMP evaluations. The BLM 

may evaluate how successfully the social vision has 

been met by holding focus groups or meetings with the 

different groups/interested parties that were addressed 

in the social effects analysis and assessing the 

satisfaction of these groups/parties with the plan 

implementation. These groups/interested parties 

include: timber and logging interests; 

ranching/livestock permittee interests; recreation 

interests; commercial outfitter and guide interests; 

groups/individuals who give a high priority to resource 

protection; and groups/individuals who give a high 

priority to resource use. 

Social monitoring of data that is routinely collected 

could also be helpful in the five year RMP evaluations. 

Relevant information would include demographic data 

(such as population and migration) and economic data 

(such as changes in the work force), as discussed under 

the economic monitoring section. These data, along 

with the information from groups/interested individuals, 

could indicate whether there were changes in the 

planning area that indicate the need for BLM to revisit 

planning decisions. 

Environmental Justice (EJ) 

Goal 

Goal EJ1– Identify and remediate to the extent possible 

disproportionate negative effects to minority or low 

income populations per Executive Order 12898 – 

“Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations”. 

Management Action 

1.	 BLM will evaluate and disclose whether actions 

would place a disproportionate share of negative 

environmental consequences on any particular 

populations covered by the Executive Order, and 

where practical, avoid such consequences. (Goal 

EJ1) 

Monitoring 

Potential changes in Environmental Justice populations 

within the RMP planning area will be tracked with 

information available from the State of Montana’s 

Census and Economic Information Center. These data, 

along with other information from groups/interested 

individuals as described above, could indicate whether 

there were changes in the Planning Area that indicate 

the need for BLM to revisit planning decisions. 

Tribal Treaty Rights 

Goal 

Goal TT1 – Accommodate treaty and legal rights of 

Native American groups in management of public 

lands. (Tribal treaties affecting the Decision Area are 

contained in Appendix F) 

Management Action 

1.	 BLM will notify and consult with tribes on BLM 

actions. Consultation and coordination will be 

conducted on a government to government basis 

with federally recognized tribes. (Goal TT1) 

Monitoring 

A minimum of one "face-to-face" project coordination 

meeting with historically affiliated tribal representatives 

will be conducted annually. Additional project-specific 

coordination will be conducted as necessary, 

particularly for projects involving activities such as 

vegetation treatments, land exchanges, and oil and gas 

development, with notification by mail and telephone 

conversation to determine additional consultation 

needs. Consultation and "government-to-government" 

meetings will also be conducted as requested by BLM 

or appropriate tribal representatives. Contact 

information for the appropriate tribal representatives 

will also be maintained on the Field Office project 

notification mailing lists. 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

MANAGEMENT PLAN 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Plan implementation is a continuous process occurring 

over the life of the resource management plan that will 

consider changing circumstances and new information 

through monitoring. The goal is to maintain a dynamic 

resource management plan that is evaluated and 

amended if necessary on an issue-by-issue basis. 

The implementation and monitoring process for the Butte 

Field Office involves five major steps: planning, 

implementation, monitoring, evaluation, and adjustments, 

as necessary. Planning involves a great amount of time 

and resources to identify issues and management 

opportunities to address those issues. During the planning 

process, the scope of land use planning issues is identified 

and management goals, objectives and actions are defined 

to address the issues. Once the planning process is 

completed, decisions are implemented, monitored, and 

evaluated over a period of time to determine if goals are 

being met and if management actions are achieving the 

desired objective or standard. Results of monitoring are 

documented and communicated to appropriate parties, 

and management objectives and actions are modified 

based on results, if necessary. 

PLANNING 

The Resource Management Plan was approved once the 

Record of Decision was signed in April 2009. 

The BLM expects that new information gathered from 

field inventories and assessments, research, other agency 

studies, and other sources will update baseline data or 

support new management techniques, best management 

practices, and scientific principles. To the extent that such 

new information or actions address issues covered in the 

plan, the BLM will integrate the data through plan 

maintenance. 

The BLM regulation in 43 CFR 1610.5-4 provides that 

land use plan decisions and supporting components can be 

maintained to reflect minor changes in data. Maintenance 

is limited to further refining, documenting, or clarifying a 

previously approved decision incorporated in the plan. 

Maintenance must not expand the scope of resource uses 

or restrictions or change the terms, conditions, and 

decisions of the Approved RMP. Some examples of 

maintenance actions include: 

•	 Correcting minor data, typographical, mapping, or 

tabular data errors; 

•	 Refining baseline information as a result of new 

inventory data (e.g., refining the known distribution 

or habitat of special status species or adjusting the 

boundary of a fire management unit based on updated 

fire regime condition class inventory); 

•	 Applying an existing oil and gas lease stipulation to a 

new area prior to a lease sale based on new inventory 

data (e.g., applying an existing protective stipulation 

for sage grouse to a newly discovered sage grouse lek 

not previously known or in existence at the time of 

finalization of the Approved RMP). 

Plan maintenance updates will be documented and 

reported as needed. Plan maintenance does not require 

formal public involvement, interagency coordination, or 

the NEPA analysis required for making new land use 

plan decisions. 

Land use plan decisions are changed through either a 

plan amendment or a plan revision. The process for 

conducting plan amendments is basically the same as 

the land use planning process used in developing 

RMPs. The primary difference is that circumstances 

may allow for completing a plan amendment through 

the environmental assessment (EA) process, rather than 

through an EIS. Plan amendments (43 CFR 1610.5-5) 

change one or more of the terms, conditions, or 

decisions of an approved land use plan. Plan 

amendments are most often prompted by the need to 

consider a proposal or action that does not conform to 

the plan; implement new or revised policy that changes 

land use plan decisions; respond to new, intensified, or 

changed uses on BLM land; and consider significant 

new information from resource assessments, 

monitoring, or scientific studies that change land use 

plan decisions. 

IMPLEMENTATION 

Implementation of the resource management plan 

(RMP) begins once the Record of Decision and 

Approved RMP for the Proposed RMP/Final EIS is 

signed. 

Decisions made through the RMP planning process are 

implemented over a period of time. Some of the 

decisions are immediate and go into effect with the 

Record of Decision. These include decisions such as 

resource-specific management prescriptions and lands 

available for oil and gas leasing. Some decisions will be 

implemented after a site-specific environmental review 

or NEPA process is completed. Examples include 

range improvements, development of recreation sites, 

vegetation management treatments, or approval of an 

application for permit to drill a natural gas well. 

Any future proposals or management actions will be 

reviewed against the Approved RMP to determine if the 

proposal would be in conformance with the RMP. 

While the Final EIS for the Butte RMP provides the 

compliance with NEPA for the broad-scale decisions to 

be made in the Record of Decision, it does not replace 

the requirement to comply with NEPA for 

implementation actions. Proposed actions fall into one 

of five categories: (1) actions that are exempt from 

82 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 
 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

NEPA; (2) actions that are categorically excluded; (3) 

actions that are covered by an existing NEPA 

environmental document; (4) actions that require 

preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) to 

determine if an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 

needed; or (5) actions that require preparation of an 

EIS. The NEPA procedural, documentation, and public 

involvement requirements are different for each 

category. 

Activity level planning will address any proposed new 

activities and long-term permitted activities that need to 

be brought into compliance with plan decisions, subject 

to valid existing rights. Monitoring of these activities 

will then determine the effectiveness of applying the 

land use plan direction. Where land use plan actions or 

best management practices are not effective, 

modifications could occur without amendment or 

revision of the plan as long as assumptions and impacts 

disclosed in the analysis remain valid and broad-scale 

goals and objectives are not changed. This approach 

uses on-the-ground monitoring, review of scientific 

information, and consideration of practical experience 

and common sense to adjust management and modify 

implementation of the plan to reach the desired 

outcome. 

As part of this process, the BLM will review 

management actions and the plan periodically to 

determine whether the objectives set forth in this 

document are being met. Where they are not being met, 

the BLM will consider adjustments of appropriate 

scope. Where the BLM considers taking or approving 

actions which will alter or not conform to overall 

direction of the plan, the BLM will prepare a plan 

amendment and environmental analysis of appropriate 

scope. 

In addition, during the life of the Approved RMP, the 

BLM expects that new information gathered from field 

inventories and assessments, research, other agency 

studies, and other sources will update baseline data or 

support new management techniques, best management 

practices, and scientific principles. To the extent that 

such new information or actions address issues covered 

in the plan, the BLM will integrate the data through 

plan maintenance. 

Public Involvement in Plan 

Implementation 

The BLM will continue to actively seek the views of 

the public, using techniques such as news releases and 

mass mailings to ask for participation and to inform the 

public of new and ongoing project proposals, sitespecific planning, and opportunities and timeframes for 

comment. The public is encouraged to contact the BLM 

(Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, 

Montana 59701) and discuss projects or issues they are 

interested in with appropriate BLM personnel. The 

public may also contact the Butte Field Office by 

calling (406) 533-7600. 

The BLM will also continue to coordinate, both 

formally and informally, with the numerous federal and 

state agencies, Native American tribal governments, 

local agencies, and officials interested and involved in 

the management of BLM lands in the Decision Area. 

MONITORING 

Monitoring is the repeated measurement of activities 

and conditions over time. Monitoring data gathered 

over time is examined and used to draw conclusions on 

whether management actions are meeting stated 

objectives, and if not, why. Conclusions are then used 

to make recommendations on whether to continue 

current management or what changes need to be made 

in management practices to meet objectives. 

Implementation monitoring determines whether 

planned activities have been implemented in the 

manner prescribed by the plan. This monitoring 

documents BLM’s progress toward full implementation 

of the land use plan decision. There are no specific 

thresholds or indicators required for this type of 

monitoring. 

Effectiveness monitoring also is used to determine if 

the implementation of activities has achieved the 

desired goals and objectives. This requires knowledge 

of the objectives established in the RMP as well as 

indicators that can be measured. Indicators are 

established by technical specialists in order to address 

specific questions, and thus avoid collection of 

unnecessary data. Success is measured against the 

benchmark of achieving desired future conditions 

established by the plan. 

Validation monitoring may be used to ascertain whether 

a cause-and-effect relationship exists among 

management activities or resources being managed. It 

confirms whether the predicted results occurred and if 

assumptions and models used to develop the plan are 

correct. This type of monitoring is often done by 

contract with another agency, academic institution, or 

other entity, and is usually expensive and time 

consuming since results are not known for many years. 

Regulations at 43 CFR 1610.4-9 require that the 

proposed plan establish intervals and standards, as 

appropriate, for monitoring and evaluation of the plan, 

based on the sensitivity of the resource decisions 

involved. Progress in meeting the plan objectives and 

adherence to the management framework established by 

the plan is reviewed periodically. CEQ regulations 

implementing NEPA state that agencies may provide 

for monitoring to assure that their decisions are carried 

out and should do so in important cases (40 CFR 

1505.2(c)). To meet these requirements, the BLM will 

Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP 83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approved Resource Management Plan 

prepare periodic reports on the implementation of the 

RMP. 

PLAN EVALUATION AND ADAPTIVE 

MANAGEMENT 

Evaluation is a process in which the plan and monitoring 

data are reviewed to see if management goals and 

objectives are being met and if management direction is 

sound. 

As part of this process, the BLM will review management 

actions and the plan periodically to determine whether the 

objectives set forth in this document are being met. Where 

they are not being met, the BLM will consider 

adjustments of appropriate scope. Where the BLM 

considers taking or approving actions which will alter or 

not conform to overall direction of the plan, the BLM will 

make adjustments by preparing a plan amendment and 

environmental analysis of appropriate scope. 

Land use plan evaluations will be used by the BLM to 

determine if the decisions in the RMP, supported by the 

accompanying NEPA analysis, are still valid. Evaluation 

of the RMP will generally be conducted every five years, 

unless unexpected actions, new information, or significant 

changes in other plans, legislation, or litigation triggers an 

evaluation. Land use plan evaluations determine if 

decisions are being implemented, whether mitigation 

measures are satisfactory, whether there are significant 

changes in the related plans of other entities, whether 

there is new data of significance to the plan, and if 

decisions should be changed through amendment or 

revision. 

Based on the Record of Decision and Approved RMP 

being released in the spring of 2009, the following 

evaluation schedule will be followed for the Butte RMP: 

• April 2014 

• April 2019 

• April 2024 

• April 2029 

Evaluations will follow the protocols established by the 

BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 in effect at 

the time the evaluation is initiated. 

Adaptive management involves exploring alternative 

ways to meet management objectives, predicting the 

outcomes of alternatives based on the current state of 

knowledge, implementing one or more of these 

alternatives, monitoring to learn about the impacts of 

management actions, and then using the results to update 

knowledge and adjust management actions. Adaptive 

management strategies may be used to modify 

management when monitoring data is available, and as 

long as the goals and objectives of the plan are met with 

alternative approaches being applied. Where monitoring 

shows land use plan actions or best management practices 

are not effective, modifications or adjustments may occur 

without amendment or revision of the plan as long as 

assumptions and impacts disclosed in the analysis remain 

valid and broad scale goals and objectives are not 

changed. 

IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 

An implementation strategy will be developed for the 

Approved RMP. The intent of the strategy will be to 

prioritize the planning and sequencing of projects and 

activities to best meet the intent of the RMP. The 

strategy will document a prioritized list of actions that: 

1) will help achieve RMP goals and desired outcomes; 

and 2) will be implementable given existing and 

anticipated budgets and workforce. 

84 Record of Decision (ROD)/Approved RMP