CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES 

CHAPTER 2

ALTERNATIVES
CHAPTER 2 

ALTERNATIVES
 

INTRODUCTION 

This chapter describes alternative ways of resolving the 

planning issues and sustaining the long-term health, 

diversity, and productivity of public lands in the Planning Area. The range of alternatives includes different 

approaches to balancing demands on public land, managing and protecting resource values, and reducing conflicts. 

This chapter contains the following sections: 

• Developing the Range of Alternatives – describes the process and key concepts used to develop the range of alternatives considered in detail. 

• Overview of the Alternatives – briefly describes 

each of the key components of the four alternatives considered in detail, and includes a description of why Alternative B was identified as the 

Preferred Alternative. 

• Alternatives Considered in Detail – includes a 

summary of the major components of each alternative and a more detailed description of each alternative by issue category. 

• Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in 

Detail – briefly describes alternatives that were 

considered, but not in detail with rationale. 

• Comparison of the Alternatives – describes the 

measures used to compare alternatives and includes tabular comparison of the alternatives considered in detail. 

• Comparison of Impacts – describes the impacts 

of the alternatives and includes tabular comparison of impacts for the alternatives considered in 

detail. 

DEVELOPING THE RANGE OF 

ALTERNATIVES 

The development of management alternatives for the 

Butte Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement was guided by provisions of the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as 

planning criteria listed in Chapter 1. Other laws, as well 

as Bureau of Land Management (BLM) planning regulations and policy, also directed alternative considerations 

and focused the alternatives on appropriate land use 

plan-level decisions. Field Office-wide goals and desired 

future conditions for individual resource and resource 

use programs were identified by the planning team in 

consideration of public comment received through scoping as well as direction established by Bureau-wide 

initiatives and mandates. The goals would apply to all 

alternatives. 

Four management alternatives were developed to address the major planning issues and to provide direction 

for resource programs influencing land management. 

The alternatives vary in how they emphasize different 

combinations of resource uses and management activities to address issues and resolve conflicts among uses. 

As a result, program goals are met in varying degrees 

across the alternatives. Management activities and prescriptions for management concerns or programs not tied 

to major planning issues often contain few or no differences in management between alternatives. 

Alternative A, continuation of current management or 

No Action, is based on existing planning decisions that 

remain valid and current direction and policy. The remaining alternatives were developed with input received 

during scoping. Site-specific travel plan alternatives 

(site-specific implementation decisions) were developed 

by the planning team with the assistance of communitybased working groups sponsored by Lewis and Clark 

County for three of the five travel plan areas addressed 

in this plan. 

Vegetation management and treatment proposals were 

developed through the use of a model called 

SIMPPLLE—Simulating Patterns and Processes at 

Landscape scales. This model allowed the planning team 

to establish an approximate picture of historic vegetative 

conditions in the context of natural disturbance regimes 

(such as wildland fire, insect outbreaks, etc.) upon which 

to base proposed vegetation treatments. Additional information on use of the SIMPPLLE is detailed in Appendix C. 

OVERVIEW OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

There are 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. 

All alternatives include management direction that is not 

being revised. This direction is presented in the section 

“Management Common to All Alternatives” and is not 

described in this overview. Continued management 

direction reflects the following categories: 

1. Management Direction from legal statute, regulation, or manual direction. This management direcButte Draft RMP/EIS 15 
Chapter 2 

tion may not have been specifically included in 

the Headwaters RMP or Dillon MFP but includes 

management direction for things such as restricted uses near bald eagle nests or current regional decisions on noxious weed abatement 

techniques. 

2. Management Direction from the Headwaters 

RMP/Dillon MFP, including amendments by subsequent modifications from other decisions that 

are not being revised by the Butte RMP. 

Some of the issues identified early in this planning process were resolved using one approach in the “action 

alternatives”. These are identified under the category 

“Management Direction Common to Action Alternatives” in the Alternatives Considered in Detail section. 

This management guidance represents areas where there 

was little controversy over the best way to resolve the 

issue. One example of this approach is the common 

management direction for the “action” alternatives to 

maintain or improve habitat conditions for special-status 

plant species by altering or removing trees and shrubs, 

prescriptive livestock grazing, prescribed and managed 

wildland fire, and planting. These components are not 

included in this overview. 

Federal and state laws, regulations, and permitting requirements established to protect natural resources 

would be followed under all alternatives. 

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. 

Direction contained in existing laws, regulations, and 

policies would also continue. 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 with a more 

holistic vegetative community perspective, greater than 

in Alternative C, but less than in Alternative D. Projectlevel wildlife habitat and riparian management measures would be greater than in Alternatives A and D, but 

less than in Alternative C. 

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 

than in any other alternative. 

Alternative C emphasizes non-motorized recreation 

opportunities more than the other alternatives. All potential ACEC would be designated with this alternative. All 

four river segments eligible for Wild and 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, bur 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. 

GOALS COMMON TO ALL 

ALTERNATIVES FOR ALL BLM 

ACTIVITIES 

Throughout the BFO, BLM authorized activities associated with all resource and resource use programs would 

meet or move toward meeting the following standards to 

the extent practicable: 

• Uplands are in proper functioning condition; 

16 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

• 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 would 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 

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, BLM (1997). 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Management of vegetative communities includes grasslands and shrublands, forests and woodlands (including 

forestry and forest products), riparian vegetation, livestock grazing, wildland fire management, wildlife habitat, and noxious weeds. 

Vegetation Goals 

Goal 1 – Maintain and/or improve ecological site potential on woodland communities for sustainability and 

diversity. 

Goal 2 – Manage dry forest types to contain healthy 

stands of site-appropriate species; stands relatively open, 

and reproduce desired vegetation species. 

Goal 3 – 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 4 – Manage old forest structures in a sustainable 

manner. (Note: old forest structures are 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 

is typically characterized by relatively open understories 

and fewer large fallen trees.) 

Goal 5 – Manage upland vegetation communities to 

move toward or remain in proper functioning condition, 

including a full range of herbaceous and shrub species. 

Goal 6 – Maintain or enhance communities of priority 

species or habitats (for example, mountain mahogany, 

sagebrush, bitterbrush) to provide desired ecological 

functions and values. Additional specific goals are included for specific types of management of vegetation 

communities. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Goal 1 – 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 2 – Manage forestry resources to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect nonmarket economic values. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Goal 1 – Manage riparian and wetland communities to 

move toward or remain in proper functioning condition. 

When at this condition, these areas have the appropriate 

composition, density, and age structure for their specific 

area. These communities are generally sustainable and 

provide physical stability and adequate habitat for a 

wide range of aquatic and riparian dependent species. 

Goal 2 – Manage wetland and riparian habitats to support healthy, diverse and abundant populations of fish 

and associated aquatic and riparian dependent species. 

Livestock Grazing 

Goal 1 – Manage for a sustainable level of livestock 

grazing while meeting or progressing toward Land 

Health Standards. 

Goal 2 – Maintain, restore, or enhance BLM rangelands 

to meet the Land Health Standards. 

Goal 3 – Manage livestock grazing to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and to protect 

non-market economic values. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Goal 1 – Provide an appropriate management response 

to all wildland fires, emphasizing firefighter and public 

safety. 

Goal 2 – Move toward restoring and maintaining desired 

ecological conditions consistent with appropriate fire 

regimes. 

Goal 3 – Minimize the adverse effects of fire on resources, resource uses, and wildland-urban interface. 

Goal 4 – Promote seamless fire management planning 

across jurisdictions within the boundaries of the BFO. 

Goal 5 – Protect life and property by treating hazardous 

fuels on BLM lands near WUI. 

Noxious Weed Management 

Goal – Minimize infestations of invasive plants and 

noxious weeds. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 17 
Chapter 2 

General Approach of Vegetation 

Management Activities 

The following discussion describes the approach that 

would be used for vegetation management activities 

within vegetation types found in the Decision Area under all alternatives. While in most cases vegetation 

treatments would be geared toward meeting historic 

vegetation conditions, it is recognized that this would 

not necessarily be the case in Wildland Urban Interface 

(WUI) areas where more substantial fuels reductions 

may be needed to meet site-specific conditions. 

Grassland and Shrublands 

Prior to effective fire suppression, foothill grasslands 

were maintained free of invading trees and shrubs by 

periodic fires. With successful fire suppression, many 

grasslands are becoming woodlands or shrublands, and 

many shrublands are being converted to woodlands. 

These vegetation types would 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 would 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 would be modified 

to improve conditions. 

Forest and Woodlands 

Dry Forest Types 

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 would 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 

would 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 would 

include mechanical or hand thinning, while prescribed 

burning would 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 would 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, would be used to accomplish restoration and thinning of dry forests. Trees in the small to large size 

classes would produce commercial forest products including lumber, posts and poles, and biomass. 

Cool, Moist Forest Types 

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 usually have 

higher tree densities with open parks and grass or shrub 

dominated meadows interspersed. 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. 

Treatments would 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 would be 

used to create openings to mimic stand-replacing fire 

events and to regenerate lodgepole pine. 

Riparian Types 

Riparian habitat can include vegetation such as aspen, 

cottonwood, willows, dogwood, and alder as well as a 

variety of other riparian dependant species. Riparian 

habitat can also consist of conifers such as Douglas-fir, 

lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, and spruce. Riparian 

areas occur throughout all forest types, grasslands, and 

shrublands and have experienced many of the same 

effects of long-term fire suppression as described above. 

Some riparian habitats in the PA have also been degraded due to inappropriate historic grazing, mining, 

timber harvest, and road construction. Some riparian 

areas contain aspen clones that are being lost due to 

conifer encroachment or grazing by livestock and/or big 

game. Where conifers are outcompeting or precluding 

regeneration of aspen, potential aspen or cottonwood 

stands, conifers would be removed to provide suitable 

habitat for expansion of these species. 

The emphasis for riparian areas would be on protection 

and restoration. Treatments in riparian areas would 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. Riparian areas would continue to be evaluated 

using Land Health Standards and grazing practices 

would be modified when necessary. 

Vegetation Management Tools 

A number of different vegetation management tools or 

activities would be common to all alternatives in implementing the approach described above. 

Mechanical treatments would include tree removal 

through the use of ground based equipment, horses, 

helicopters, or any other appropriate methods. This 

18 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

would include thinning/removing medium (9 to 15 inch 

DBH) and large (greater than 15 inch DBH) trees and 

obtaining commercial wood products, thinning noncommercial-sized 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 would be used to restore vegetative communities to desired future conditions as well as 

to reduce fuels in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas. 

The amount of forest products harvested would vary by 

alternative. This is due to different geographic priorities, 

acreage of vegetative treatments, and associated access 

development needed for successful treatment completion 

by alternative. Commercial uses of materials from vegetation management activities would be considered in all 

cases where appropriate. 

Prescribed burning would be used to treat forest, grassland, or shrubland vegetation types. In grasslands or 

shrublands, prescribed burning would be used to kill 

encroaching conifers, removing dead finer fuels created 

by years of grass or shrub growth, and stimulating grass 

and shrub re-growth. In forests, prescribed burning 

would be used to reduce fuels generated by mechanical 

treatments and to 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. 

Noxious weed treatments would 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. Other appropriate methods would be applied as they are developed and approved for use. 

Changing grazing management or prescription grazing 

would 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. 

General Summary of Alternative 

Emphasis for Vegetative Communities 

Alternative A would continue current management. 

Project-specific objectives and treatment types would be 

as described under “Actions Common to All.” Projects 

would stem largely from reducing fuels in the WUI, 

performing silvicultural treatments, and deriving forest 

products from stand by stand management on a sustained yield basis. Some projects to improve grassland 

and shrubland habitats in big game winter range areas 

would also occur. 

Alternative B would emphasize maintaining and restoring healthy, diverse, and productive native plant communities appropriate to local site conditions. This alternative would identify opportunities to actively restore 

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 would 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, wildland fires). Actions 

would maintain or mimic natural disturbance regimes to 

provide for diverse and sustainable ecosystems so that 

plant communities would be resilient to periodic outbreaks of insects, disease and wildland fire. 

The major emphasis areas under Alternative B would be 

fuels reduction in the urban interface, 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 under this alternative. Priority 

for restoration and protection treatments would be given 

to forested areas with heavy fuel concentrations, limited 

vegetative diversity, and declining in health. Areas with 

an increasing risk of insect infestation or loss of important habitat values would also be given precedence for 

treatment. Priority areas for treatment under Alternative 

B include the Jefferson, Upper Missouri, and Big Hole 

watersheds. 

Alternative C would provide for ecosystem health and 

diversity by focusing efforts on maintenance and protection of current conditions. As with the other action alternatives, vegetative treatments would still allow for restoration of habitats that are substantially outside the range 

of the historic condition, which are based on 500 year 

vegetative habitat trends from an analysis of current 

vegetation in the SIMPPLLE computer model. (Appendix C – SIMPPLLE Model) High priority habitats 

would include dry forest habitat and grasslands and 

shrublands in big game winter range areas. Treatment of 

the WUI to reduce the risk of fire would also be high 

priority for this alternative. In general, treatments for 

ecosystem health, habitat patch size and treatments to 

reduce the threat of wildland fire in the urban interface 

would be smaller under Alternative C than the other two 

action alternatives. 

The priority treatment areas in Alternative C would be 

forested locations that have existing road access and the 

Upper Missouri watershed due to higher urban interface 

concerns there. 

Alternative D would have a similar emphasis and approach as Alternative B, but would include areas requiring a greater degree of vehicular access development. 

The major focus areas under Alternative D would be 

fuels reduction in the urban interface, reduction of coniButte Draft RMP/EIS 19 
Chapter 2 

fer encroachment in grasslands and shrublands, restoration of dry forest types, and maintenance of existing 

“healthy” forests (such as open, “savannah” dry forest 

types). Priority areas for restoration and protection 

treatments include Jefferson, Upper Missouri, and Big 

Hole watersheds. 

Historic vegetative acres generated by the SIMPPLLE 

Model (Appendix C) for each major watershed were 

used as a “guide” to determining the number of acres 

proposed for treatment in different habitat types. 

For each action alternative, vegetative treatment acres 

were further refined by taking into consideration the 

following factors; adjacent land ownership and management, recreation sites, urban interface, designated 

semi-primitive areas, access to public lands, the existing 

road system, past treatments, wildlife habitat, wildfires, 

weed infestations, and topographical features. Current 

and past budgets were also used to verify the potential 

treatment acres by alternative. With the exception of 

noxious weed treatments, no Wilderness Study Areas 

were identified for treatments. 

Proposed vegetation management actions described 

below refer to “project area” and “treatment area”. A 

project area is a large area within which some type of 

management activity would 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 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 in an alternative, 

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

treatment on these acres, 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 500 acres of treatment in the 

context of RMP implementation. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Forests and Woodlands 

Vegetation structure, density, species composition, patch 

size, pattern, and distribution would be managed in a 

manner to reduce the occurrence of unnaturally large 

and severe wildland fires and forest insect outbreaks. 

Stands with characteristics indicating a substantial risk 

of developing epidemic levels of forest insects and/or 

disease would be high priority for treatments to reduce 

risk. 

The forest product small sale program would continue to 

maintain a balance between public demand and the 

health and productivity of native and desired vegetation 

communities. Small forest product sales include overthe-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 usually take place in small areas 

or on scattered or isolated parcels often concurrent with 

similar activities on adjacent private lands. 

Other products would include: house logs, posts and 

poles, vegetative cuttings, conifer boughs, wildings and 

ornamentals, grape stakes, juniper products, specialty 

cuttings, and wildflowers. 

Salvage of forest products resulting from wildland fire, 

prescribed fire, forest insects and disease, weather induced or other forest mortality events would be considered. 

Timber salvage project areas would consist of small 

openings, thinning between openings, and retention 

patches. In the context of large-scale wildland fire or 

forest insect and disease outbreaks, patches of dead and 

dying forest would be maintained for wildlife dependant 

upon this habitat. 

In all areas with dead and dying trees (including retention patches), tree cutting would be allowed for human 

safety, fire rehabilitation and stabilization, and forest or 

stream restoration activities. 

Silvicultural prescriptions would be consistent with 

accepted methods related to site, species, habitat types, 

and the individual requirements of the forest stand. Tractor logging generally would be limited to slopes with 

average gradients of less than 40 percent and the season 

of logging would be limited to reduce soil compaction 

and rutting (Appendix D – BMPs). 

Adequate access would be maintained for management 

activities and treatments. Road locations would be determined on the basis of topography, drainage, soil type, 

and other natural features to minimize erosion. Skid 

roads would be rehabilitated by appropriate methods that 

disperse runoff, reduce erosion, and promote revegetation as needed. 

Slash disposal would be conducive to revegetation and 

advantageous to the passage of big game. Slash would 

be burned when necessary. All mechanical and prescribed burn treatments would be in conformance with 

Best Management Practices (see Appendix D –BMPs). 

20 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

Mechanical treatments would be laid out to minimize the 

risk of windthrow, and shelterwood harvests would be 

made to improve genetic composition of the regenerated 

stand. Whenever possible, openings larger than 20 acres 

in size resulting from forest treatment or large scale 

events in forested habitats would 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. 

Personal use firewood permits valid for wood collection 

from both BLM and Forest Service lands in Western 

Montana would continue to be offered by BLM in cooperation with the Forest Service. 

Riparian 

At the Field Office scale, management would restore and 

improve riparian areas and wetlands. Riparian areas that 

are functioning at risk would be a high priority for restoration. 

Authorized activities within riparian areas would 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, short-term and 

long-term effects would be minimized. 

Streams and riparian habitats that have been degraded or 

lost due to the effects of historic mining operations, 

including placer mining, would continue to be restored 

to improve water quality as well as aquatic and riparian 

habitats. The BLM HazMat/AML Program(s) would 

continue to cooperatively work on a watershed-bywatershed basis reducing exposures to human health and 

the environment from AML sites. Reclamation of these 

areas typically include; 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 

would be monitored to evaluate if the reclamation risk 

reduction project goals were achieved, if 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. 

Forested riparian habitats would be managed to accelerate the development of mature forest communities to 

promote shade, bank stability, and woody debris recruitment. Late-successional riparian vegetation would 

be promoted in amounts and distribution similar to historic conditions. 

Riparian and wetland management would be consistent 

with all state and federal laws and regulations. Actions 

would 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. 

Site specific objectives and management strategies 

would be developed and applied through activity plans 

to meet the Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management Butte District 

(Appendix E – Land Health Standards) and achieve 

proper functioning condition. 

Riparian protection would be provided by the Montana 

Streamside Management Zone Law (77-5-301 through 

307 MCA). Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) 

provide regulation for the protection of water quality. 

Within SMZs, there are specific restrictions on certain 

forest activities, including; timber harvest design, timber 

cutting and removal (including clearcutting), the use of 

heavy equipment, slash disposal, broadcast burning, offroad vehicle operation, and road construction (unless 

necessary for stream crossing). SMZs also address the 

handling, storage, application, or disposal of hazardous 

or toxic substances. The SMZ is defined as “the stream, 

lake, or other body of water and an adjacent area of 

varying width where management practices that might 

affect wildlife habitat or water quality, fish, or other 

aquatic resources need to be modified.” The SMZ encompasses a strip at least 50 feet wide on each side of a 

stream, lake, or other body of water, measured from the 

ordinary high water mark, and extends beyond the high 

water mark to include wetlands and areas that provide 

additional protection in zones with steep slopes or erosive soils. The SMZ provides the minimum regulatory 

standards for forest practices in riparian areas. 

Ephemeral drainages and some mapped intermittent 

streams would not be covered by the SMZs under the 

definitions in the state regulations. These areas, however, could be covered by management restrictions 

commonly known as Best Management Practices (Appendix D – BMPs). Consistent with the SMZ law, forest 

and fuel management activities would be allowed in the 

riparian ephemeral areas and intermittent stream areas to 

meet riparian restoration or maintenance objectives and 

only if adequate woody material remains in the riparian 

area. In these situations, forest management activities 

would follow BMPs. 

Riparian communities, habitat, and associated uplands 

would be treated and restored through implementation of 

livestock grazing guidelines to meet Rangeland Health 

Standards, as well as AML reclamation. 

Livestock Grazing 

Objectives for livestock grazing would be to meet the 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management Butte District section of 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 21 
Chapter 2 

the publication Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota, BLM (1997), 

which would be incorporated into livestock grazing 

permits and leases. 

Allotment Management Plans and Coordinated Resource 

Management Plans would continue to be implemented, 

including utilization objectives and associated range 

improvement projects. 

Land Health Standards would 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 when 

authorizing grazing along with site-specific vegetation 

objectives. 

Cooperatively managed allotments with the USFS and 

Dillon Field Office would continue under existing 

Memoranda of Understanding. 

Applications for unleased allotments and vacant available lands (areas of land not segregated into allotments 

open to leasing by qualified applicants) would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Existing utilization objectives set through interdisciplinary NEPA, Allotment Management Plan, or Coordinated RMP planning processes would continue in effect. 

Adjustments to livestock management practices or livestock numbers, including increases or decreases, would 

be made based on results of monitoring studies, rangeland health assessments, allotment evaluations, and 

interdisciplinary review. 

The health and integrity of riparian areas and wetlands 

would be protected by and improved by using tools such 

as livestock fencing, alternate upland water sources or 

livestock grazing adjustments (timing and stocking 

rates). 

Functional wildlife escape ramps would be installed and 

maintained on all water tanks on BLM lands. 

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 would be modified. Where livestock grazing is the 

cause of degraded conditions, grazing would be suspended on a case-by-case basis if adjusting practices is 

not effective in meeting riparian goals or proper functioning condition. 

New fences would be built to standard BLM wildlife 

specifications 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 would be 

modified to meet the standard when reconstruction is 

done. 

Wildlife habitat, grassland, sagebrush, and shrubland 

health of individual allotments would be assessed. Livestock grazing guidelines would be implemented to maintain or improve conditions when degradation due to 

grazing has been identified. Livestock grazing guidelines 

for residual cover in Allotment Management Plans and 

monitoring of forage utilization would be developed. 

No new term grazing permits would be authorized on 

river islands because of fencing issues, and to reduce 

conflicts between recreational use and grazing use as 

well as improving water quality. 

Water developments for livestock generally would not 

be established in areas where significant conflicts for 

wildlife forage and habitat could occur. 

Range improvements generally would be designed to 

achieve both wildlife and range objectives. 

Sufficient forage and cover would be provided for wildlife on seasonal habitat. 

Wildland Fire Management 

The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Helena 

National Forest, Gallatin National Forest, and the State 

of Montana DNRC would implement fire preparedness, 

prevention, and suppression on BLM administered lands 

through the interagency offset and six party fire protection agreements. 

Use of retardant in Wilderness Areas or WSAs would be 

avoided and would require line officer approval. 

Use of heavy equipment would be restricted to areas 

outside of Wilderness or WSAs. 

Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics would be used 

when working in a Wilderness Area or WSAs, following 

the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for 

Lands under Wilderness Review (BLM Handbook H8550-1). 

BLM would manage naturally ignited wildland fires in 

the Elkhorn Mountain units under the prescription guidelines established in the Elkhorn Mountains Fire Management Plan. 

Fire Management activities (wildland fire, fuels, and fire 

mitigation, education and prevention) would be prioritized by their risk of life and property across the Planning Area. Fires that are adjacent to or near WUI would 

have highest priority for fire suppression. 

Fire management activities would be designed and implemented in a manner that meets, or moves toward 

meeting Land Health Standards. Wildland fire management activities would be conducted to meet or move 

toward meeting Land Health Standards when compliant 

with the standards for fire operations. 

Planned prescribed fire unit size would be determined by 

an interdisciplinary team through site specific NEPA 

analysis. 

22 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

BLM would 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. 

Emergency fire rehabilitation funds may 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. 

Incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, and other 

incident management activities would be located outside 

of riparian areas. If unavoidable, an exemption could be 

made by a resource advisor. 

BLM would 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 would be determined based on 

current management. 

Following large wildland fires, burned areas would be 

evaluated for appropriate biological, salvage, and physical rehabilitation activities. 

Provide assistance to communities in developing and 

maintaining community wildland fire protection plans. 

In all alternatives, fire management objectives would be 

associated with Fire Management Units (FMUs). The 

Planning Area would be divided into FMUs and BLM 

lands would be designated into fire management categories described below. 

Category A Areas 

Wildland fire is not desired in these areas. The fire management emphasis should be placed on prevention, detection, rapid response, use of appropriate suppression 

techniques and tools, and non-fire fuels treatments. Fire 

suppression may be required to prevent unacceptable 

resource damage or to prevent loss of life or property. 

Emphasis would be focused on those actions that would 

reduce unwanted ignitions and reduce losses from unwanted wildland fire. 

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 (e.g., prescribed fire), prevention of human 

caused fire, or other strategies. Prevention and mitigation programs to reduce unwanted fire ignitions and 

resource threats would be emphasized. Fire suppression 

would be the objective for unplanned wildland fire. Fire 

and non-fire fuels treatments reduce the effects of unplanned wildland fire. Restorative treatments would 

consist of multiple non-fire treatments before the use of 

fire would be considered. 

Category C Areas 

These are areas where wildland fire use and prescribed 

fire is desired to manage ecosystems but there are substantial constraints that must be considered for its use. 

These constraints would include critical wildlife habitat, 

air quality, or Threatened and Endangered species. Resource consideration would be described in terms of 

maximum acreage, time of year or burned acres per 

decade from all types of fire. These areas would receive 

lower suppression priority in multiple wildland fire 

situations. Fire and non-fire fuels treatments would be 

utilized to ensure constraints are met or to reduce any 

hazardous effects of unplanned wildland fire. 

Category D Areas 

These are areas where fire is desired, with no constraints 

associated with resource condition or social economic or 

political consideration (i.e. where natural and management-ignited fire may be used to achieve desired objectives, such as to improve vegetation or watershed condition). These areas offer the greatest opportunity to use 

the full range of options available for managing wildland 

fire under the appropriate management response. 

Noxious Weed Management 

BLM would 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 (USDIBLM 1996b), Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in 

Thirteen Western States (USDI-BLM 1991c), the Montana Weed Management Plan (Duncan 2005), the Noxious Weed Control Plan, Bureau of Land Management, 

Butte District, Headwaters Resource Area (USDI-BLM 

1986b) or the most current BFO noxious weed control 

plan, and other applicable federal, state, and local laws, 

statutes, and regulations. 

BLM would continue cooperative agreements with 

County and State entities. Management efforts would be 

coordinated with other Federal, State, and County agencies, weed management areas, and private landowners 

and organizations. 

Under all alternatives, BLM would focus prevention of 

weed spread along roads, trails, waterways, recreation 

sites, and disturbed sites due to project implementation. 

BLM would continue to use a combination of cultural, 

physical, chemical, and biological treatments for weed 

control. Chemical and biological treatment techniques 

would conform to BLM guidelines and state and federal 

laws. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 23 
Chapter 2 

Weed seed free forage would be used on BLM lands. 

Forage subject to this rule would include hay, grains, 

cubes, pelletized feeds, straw, and mulch. 

Weed management prescriptions would be included in 

all new treatment projects and incorporated where possible in all existing contracts, agreements, and land use 

authorizations that would result in ground-disturbing 

activities. 

Monitoring would be conducted to determine if weed 

treatment strategies are effective at the project level and 

Planning Area- and Decision Area-wide. 

Approximately 10 to 15 percent of proposed weed 

treatment acres by alternatives are expected to be newly 

treated acres. Most of the treated acres would be repeated treatments on the same areas because successful 

weed control usually requires multiple treatments and/or 

combinations of treatment methods. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Grasslands and Shrublands 

BLM would continue to assess the health of herbaceous 

and shrub species during rangeland health assessments 

with priority given to wooded riparian and upland broadleaf shrub communities. Fire restoration and rehabilitation standards would continue to be compatible with 

landscape resource management objectives and longterm (25-year) vegetation health protection and fuel 

management. Under Alternative A, the objective would 

be to treat approximately 5,250 acres of grassland and 

shrubland per decade, primarily to reduce conifer encroachment into these areas. 

Forests and Woodlands 

The forestry program would continue to address forest 

stand management and development, as well as insect 

and disease detection and control. Forest stand harvesting and treatments would enhance or maintain healthy 

structure, density, species composition, pattern, and 

distribution to promote forest productivity and reduce 

the occurrence of forest disease and insect outbreaks. 

Forest stands would be managed to be resilient when 

periodic fire events occur and products would be salvaged from such events. 

Forest and woodland treatment objectives under Alternative A would be as follows. Approximately 3,600 acres 

of dry forest types that are medium to large size with 

high tree densities would be treated per decade. Approximately 400 acres of treatments per decade would 

take place in similarly structured cool and moist forest 

types. Because the forest management program was not 

functioning at its present level until 1996, acreage estimates are based on forest management activities since 

1996. 

Thinning, forest product removal, and prescribed burning methods to reduce the amount of forest or wooded 

area with the potential for high severity wildland fire 

would continue. No mechanical treatments specifically 

targeting limber pine would occur. 

Adequate access for management activities would be 

maintained. If needed, up to 5.5 miles of new, permanent 

roads could be constructed per year to provide access for 

treatments. 

Forest and Woodland Products 

A full range of forest management activities, including 

timber production, would occur on high priority forest 

management areas, consistent with the Timber Production Capability Classification. Forest condition assessment activity plans or landscape analysis would be required. Landscape analysis may also be used to incorporate multiple resource considerations into general forest 

management activities. 

Objectives for the Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) would 

be at current levels of 12 million board feet (MMBF) per 

decade or 40,000 hundred cubic feet (CCF). This could 

range as high as 27 MMBF (97,000 CCF) per decade if 

forest treatments are increased up to 750 acres per year 

as allowed under the 1984 Headwaters RMP. All sales 

would be required to conform to guidelines developed in 

the Dillon Sustained Yield Unit Plan. BLM forest planners would continue to use information gathered through 

forest inventory, landscape analysis, and regeneration 

surveys to manage for production of forest products and 

initiate forest development and artificial reforestation 

projects. 

A full range of forest management activities would occur on low priority forest management areas. Forest 

activity plans would continue to be adjusted for intensity 

with timber production a secondary consideration where 

other substantial resource values are identified. Public 

land within set-aside areas would generally not be harvested. 

The small sale program would continue to be permitted 

on forestland that is available for harvest. Occasional 

free use may be authorized to clean up concentrations of 

debris or to serve other public purposes such as education, material needs by public agencies or recognized 

charitable, non-profit activity support, provided the freeuse materials are not later offered for sale by the receiving party. The forestry program would provide the estimated quantities of permits and products under the small 

sale program shown in Table 2-23. 

Removal of dead and down trees would be allowed for 

firewood gathering. Use of live trees for firewood gathering by the public or for commercial purposes would 

also continue under other BLM authorities, authorized 

on a case by case basis after review and compliance with 

NEPA. 

24 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

The Silvicultural Guidelines and Harvesting Management Practices outlined below would continue. 

• Roads constructed for timber harvests would be to 

minimum standards necessary to remove timber, 

unless the roads are needed for other public purposes requiring a higher standard. 

• Forest activity plans would incorporate the Guidelines from the Montana Cooperative Elk Logging 

Study (Lyons et. al. 1985). 

• Snag management would be implemented for cavity-nesting and denning habitat. 

• The Elkhorns area would be managed as per the 

Elkhorn Mountains Landscape Analysis and the 

South Elkhorn Implementation Project Analysis. 

Timber harvest in the Elkhorn Wildlife Management Area (RMP management unit #36 in 1984 

Headwaters RMP) in the Nursery Creek area 

would be allowed only for wildlife habitat improvement. This plan includes the following management objectives and guidelines: 

a. Management activities would be designed to 

maintain or improve elk, mule deer, and 

moose habitat, with primary emphasis on elk 

summer habitat and calving areas. 

b. Management activities would be designed to 

maintain or enhance opportunities for dispersed recreation, to the extent permitted by 

wildlife habitat objectives. 

c. The existing road network generally would 

remain open on routes designated in the Elkhorn Mountains Travel Management Plan. 

Seasonal restrictions may be imposed on forest treatment activities to minimize impacts 

on big game values and during elk calving 

season (April 15 to June 30). 

d. Timber harvest and prescribed burning may 

be used to improve wildlife habitat conditions. New roads needed for the removal of 

forest products would be kept to a minimum. 

New roads would be physically closed to 

public use following completion of forest 

management activities. 

• Any subsequent management activities involving 

harvests of more than 250 MMBF, construction of 

new access into roadless elk summer or fall range, 

or critical, crucial, or essential wildlife habitat 

would be coordinated with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP). 

• The approach used in developing the large scale 

salvage and restoration projects for the Bucksnort 

and Boulder Complex Wildfires of 2000 and the 

Landscape Analysis and South Elkhorn Implementation Project provides the framework for design and analysis of future emergency stabilization 

and forest restoration activities in other areas. 

• Commercial forestland in areas with completed 

landscape analysis, the Boulder-Clancy, and the 

Marysville areas would be high priority for forest 

management. Special harvest restrictions would be 

applied in key elk seasonal use areas. 

Riparian 

Riparian and wetland areas would be in properly functioning conditioning or would be moving toward properly functioning condition. Properly functioning condition includes; the presence of all age classes (seedling, 

sapling, pole, mature, decadent, and dead) of tree and 

shrub species where the potential exists, diverse composition of vegetation, species that indicate maintenance of 

riparian soil moisture, riparian plants with high vigor, 

adequate vegetative cover to protect banks and dissipate 

energy during high flows, and plant communities to 

provide for large woody material in streams and riparian 

areas. 

Alternative A 

50’ 

SMZ for a Forested Stream 

50’ 

BLM would continue to implement projects to restore 

and improve riparian areas and wetlands. Up to 30 acres 

of riparian areas would be treated by burning or mechanical means per decade to improve vegetative conditions. (This treatment figure is a continuation of what 

has occurred, however the current plan allows treatment 

in all riparian areas subject to other management constraints.) Opportunities would be identified to minimize 

impacts or enhance riparian and wetland resources during project planning. Existing livestock exclosures along 

streams, wetlands, and riparian areas would be maintained as long as needed to meet management objectives. 

Management actions within floodplains and wetlands 

would include measures to preserve, protect, and, if 

necessary, restore their natural functions. 

BLM would continue to evaluate wooded riparian communities when conducting rangeland health assessments. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing would be allowed on about 273,000 

acres. The amount of forage available on these lands 

would be 25,677 Animal Unit Months (AUMs). About 

29,000 acres would not be available for livestock grazing. Table 2-23 shows how the grazing availability in a 

number of allotments would vary by alternative. Grazing 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 25 
Chapter 2 

allotments are displayed on electronic maps (Grazing 

Allotment Map 1.PDF through Grazing Allotment Map 

10.PDF) in the Grazing Allotment Maps folder on the 

enclosed compact disc. A table called Grazing Allotment 

Table.PDF, also enclosed in the same folder, can be used 

to cross-reference allotment numbers on the maps with 

allotment names in the table. 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the 

McMaster Hills and Spokane Hills individual allotments 

would become vacant and available to qualified applicants per the grazing regulations. These allotments 

would be administered like all other existing allotments. 

The existing Indian Creek allotment (2,215 acres and 

376 AUMs) would be expanded up to an additional 

5,566 acres and 700 AUMs by the Iron Mask Acquisition. The Indian Creek allotment would be available to 

qualified applicants per the grazing regulations. This 

allotment would be administered like all other existing 

allotments. 

The Medicine Rock (Northeast Helena) riparian area 

would remain closed to livestock grazing and would not 

be available for prescription livestock grazing (authorized grazing use designed to accomplish a specific purpose. Controlling noxious weeds by grazing goats would 

be an example). 

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished (an 

allotment where an existing permittee or lessee gives up 

his or her grazing preference causing the allotment to 

become unleased) during the life of the plan would remain available for livestock grazing leases or permits. 

To reduce the potential for interactions between wild 

and domestic sheep, existing Instruction Memorandum 

98-140 (1998) would be followed to protect wild sheep. 

To minimize physical contact between domestic and 

wild sheep, buffer strips would be identified between 

new sheep and goat allotments as well as for those allotments with conversions from cattle to sheep and 

goats. Buffer strips may not be necessary or may be 

smaller where topographic features or other barriers 

exist that minimizes contact between wild and domestic 

sheep. Buffer strips could range up to 9 miles but the 

size could vary as developed through a cooperative 

agreement. 

Rest from livestock grazing in vegetation treatment areas 

would be determined through site-specific interdisciplinary planning and NEPA processes. 

Forage and cover requirements would be incorporated 

into allotment management plans and would be specific 

to areas of primary wildlife use. 

Applications for unleased allotments and vacant available lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Wildland Fire Management 

BLM would continue to manage vegetation under the 

Fire/Fuels Management Plan Environmental Assessment/Plan Amendment for Montana and the Dakotas 

(USDI-BLM, 2003). Fire management categories and 

associated treatment acreages under the No Action Alternative are presented in Table 2-1 and Map 2. 

Table 2-1 

Alternative A Fire Polygons 

FMU Category1 FMU 

Acres2 

BLM 

Acres2 

Absoraka Foothills C 67,700 3,900 

Big Belt Mountain C 360,300 7,200 

Big Hole River 

Corridor C 68,800 11,100 

Blackfoot 

(See Missoula FO) C 340,800 0 

Boulder River B 264,400 14,300 

Clancy/ Marysville C 299,600 28,200 

Elkhorn Mountains C 482,900 68,900 

Fleecer Mountain C 284,300 18,100 

McCartney/ Rochester C 273,600 28,100 

North Hills B 33,900 6,300 

Pipestone C 369,300 41,000 

Scratchgravel Hills B 126,900 7,900 

Sleeping Giant/ 

Sheep Creek C 82,600 20,500 

Spokane Hills and 

North B 156,500 6,800 

Three Forks C 485,000 31,200 

Wise River 

Town site B 10,100 1,400 

Bozeman/ 

Livingston 

Scattered Tracts 

A 1,714,300 7,300 

1 Category and associated treatments only apply to BLM 

land within each zone. 2 Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 100. 

BLM would continue to manage the fire program to 

control all wildland fires burning on or threatening public land within the first burning period. Modified fire 

suppression areas would continue to be based on values 

at risk, fire behavior, fire occurrence, beneficial fire 

effects including reduction of fuel loading, fire suppressions costs, and consistency with other agency plans and 

policies. Appropriate fire suppression actions would be 

implemented in the WUI and areas identified as possessing significant values that could be significantly altered 

by wildland fire. 

Wildland fire use would continue to be allowed in areas 

identified as being acceptable in the Fire Management 

Plan, where there are approved wildland fire use plans 

(Elkhorn Mountains), or upon completion of approved 

wildland fire use plans. The Elkhorn Mountains Fire 

26 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

Management Plan would be kept under current guidance. 

Noxious Weed Management 

All grazing allotment agreements for the Planning Area 

would continue to address weed control by chemical 

treatment and adjusting livestock use in response to 

reduced forage availability. 

Weeds would continue to be treated near roads and 

trails, urban interface and recreation areas. Areas currently under a multi-year treatment plan would continue 

to be treated. Treatments would include a combination 

of cultural, chemical, and biological treatments for weed 

control. 

Under Alternative A, the objective would be to treat an 

estimated 20,000 acres of weeds per decade, not including biocontrol measures such as insect releases, grazing, 

or use of pathogens. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Grasslands and Shrublands 

When necessary, sagebrush and grassland distribution 

and vigor would be restored through vegetative treatments such as reducing conifer encroachment, reducing 

noxious weeds, and ensuring proper grazing practices 

(season or use or intensity). 

Management of sagebrush habitats will be a priority 

based on concerns over the conservation status of sage 

grouse, pygmy rabbit, and other species associated with 

sagebrush and grassland habitats. 

The current acres of shrublands and grasslands described 

below shown by major watershed in Table 2-23 at the 

end of this chapter 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 by alternative should be considered in combination. Objectives for proposed treatment acres include only those 

acres that would be treated to reduce conifer encroachment. 

Under the action alternatives, an objective would be 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 non-native vegetation to native vegetation. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Forest and woodland health assessments would 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. 

Natural disturbance regimes would be maintained or 

mimicked so that plant communities are resilient when 

periodic outbreaks of insects, disease, and wildland fire 

occur. 

Vegetation planning would be coordinated with managers of federal or state lands adjacent to site-specific 

proposals for a collaborative approach. 

Vegetation manipulation projects would be designed to 

minimize impacts to wildlife habitat and improve it 

when possible. 

To maintain site productivity (organic matter and nutrients), provide for special wildlife features, and discourage cross-country motorized travel, much of the fine 

materials not utilized (seedlings, saplings, tops, and 

branches less than 4 inches in diameter, cull logs and 

identified down woody material) would be left scattered 

on the forest floor where it would not contribute to ladder fuels. 

Forest management would emphasize old forest structures, snag management, and large diameter trees for 

cavity nesters where appropriate. Existing and developing old forests would be retained and protected from 

uncharacteristically severe natural disturbances such as; 

stand replacing wildland fire, and insect and disease 

epidemics. 

BLM would design fire restoration/rehabilitation standards on a case-by-case basis, compatible with landscape resource management objectives and long-term 

(25-year) vegetation health protection and fuel management. 

Forest and Woodland Products 

In all action alternatives, commercial harvest of forest 

products would normally be associated with vegetative 

restoration (including forest health) and fuels treatments 

and would 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. 

Raw material for a variety of forest products would be 

made available in all alternatives. 

Special forest and range products would be managed 

according to sustainability limits and where consistent 

with other resource management objectives. These products would be harvested under the appropriate written, 

BLM approved authorization only. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 27 
Chapter 2 

Residual stands left by disturbance events would be 

maintained to provide for natural regeneration and diversity of forest systems. 

Riparian 

Riparian areas would 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 would be kept on site when needed to meet woody 

debris objectives. 

Riparian and wetland areas would 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. 

BLM would 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 would be designed to minimize 

impacts. 

Mechanical or hand cutting and/or prescribed burning 

would be used to remove competing conifers from riparian ecosystems, including aspen clones. Commodity 

removal of juniper would be encouraged. 

Livestock Grazing 

For allotments without specific management objectives 

set through an interdisciplinary planning process, the 

utilization objective as measured at the end of the grazing season would be 55 percent on non-native seedlings 

and 45 percent on native herbaceous forage plants, on a 

pasture average basis. (These utilization percentages 

would maintain or enhance most plant communities 

found in the Decision Area to achieve or make progress 

toward meeting Rangeland Health Standards.) Lower or 

higher utilization objectives may be acceptable when set 

through an interdisciplinary planning or NEPA process 

to achieve resource objectives. 

Grazing uses on acquired lands would be considered on 

a case-by-case basis based on the values identified for 

the acquisition. 

No new kind of livestock conversions from sheep or 

cattle to horses would be allowed on existing allotments 

smaller than 160 acres. No new horse permits or leases 

would be offered on available vacant parcels less than 

160 acres in size. Exceptions may be granted in rare 

cases of intermingled ownership where rangeland health 

standards are met. 

BLM would develop and implement appropriate grazing 

strategies in grizzly bear distribution zones. 

Wildland Fire Management 

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. 

Fire Management Unit (FMU) boundaries are based on 

watershed boundaries. In each action alternative more 

FMUs are created within the watershed boundaries to 

take in consideration for known areas of wildland urban 

interface. 

Priority of fire management activities would be placed 

on fuels reduction in WUI areas in conjunction with 

completed Community Wildfire Protection Plans. 

Fire management activities outside of the WUI areas 

would use Fire Regime, Condition Class (FRCC) to 

determine level of fuels treatments. 

Fire management would focus on maintaining fire dependent ecosystems and restoring or maintaining those 

areas outside their natural balance through mechanical, 

chemical, and/or prescribed fire treatments. 

For all prescribed fire projects, BLM would evaluate 

habitat type, soils, fuel conditions, project objectives, 

and risk when determining seasonality for burning. 

Noxious Weed Management 

Noxious weed control using domestic sheep and/or goats 

in occupied bighorn sheep habitat would be prohibited. 

Treatments using biological controls (including but not 

limited to grazing, insect releases, and pathogens) which 

have been documented to damage existing desired plant 

or wildlife species would be prohibited. 

BLM would actively conduct noxious weed outreach 

and education for BLM personnel, public land users, and 

the general public. Outreach and education would consist of identification, prevention and control methods, 

and the benefits of restoration. 

BLM would encourage the development of weed management areas where the landowners and users are cooperatively working to manage noxious weeds within designated areas. 

Where applicable, plant communities would be restored 

to promote resistance to weed invasion, using accepted 

management techniques, methods, and procedures. 

All contractor and BLM equipment would be powerwashed to remove weed seed before entering ground 

disturbing project areas. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Grasslands and Shrublands 

Priority areas for treatment would include big game 

winter range, sagebrush, bighorn sheep habitat, and the 

Wildland Urban Interface. 

28 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

Objectives for treating grasslands and shrublands under 

Alternative B are as follows. The total amount of grassland proposed for conifer reduction per decade would be 

2,750 to 11,800 acres. The total amount of shrubland 

proposed for conifer reduction per decade would be 

1,000 to 3,650 acres. These acres are displayed by major 

watershed in Table 2-23. 

Native or low impact, non-invasive seed mixtures would 

be used when restoring vegetation on disturbed ground. 

Forests and Woodlands 

For the action alternatives, Forests and Woodlands are 

further subdivided into dry forest types, cool and moist 

forest types, late and old structure forest, while forest 

products includes a subheading for timber salvage. 

Dry Forest Types 

The objective for total amount of dry forest treatments 

per decade under Alternative B would be 4,150 to 

14,750 acres. These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Restoration priorities would include dry forests with 

medium to large sized trees, with high tree densities. In 

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

forests, stand density would be moved toward stands that 

consist of fewer trees per acre with a larger average 

diameter. Over time, treatments would 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. A range of 3,350 to 

10,750 acres per decade of medium to large sized treedominated stands of this forest type would be treated 

under Alternative B (subset of objective for total acreage 

treatments). Historically, these habitat types were more 

open “savannah” forests interspersed with grassland and 

shrubs. Dry forest stands that are in an ecologically 

“healthy” condition which can sustain the growth of the 

larger trees while successfully reproducing and maintaining the juvenile growth of the younger trees would 

also be maintained under Alternative B. Treatments 

would promote the large, overstory trees and natural 

regeneration that would provide diverse age and size 

classes. Maintenance of existing dry forests would be 

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

per decade anticipated for treatment (subset of objective 

for total acreage treatments). 

Under Alternative B, these treatments could also include 

thinning in limber pine, dry forest 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. 

The majority of ponderosa pine, dry forest treatments 

would occur in the Upper Missouri Watershed. 

Cool and Moist Forest Types 

Cool and moist forest types would 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. 

The objective for total amount of cool and moist forest 

treatments per decade under Alternative B would be 450 

to 3,750 acres. These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Approximately 350 to 3,350 acres of stands dominated 

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

cool and moist forest would be treated in this alternative 

(subset of objective for total acreage treatments). Small 

diameter thinning would also occur on approximately 

100 to 400 acres per decade in seedling/sapling and pole 

size cool and moist Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forests. 

Treatments in cool and moist forest types would include 

the creation of openings to allow for regeneration of 

lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir. Areas may also be precommercial or commercially thinned. Commercial products such as timber and biomass would be produced 

from these treatments. 

Treatment in cool and moist forest types would be considered a low to moderate priority under Alternative B. 

The priority watershed for implementation of treatments 

in cool and moist forest is the Big Hole. 

Old Forest Structure 

Alternative B would provide direction to maintain and 

promote old forest structure and conditions through 

active treatments and restoration activities. Actions 

would be designed to develop and maintain stand structures that are relatively complex with highly variable 

tree densities, healthy and diverse understory composition, and abundant snags and downed logs. Where deficient on the landscape, snags and down woody material 

would be created in appropriate areas. 

Forest and Woodland Products 

The objective for quantities of forest products (PSQ) are 

based on the expected amount of treatment acres 

(including the WUI projects) and would be 33,000 to 

91,000 CCF or 9 to 25 MMBF per decade under 

Alternative B. 

Some new permanent roads may be built for long-term 

management of areas where multiple entries would be 

necessary to meet objectives. New and temporary road 

construction would be kept to a minimum. Temporary 

roads would be decommissioned (route would be closed 

and rehabilitated to eliminate resource impacts such as 

erosion, and is no longer useable for public or administrative uses) within one year of project completion. In 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 29 
Chapter 2 

addition, replacement, maintenance, or decommissioning 

of existing roads to meet transportation planning and 

management objectives could also occur during forest 

product removals or stewardship treatment projects 

conducted under Alternative B. 

The small sale program (estimated quantities of permits 

and products shown in Table 2-23 would 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 would only occur where 

sufficient physical access currently exists. No new permanent roads would be constructed to meet the demands 

of the small sale program. 

Unless specifically designated, only dead and dying 

wood would be allowed to be taken as firewood. The 

BLM, however, could designate specific areas for firewood cutting of live trees to meet other resource objectives or BLM authorized uses such as leases and rightsof-way. 

To protect existing snag habitat for wildlife, no dead 

trees greater than 24 inches DBH would be allowed to 

be cut for firewood. Firewood cutting would not be 

allowed in WSAs. 

Timber Salvage 

Numerous bird and mammal species require dead and 

dying forests for maintenance of viable populations. 

Methods of salvage that “homogenize” a stand such as 

selective removal of all trees of a certain size (usually a 

size required by disturbance dependant species), density 

and/or species would not maintain the structure or variety of microclimates required by bird and mammal species that use this type of habitat. When salvage is proposed in dead and dying forests, contiguous acres of 

undisturbed standing and down woody material would 

be retained in adequate amounts for those wildlife species that depend on this type of habitat. 

Outside of the 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 between openings and retention patches of uncut dead and dying trees; or 3) selective thinning and retention patches of uncut dead and 

dying trees. 

Bark beetle suppression treatments, which may target 

large tree removal, would be permitted to contain outbreaks and to reduce the risk to other forest stands in the 

vicinity. 

Riparian 

At the Field Office scale, Alternative B would maintain, 

protect, and/or restore aquatic and riparian-dependent 

terrestrial resources. The emphasis in Alternative B 

would be to actively restore riparian habitats. 

Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) 

Riparian Management Zones are areas where riparian 

values would receive primary emphasis with all activities to the extent possible. Maintaining and restoring 

quality riparian habitat (including vegetation) is important for many wildlife species as well as to maintain 

water quality, appropriate woody material, and nutrient 

routing to aquatic habitats, and 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. 

In addition to adhering to SMZ Law, Riparian Management Zones from the edge of the aquatic habitat would 

be established as follows. 

Forested Areas 

Streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs containing fish: 

The riparian management zone (RMZ) would consist of 

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

water body. This zone would extend from the outer 

edges of the bankfull channel, full pool, or adjacent 

wetland a distance equal to the height of two sitepotential 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). 

Alternative B 

160’ 160’

RMZ for a Forested, Fish bearing Stream 

Assumes an 80’ height site potential tree 

Perennial non-fish bearing streams: The RMZ would 

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

the channel. This zone would extend from the outer 

edges of the bankfull channel (or adjacent wetland) a 

distance equal to one site-potential tree height. 

30 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

Alternative B 

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 would extend 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 would consist of the water body and a zone located on all sides of the water body. This zone would 

extend 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 streams, lakes, 

ponds, and reservoirs, the RMZ would consist of the 

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

body. This zone would extend 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 would extend 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 1 site-potential tree height 

from the edge of the feature, whichever is greatest. 

Alternative B 

RMZ for a Non-Forested, Perennial Stream 

50’ 50’

For intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre, 

RMZs would be 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 treatment would occur under Alternative B within RMZs. 

The condition and importance of riparian resources to 

natural systems locally would serve as primary emphasis 

for management activities and uses. At the Field Office 

scale, projects in RMZs would generally be designed to 

protect or restore the ecological function of riparian 

areas and streams. 

Because stream types and riparian functions significantly vary across the Planning Area, RMZs based on a 

minimum linear distance would not be applicable for 

every project. Although the minimum distances would 

always apply, the width necessary to protect the stream 

and riparian structure and function may be wider than 

the minimum distances and would be determined from 

site-specific analysis. 

Each project would incorporate specific design features 

to maintain the key ecological function of the Riparian 

Management Zones. 

The objective for total amount of riparian vegetation 

habitat proposed for mechanical and/or prescribed burning treatments per decade under Alternative B would be 

200 to 700 acres (this includes vegetative treatments and 

not changes in grazing practices). These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Commercial timber harvest would 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. 

Where the primary project objective is aspen restoration, 

treated aspen stands would be fenced from livestock and 

wildlife when recovery could be suppressed by grazing 

and browsing. Fencing could consist of using native, onsite materials as barriers. All fences (with the exception 

of barriers created from native, on-site materials) would 

be maintained and removed within 10 years or when the 

aspen is fully re-established or recovered. 

Firewood cutting would not be allowed within 100 feet 

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

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing would be allowed on about 265,000 

acres of public land. Approximately 37,000 acres of 

public land would be unavailable for grazing permits or 

leases (Table 2-2). (The allotments unavailable for grazing permits are unleased at this time generally because 

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

are covered with timber, are adjacent to subdivisions, or 

lack infrastructure.) The amount of forage available on 

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

AUMs forage reserve, temporary non-renewable AUMs. 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the 

McMaster Hills and Spokane Hills individual allotments 

would 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 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 31 
Chapter 2 

Table 2-2 

Grazing Availability For Special Allotments Varying By Alternative 

Allotment Name Allotment 

Number Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Indian Creek 20233 Available for 

grazing permit 

Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Spokane Hills 7720 Available for 

grazing permit 

Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Available for 

grazing permit 

McMasters Hills 7721 Available for 

grazing permit 

Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Forage Reserve 

Allotment 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Centennial Gulch 7715 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit; 

prescription 

grazing 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit; 

no prescription 

grazing 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Free Coinage 20254 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Alder Creek 351 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Charcoal Mountain 

Cust. 10363 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Dickie 20364 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Dog Paw 20365 Available for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Maiden Rock Custodial 20367 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Quinn Creek 5487 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Sixmile Park County 5507 Available for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

Wineglass Mountain 15452 Available for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Unavailable for 

grazing permit 

Available for 

grazing permit 

would 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 would be managed to meet, or move 

toward meeting, land health standards. Forage on these 

allotments would be made available to qualified applicants when those applicants’ allotments require rest to 

facilitate management actions or relieve resource problems. Priority for use and amount of use would be determined by the BFO. Use would be authorized on a 

temporary, nonrenewable basis. 

The existing Indian Creek allotment would be expanded 

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

Mask acquisition. The allotment would be managed as a 

forage reserve allotment similar to the McMaster Hills 

and Spokane Hills allotments. 

The Centennial Gulch (Ward Ranch) allotment and 

Medicine Rock (Northeast Helena) riparian area would 

be available for prescription livestock grazing to meet 

specific resource objectives as determined through a 

site-specific interdisciplinary planning and NEPA process. 

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished 

during the life of this plan would be evaluated for suburban/urban interface issues, critical wildlife habitat, riparian values, or recreational considerations before reoffering the grazing preference on the allotment for 

permit or lease. 

Areas identified for prescribed burning would be rested 

from livestock grazing up to one year prior to treatment, 

if necessary, to produce fine fuels to carry the burn. 

Treatment areas would 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-bycase basis. 

Currently existing exclosures would be maintained free 

from livestock grazing. Routine maintenance would be 

completed annually on all exclosures before livestock 

turnout. 

32 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

Existing livestock exclosures along streams, wetlands, 

and riparian areas would be maintained as long as 

needed to meet management objectives. Maintenance of 

exclosures would be assigned to grazing permittees or 

other authorized public land users. Annual maintenance 

would be completed on all riparian exclosures per the 

terms and conditions of existing cooperative agreements 

before livestock turnout to ensure protection of these 

areas. Annual monitoring would be completed in exclosures. 

Under Alternative B, no change in livestock conversions 

from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed 

in allotments within occupied wild sheep habitat. New 

sheep and goat allotments or conversions from cattle to 

sheep or goats would be permitted a minimum of 5 miles 

from known bighorn sheep habitat. This distance would 

be greater if deemed necessary through site-specific 

analysis or a cooperative agreement with other federal or 

state agencies. Goats and sheep could be used for weed 

control on winter ranges when wild sheep are absent. To 

minimize contact with bighorn sheep, domestic sheep, 

and goats used for weed control would only be allowed 

to graze for up to 1 month near occupied bighorn sheep 

habitat and there would be a minimum buffer of 2 miles 

between domestic and wild sheep. Bedding grounds 

would be a minimum of 4 miles from known bighorn 

sheep habitat. The use of domestic sheep and goats 

would only be allowed from May 1 to July 31 unless 

coordinated with MFWP. A herder would be required to 

be on site at all times and 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 would be required to contact the BLM and 

MFWP immediately. 

Wildland Fire Management 

BFO administered lands would be broken into nine 

FMUs. The FMUs would have B and C designations 

applied. Approximately 43,000 acres would be designated in category B and 262,000 acres in Category C 

(Table 2-3 and Map 3). The FMUs follow watershed 

boundaries with the following two exceptions: The Missouri and the Big Hole watersheds would each be broken 

into two FMUs due to the urban interface areas surrounding Helena and Wise River. The Missouri watershed FMUs would be Central Missouri and Missouri, 

and the Big Hole watershed FMUs would be Big Hole 

and Wise River. 

Fire management activities would correspond to the 

FMU designations. Management-ignited prescribed fire 

would 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. 

In grassland and shrubland habitats, BLM would plan 

for prescribed burns that do not consume above-ground 

vegetation on more than 80 percent (on average) of each 

unit by surface area. 

Table 2-3 

Alternative B Fire Polygons by Watershed 

FMU Category1 FMU 

Acres2 

BLM 

Acres2 

Big Hole C 412,000 60,000 

Blackfoot B 127,000 1,000 

Central Missouri B 396,000 37,000 

Gallatin B 1,326,000 2,000 

Jefferson C 950,000 82,000 

Missouri C 1,557,000 112,000 

Upper Clark Fork B 528,000 1,000 

Wise River B 8,000 1,000 

Yellowstone C 1,888,000 8,000 

1

Category and associated treatments only apply to BLM land 

within each zone. 

2

Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 1000. 

Delivery of chemical retardant, foam or additives to live 

streams would be avoided. Fish screens (1/8 inch diameter holes) on hoses would be required when removing 

water from fish bearing streams during fire management 

activities. Maps of fish bearing streams would be included in the BFO Fire Management Plan for use in 

initial attack of wildland fires. 

Noxious Weed Management 

In addition to the priorities identified under Management 

Common to All Alternatives, prevention and control of 

weed infestations in special designation areas and Weed 

Management Areas (areas with agreements between 

landowners to cooperatively manage for weeds) would 

be a high priority under Alternative B. 

Under Alternative B, the objective would be 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. 

To minimize the risk of inadvertently spraying desirable 

riparian vegetation and waterways, aerial spraying of 

herbicides or pesticides would not occur when eye-level 

winds are greater than 6 miles per hour or within the 

RMZ or 300 feet, whichever width is greatest, of streams 

or wetlands or in occupied or high value habitat for 

sensitive species of plants or animals. Aerial spraying 

would 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 would be used aerially in sensitive sagebrush 

habitats. 

To prevent special status plants from being sprayed with 

herbicides, BLM, county, and contractor personnel participating in weed treatment activities would be provided 

with training to identify special status plants and maps of 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 33 
Chapter 2 

special status plant populations associated with weed 

treatment areas. 

Outreach/education on noxious weeds would be provided to the public at campgrounds and trailheads. 

Alternative C 

Grasslands and Shrublands 

Priority areas for treatment would include big game 

winter range, Wildland Urban Interface, and current sage 

grouse habitat. 

Objectives for grassland and shrubland treatments under 

Alternative C are as follows. The total amount of grassland proposed for conifer reduction per decade would be 

1,250 to 2,000 acres. The total amount of shrubland 

proposed for conifer reduction per decade would be 250 

to 750 acres. These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Only native seed species would be used in restoring 

vegetation on disturbed ground. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Dry Forest Types 

Compared to the other action alternatives, the management emphasis would be on treating smaller areas than 

in the other alternatives and allowing for more “natural” 

disturbances across the landscape. Stand density would 

be higher and average diameter of trees would be generally be smaller under this alternative than with Alternatives A, B, or D. Alternative C would treat fewer acres 

than the other alternatives. 

The objective for total amount of dry forest treatments 

per decade under Alternative C would be 2,050 to 4,800 

acres. These acres are displayed by major watershed in 

Table 2-23. 

The emphasis for restoration would be the same as Alternative B and D with focus on dry forests that have 

medium to large sized trees and have high tree density. 

A range of 2,050 to 4,800 acres per decade would be 

treated (subset of objective for total acreage treatments). 

As with Alternatives B and D, vegetative treatments 

would also open up stands of dry Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine with multiple canopy layers and a diverse 

grass and shrub understory. Dry forest stands that are 

currently in an ecologically “healthy” condition would 

be protected from land management actions that would 

degrade this forest type but very few acres would be 

maintained under Alternative C. Maintenance of existing 

dry forest habitat types would be considered “low priority” and fewer than 500 acres per decade would be expected to be treated (subset of objective for total acreage 

treatments). 

Cool and Moist Forest Types 

Cool and moist forest types would be treated when necessary to maintain or improve stand conditions but 

treatments would be less under Alternative C than the 

other action alternatives, but more than in Alternative A. 

Treatment of cool and moist forest types would be considered a low priority under Alternative C. Treatments in 

cool and moist forest types would include the creation of 

small openings (10 acres or smaller) to allow for regeneration of lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, subalpine fir or 

spruce. Areas may also be pre-commercial or commercially thinned. 

The objective for total amount of cool and moist forest 

treatments per decade under Alternative C would be 50 

to 550 acres. These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Approximately 50 to 500 acres per decade of medium to 

large, high density cool and moist forest would be 

treated in this alternative (subset of objective for total 

acreage treatments). Small diameter thinning would also 

occur on up to 50 acres per decade in seedling/sapling 

and pole size Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forests. 

Old Forest Structure 

Alternative C would maintain and protect old forest 

structure and condition. Stands with old forest structure 

would be protected to maintain stand structures that are 

relatively complex with highly variable tree densities, 

healthy and diverse understory composition, and abundant snags and downed logs. Few snags and little down 

woody material would be proactively recruited in Alternative C. 

Forest and Woodland Products 

The objective for Probably Sale Quantity under Alternative C would be 19,000 to 41,000 CCF or 5 to 12 

MMBF per decade. Forest treatments would occur in 

areas already accessible by the current road system, 

although helicopter logging may be feasible in difficult 

to access areas. No new permanent roads would be constructed, and temporary road construction would be kept 

to a minimum. Temporary roads would be decommissioned within one year of project completion. 

The small sale program (estimated quantities of permits 

and products shown in Table 2-23 would maintain the 

current types of activities but small sale activities involving medium to large trees would be restricted to 

areas where materials need to be removed due to authorizations such as rights-of-ways, road use agreements, grazing leases, and free use of materials by other 

agencies and chartable organizations. 

Removal of dead or down trees or dead woody material 

for commercial or personal use firewood purposes would 

be authorized only in designated areas, and the personal 

use firewood permit currently issued by the BLM and 

USDA Forest Service for firewood gathering on either 

public or national forest lands would be dropped. 

The BLM would designate areas where live trees could 

be taken as firewood to meet other resource objectives. 

34 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

No live trees greater than 20 inches DBH would be 

allowed to be removed as firewood. Firewood cutting 

would not be allowed in WSAs. 

Timber Salvage 

Where contiguous acres of dead and dying forest exceed 

1,000 acres, 50 percent of the area would be maintained 

as retention. Harvest treatments within the remaining 

project area may include: 1) creation of forest openings, 

2) selective thinning between openings and 3) 50 percent 

total retention across the harvest treatment area. 

Riparian 

The emphasis in Alternative C would be placed on coordinating and integrating riparian restoration objectives 

through other high priority projects. When possible, the 

restoration and enhancement of aspen, cottonwood, 

willows, or other riparian dominant species would also 

be incorporated into other projects in the vicinity of 

riparian habitats. Riparian communities, including aspen 

clones, would be maintained, restored, or enhanced to 

provide vegetative diversity and structure of riparian 

areas and to benefit wildlife. 

Riparian habitat would be opportunistically treated 

through other high priority forest and grassland treatments. 

Riparian Management Zones 

The Montana Streamside Management Zone Law would 

be followed. In addition to adhering to SMZ Law, Riparian Management Zones from the edge of the aquatic 

habitat would be established as follows: 

Forested Areas 

Streams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs containing fish: 

The RMZ would consist of the water body and a zone 

located on all sides of the water body. This zone would 

extend from the outer edges of the bankfull channel, full 

pool, or adjacent wetland a distance equal to the top of 

the inner gorge, the outer edge of the 100-year floodplain, or 300 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. 

Alternative C 

300’ 

RMZ for a Forested, Fish bearing Stream 

300’ 

Perennial non-fish bearing streams – The RMZ would 

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

the channel. This zone would extend from the outer 

edges of the bankfull channel (or adjacent wetland) a 

distance equal to the top of the inner gorge, the outer 

edge of the 100 year floodplain, or 150 feet slope distance which ever is greatest. 

Alternative C 

RMZ for a Forested, Perennial, 

Non-Fish bearing Stream 

150’ 150’ 

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

greater than 1 acre: The RMZ would extend from the 

outer edge of the full pool or wetland a distance of 150 

feet slope distance. This area would also include all 

moderately and highly unstable areas. 

Intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre: The 

RMZ would consist of the water body and a zone located on all sides of the water body. This zone would 

extend from the outer edges of the bankfull channel or 

wetland at least 50 feet slope distance. 

Alternative C 

RMZ for a Forested, Intermittent Stream 

50’ 50’ 

Non-forested Areas 

Perennial fish-bearing and non fish-bearing streams or 

wetlands larger than 1 acre: The RMZ would consist of 

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

water body. This zone would extend from the outer 

edges of the bankfull channel, full pool, or adjacent 

wetland a distance that encompasses the active floodplain. RMZs would extend 150 feet above the break in 

slope leading down from the lowest terrace to the floodplain. The actual RMZ width may be different for each 

side of the water body depending on the locations of 

terrace features. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 35 
Chapter 2 

Alternative C 

150’ 150’ 

RMZ for a Non-Forested, Perennial Stream 

Intermittent streams and wetlands less than 1 acre: The 

RMZ would consist of the water body and a zone located on all sides of the water body. This zone would 

extend from the outer edges of the bankfull channel or 

wetland at least 50 feet slope distance. 

Alternative C 

RMZ for a Non-Forested, 

Intermittent Stream 

50’ 50’ 

The objective for total amount of riparian vegetation 

habitat proposed for mechanical and/or prescribed burning treatments per decade under Alternative C would be 

75 to 200 acres (this includes vegetative treatments and 

not changes in grazing practices). These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

No commercial timber harvest would be allowed in 

RMZs. All woody material cut for restoration activities 

would be retained on site. If an adequate amount of 

down woody material exists, material may be removed 

for other riparian or stream restoration activities. 

Under Alternative C, the structure and composition of 

aspen stands would be determined by natural processes 

or treated opportunistically through other projects. 

Treated aspen stands would be fenced from livestock 

grazing and, if necessary, wildlife grazing, and browsing. There would be an emphasis on using native, on-site 

materials for “natural” barriers. All fences (with the 

exception of native barriers) would be maintained and 

removed within 10 years or when the aspen is fully reestablished or recovered. 

Firewood cutting would not be allowed within 200 feet 

of live (yearlong flow) streams or within 100 feet of 

intermittent streams. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing would be allowed on about 262,000 

acres of public land. Approximately 40,000 acres of 

public land would be unavailable for grazing permits or 

leases (Table 2-23). The amount of forage available on 

these lands would be 24,710 AUMs active use and 936 

AUMs forage reserve, temporary non-renewable AUMs. 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the 

McMaster Hills and Spokane Hills individual allotments 

would be established as forage reserve allotments as in 

Alternative B. 

The existing Indian Creek allotment (2,215 acres and 

376 AUMs) as well as any lands acquired from the Iron 

Mask acquisition would be unavailable for grazing lease 

or permit. 

The Centennial Gulch (Ward Ranch) allotment and 

Medicine Rock (Northeast Helena) riparian area would 

be unavailable for prescription livestock grazing. 

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished 

during the life of this plan would be evaluated for suburban/urban interface issues, critical wildlife habitat, riparian values, or recreational considerations before reoffering the grazing preference on the allotment for 

permit or lease. 

Areas identified for prescribed burning would be rested 

from livestock grazing up to one year prior to treatment, 

if necessary, to produce fine fuels to carry the burn. 

Treatment areas would be rested at a minimum of two 

full years following treatment to promote recovery of 

vegetation. 

Guidelines for residual ground cover would be developed in Allotment Management Plans. Forage utilization 

would be monitored. 

Currently existing exclosures would be maintained free 

of livestock grazing. Exclosures would be maintained 

annually before livestock turnout and would be monitored to compare differences between areas grazed and 

ungrazed by livestock. 

Existing livestock exclosures along streams, wetlands, 

and riparian areas would be maintained as long as 

needed to meet management objectives. Maintenance of 

exclosures would be assigned to grazing permittees or 

other authorized public land users. 

Under Alternative C, no change in livestock conversions 

from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed 

in allotments within occupied wild sheep habitat. New 

sheep and goat allotments or conversions from cattle to 

sheep or goats would be permitted a minimum of 9 miles 

from known bighorn sheep habitat. This distance would 

be greater if deemed necessary through site specific 

analysis or a cooperative agreement with other federal or 

state agencies. Goats and sheep could be used for weed 

control on winter ranges when wild sheep are absent. To 

minimize contact with bighorn sheep, domestic sheep, 

and goats used for weed control would only be allowed 

to graze for up to two weeks near occupied bighorn 

sheep habitat and there would be a minimum buffer of 4 

miles between domestic and wild sheep. Bedding 

grounds would be a minimum of 6 miles from known 

36 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

bighorn sheep habitat. The use of domestic sheep and 

goats would only be allowed from May 15 to July 15 

unless coordinated with MFWP. A herder would be 

required to be on site at all times and 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 would be required to contact the 

BLM and MFWP immediately. 

Wildland Fire Management 

BFO administered lands would be broken into ten 

FMUs. The FMUs would have A, B and C designations 

applied. Approximately 41,000 acres would be designated in category A; 23,000 acres in category B; and 

240,000 acres in category C (Table 2-4 and Map 4). 

The FMUs follow watershed boundaries with the following two exceptions: the Missouri watershed would be 

broken into three FMUs (Missouri, Central Missouri, 

and NW Missouri) and the Big Hole watershed would be 

broken into two FMUs (Big Hole and Wise River) due 

to the urban interface areas surrounding Helena and 

Wise River. 

Table 2-4 

Alternative C Fire Polygons by Watershed 

FMU Category1 FMU 

Acres2 

BLM 

Acres2 

Big Hole C 412,000 60,000 

Blackfoot A 127,000 1,000 

Central 

Missouri A 396,000 37,000 

Gallatin A 1,326,000 2,000 

Jefferson C 950,000 82,000 

Missouri C 1,300,000 98,000 

NW Missouri B 257,000 14,000 

Upper Clark 

Fork B 528,000 1,000 

Wise River A 8,000 1,000 

Yellowstone B 1,888,000 8,000 

1

Category and associated treatments only apply to BLM 

land within each zone. 

2

Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 1000. 

Fire management activities would correspond to the 

FMU designations. Vegetation treatments, including 

management-ignited prescribed fire and mechanical 

treatments would 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. In grassland/shrubland habitats, BLM 

would plan for prescribed burns that do not consume 

aboveground vegetation on more than 60 percent (on 

average) of each unit by surface area. 

Use of chemical retardant foam, or additives over live 

streams would only be allowed if there were a risk to 

human life and safety. Fish screens (1/8 inch diameter 

holes) on hoses would be required when removing water 

from fish bearing streams during fire management 

activities. Maps of fish bearing streams would be developed in the BFO Fire Management Plan for use in initial 

attack of wildland fires. 

Noxious Weed Management 

Under Alternative C, less aggressive weed management 

would be needed in response to the decreased ground 

disturbance in the Decision Area. Suppression and control of weed infestations in special designation areas 

would be a moderate priority. 

The objective under Alternative C would be to treat an 

estimated 16,000 to 38,000 acres of weeds per decade, 

not including biocontrol measures such as insect releases, grazing, or use of pathogens. 

Aerial spraying of herbicides or pesticides would not 

occur. 

To prevent special status plants from being sprayed with 

herbicides, BLM personnel would be provided with 

maps of special status plant populations associated with 

weed treatment areas. 

Outreach/education on noxious weeds would be provided to the public at campgrounds and trailheads. 

Alternative D 

Grasslands and Shrublands 

Priority areas for treatment would include big game 

winter range, Wildland Urban Interface and current and 

historic sagebrush habitat, forest meadows and parks, 

and bighorn sheep habitat. 

Objectives for treating grasslands and shrublands under 

Alternative D are as follows. The total amount of grassland proposed for conifer reduction per decade would be 

5,500 to 19,050 acres. The total amount of shrubland 

proposed for conifer reduction per decade would be 

1,850 to 6,800 acres. These acres are displayed by major 

watershed in Table 2-23. 

As in Alternative B, native or low impact, non-invasive 

seed mixtures would be used when restoring vegetation 

on disturbed ground. 

Forests and Woodlands 

Dry Forest Types 

The objective for total amount of dry forest treatments 

per decade under Alternative D would be 7,300 to 

18,200 acres. These acres are displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 37 
Chapter 2 

As with Alternatives B and C, the emphasis for restoration would focus on dry forests with medium to large 

sized trees, and with high tree densities. In dense, old, 

and mature Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests, 

stand density would be moved toward stands that consist 

of fewer trees per acre with a larger average diameter. A 

range of 5,600 to 12,200 acres per decade of dry forest 

habitat type with medium to large sized trees and high 

tree densities would be treated under Alternative D (subset of objective for total acreage treatments). Dry forest 

stands that are in an ecologically “healthy” condition 

which can sustain the growth of the larger trees while 

successfully reproducing and maintaining the juvenile 

growth of the younger trees would also be maintained 

under Alternative D. Maintenance treatments in forests 

would promote the large, overstory trees and natural 

regeneration that would provide diverse age and size 

classes. Maintenance of existing dry forest habitat types 

would be considered “moderate priority” with 1,000 to 

3,500 acres per decade proposed for treatment (subset of 

objective for total acreage treatments). 

Approximately 500 to 1,500 acres per decade of small 

diameter thinning of seedling-sapling and pole size dry 

forest would also occur with Alternative D (subset of 

objective for total acreage treatments). A small amount 

of pure limber pine habitat would also be treated under 

Alternative D, approximately 200 to 1,000 acres per 

decade. The majority of ponderosa pine treatments 

would occur in the Upper Missouri Watershed. 

Cool and Moist Forest Types 

Cool and moist forest types would be managed the same 

as in Alternative B. Restoration of these habitat types 

may also be done to meet desired future conditions for 

cool and moist forest ecosystems and wildlife habitat 

including the creation of forage for lynx in lodgepole 

pine forests. 

Treatment of cool and moist forest types would be considered a moderate priority under Alternative D. 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 under Alternative D would be 

1,000 to 5,050 acres. These acres are displayed by major 

watershed in Table 2-23.Approximately 800 to 4,450 

acres per decade of stands with medium to large sized 

trees and with high tree densities in cool and moist forest 

types would be treated in this alternative. Small diameter 

thinning would also occur on approximately 200 to 600 

acres per decade in seedling/sapling and pole size cool 

and moist Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forests. These 

acreages are subsets of the objective for total acreage 

treatments. 

Treatments in cool and moist forest types would include 

the creation of openings to allow for regeneration of 

lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir. Areas would also be 

pre-commercial or commercially thinned. Commercial 

products such as timber and biomass would be produced 

from these treatments. 

Old Forest Structure 

Old forest structure would be managed the same as in 

Alternative B. 

Forest and Woodland Products 

Based on the expected amount of treatment acres (including the WUI projects), the objective for PSQ would 

be 36,000 to 107,000 CCF or 10 to 30 MMBF per decade under Alternative D. 

Some new permanent roads may be built for long-term 

management of areas where multiple entries would be 

necessary to meet objectives. New road construction, 

however, would be kept to a minimum. Some new permanent roads could be “open” to the public if travel plan 

objectives for the area are met. Temporary road construction would be kept to a minimum. 

The small sale program would provide the estimated 

quantities of permits and products shown in Table 2-23. 

Access for small sales would be developed as needed. 

Alternative D would also promote and encourage biomass utilization and encourage and promote the use of 

woody material in local businesses such as landscaping 

and furniture building. 

Dead and dying wood would be allowed to be taken as 

firewood. BLM could designate specific areas for firewood cutting of live trees to meet other resource objectives. No dead trees greater than 24 inches DBH would 

be allowed to be cut for firewood. 

Timber Salvage 

Where contiguous acres of dead and dying forest exceed 

1,000 acres, 30 percent of the area would be maintained 

as retention. Harvest treatments within the remaining 

project area may include: 1) creation of forest openings, 

2) selective thinning between openings, and 3) no retention requirements within harvest treatment area. 

Bark beetle suppression treatments, which may target 

large tree removal, would be permitted to contain outbreaks and to reduce the risk to other forest stands in the 

vicinity. 

Riparian 

The emphasis in Alternative D would be to actively 

restore riparian habitats. When possible, the restoration 

and enhancement of aspen, cottonwood, willows, or 

other riparian dominant species along with channel improvement would also be incorporated into other projects in the vicinity of the riparian habitats. 

Under Alternative D, riparian protection would be provided by Streamside Management Zones. 

The objective for total amount of riparian vegetation 

habitat proposed for mechanical and/or prescribed burn38 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

ing treatments per decade under Alternative D would be 

300 to 1,700 acres (this includes vegetative treatments 

and not changes in grazing practices). These acres are 

displayed by major watershed in Table 2-23. 

Alternative D 

50’ 

SMZ for a Forested Stream 

50’ 

Forest and fuels management activities including commercial timber harvest would be allowed in SMZs to 

meet riparian restoration or maintenance objectives and 

only if adequate woody material remains in the riparian 

area. 

Where the primary project objective is aspen restoration, 

treated aspen stands would be fenced from livestock and 

wildlife grazing and browsing. Fencing could consist of 

native, on-site materials to create barriers to livestock 

and wildlife. All fences (with the exception of barriers 

created from native, on-site material) would be maintained and removed within 10 years or when the aspen is 

fully re-established or recovered. 

Firewood would not be allowed to be cut within 100 feet 

of live (yearlong flow) streams or within 50 feet of intermittent streams or within the SMZ, whichever width 

is greatest. 

Livestock Grazing 

Livestock grazing would be allowed on about 273,000 

acres of public land. Under Alternative D, approximately 

29,000 acres of public land would be unavailable for 

grazing permits or leases (Table 2-23). The amount of 

forage available on these lands would be 25,677 AUMs 

active use. 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the 

McMaster Hills and Spokane Hills individual allotments 

would be available to qualified applicants per the grazing regulations. These allotments would be administered 

like all other existing allotments. 

The existing Indian Creek allotment would be expanded 

up to an additional 5,566 acres and 700 AUMS by the 

Iron Mask Acquisition. The Indian Creek allotment 

would be available to qualified applicants per the grazing regulations. This allotment would be administered 

like all other existing allotments. 

The Centennial Gulch (Ward Ranch) allotment would be 

available to qualified applicants per the grazing regulations. 

Allotments where grazing preference is relinquished 

during the life of the plan would remain available for 

livestock grazing leases or permits. 

Areas identified for prescribed burning would be rested 

from livestock grazing prior to treatment, if necessary, to 

produce fine fuels to carry the burn. Treatment areas 

would be rested at a minimum of two full years following treatment to promote recovery of vegetation. 

Grazing practices would be adjusted to protect or enhance fish and wildlife habitat when livestock grazing is 

a contributing factor to not meeting Land Health Standards. 

Currently existing exclosures would be maintained free 

from livestock grazing as long as needed to meet objectives. Exclosures would be checked and maintained 

every five years. Maintenance would be accomplished as 

per the terms and conditions of existing cooperative 

agreements. 

Existing livestock exclosures along streams, wetlands, 

and riparian areas would be maintained as long as 

needed to meet management objectives. Exclosures 

would be checked and maintained per the terms and 

conditions of existing cooperative agreements or every 

five years. 

As with Alternative A, the existing Instruction Memorandum 98-140 (1998) would be followed to protect 

wild sheep. As with Alternative B, goats and sheep 

could be used for weed control on winter ranges when 

wild sheep are absent. To minimize contact with bighorn 

sheep, domestic sheep, and goats used for weed control 

would only be allowed to graze for up to 1 month near 

occupied bighorn sheep habitat and there would be a 

minimum buffer of 2 miles between domestic and wild 

sheep. Bedding grounds would be a minimum of 4 miles 

from known bighorn sheep habitat. The use of domestic 

sheep and goats would only be allowed from May 1 to 

July 31 unless coordinated with MFWP. A herder would 

be required to be on site at all times and 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 would be required to contact the 

BLM and MFWP immediately. 

Wildland Fire Management 

BFO administered lands would be broken into ten 

FMUs. The FMUs would have B, C, and D designations 

applied. Approximately 42,000 acres would be designated in category B; 82,000 acres in category C; and 

180,000 acres in category D (Table 2-5 and Map 5). 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 39 
Chapter 2 

Table 2-5 

Alternative D Fire Polygons by Watershed 

FMU Category1 FMU 

Acres2 

BLM 

Acres2 

Big Hole C 412,000 60,000 

Blackfoot B 127,000 1,000 

Central 

Missouri B 396,000 37,000 

Gallatin B 1,326,000 2,000 

Jefferson D 950,000 82,000 

Missouri D 1,300,000 98,000 

NW Missouri C 257,000 14,000 

Upper 

Clark Fork B 528,000 1,000 

Wise River B 8,000 1,000 

Yellowstone C 1,888,000 8,000 

1

Category and associated treatments only apply to BLM 

land within each zone. 

2

Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 1000. 

The FMUs follow watershed boundaries with two exceptions: the Missouri watershed is broken into three FMUs 

(Missouri, Central Missouri, and NW Missouri) and the 

Big Hole watershed would be broken into two FMUs 

(Big Hole and Wise River) due to the urban interface 

areas surrounding Helena and Wise River. 

Fire management activities would correspond to the 

FMU designations. There would be no restriction on 

timing of vegetation treatments; and planned management-ignited prescribed fire units size would be determined by an interdisciplinary team through site-specific 

NEPA analysis. In grassland/ shrubland habitats, BLM 

would plan for prescribed burns that do not consume 

above-ground vegetation on more than 90 percent (on 

average) of each unit by surface area. 

Delivery of chemical retardant, foam or additives to live 

streams would be avoided. 

Noxious Weed Management 

Under Alternative D, more aggressive weed management would be needed in response to the increased use 

and ground disturbance in the Decision Area. Prevention 

and control of weed infestations in special designation 

areas, Weed Management Areas (areas with agreements 

between landowners to cooperatively manage weeds), 

and areas currently under a multi-year treatment plan 

would be considered a moderate priority. 

The objective under Alternative D would be to treat an 

estimated 25,000 to 61,000 acres of weeds per decade, 

not including biocontrol measures such as insect releases, grazing, or use of pathogens. 

Aerial spraying of herbicides or pesticides would not 

occur when eye-level winds are greater than 6 miles per 

hour or within 100 feet of streams or wetlands. Aerial 

spraying would be conducted in a way that minimizes 

the effects on native forbs, grasses, and shrubs. 

To prevent special status plants from being sprayed with 

herbicides, BLM, county, and contractor personnel participating in weed treatment activities would be provided 

with training to identify special status plants and maps of 

special status plant populations associated with weed 

treatment areas. 

Outreach/education on noxious weeds would be provided to the public at campgrounds, trailheads, to specific user groups, at schools, fairs, and community 

events. 

WILDLIFE, FISH, WILDLIFE HABITAT, 

SPECIAL STATUS AND PRIORITY PLANT 

AND ANIMAL SPECIES 

Goal 1 – Manage to provide a variety of well-distributed 

plant communities to support a diversity of habitats. 

Goals 2 – 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, foraging areas, and riparian areas. 

Goal 3 – 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 4 – Management prescriptions or authorizations 

conserve, enhance, restore, minimize impacts, or contribute to the recovery of threatened, endangered, or 

candidate plant or animal species. 

Goal 5 – Management prescriptions or authorizations 

conserve or enhance habitat or minimize negative effects 

to habitat of BLM sensitive plant and animal species to 

prevent the federal listing of these species. 

Goal 6 – Special-status species and habitats are conserved through collaboration and cooperation. 

Goal 7 – Protect, maintain, restore, and rehabilitate 

sagebrush habitat in occupied or historic sage grouse 

habitat (as mapped by MFWP). 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

All alternatives would emphasize actions that would 

promote conservation of special status and priority wildlife species and the ecosystems on which they depend. 

All alternatives would 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. 

40 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

One key objective under all alternatives would be for 

BLM to conserve federally listed species. BLM would 

implement recovery activities for listed species by complying with and adopting current and future recovery 

plans (such as Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, Ute’s Ladies’ Tresses Recovery Plan, Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan for Southwest Montana, Northern Rocky Mountain 

Wolf Recovery Plan, Lynx Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy (see Appendix F – Wildlife), and the Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan). 

Another objective under all alternatives would be for 

BLM to conserve sensitive species. BLM would 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 

would be designed and implemented consistent with 

adopted conservation strategies, including Montana's 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy 

(MFWP 2005b), and current, accepted science for special status and priority species. 

Fish and wildlife would continue to be evaluated on a 

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

evaluation would consider the significance of the proposed project and the effects to fish and wildlife habitat. 

Measures to reduce impacts would be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility of projects with management objectives for fish and wildlife habitat. 

Habitat improvement projects would be implemented 

where necessary to restore wildlife habitat and/or to 

improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat. 

Important blocks of hiding, security, and thermal cover 

for big game would be considered during project planning. 

For all alternatives, all new fences would be built to 

standard BLM wildlife specifications to allow wildlife 

passage with the exception of fences built specifically to 

keep native ungulates out of an area. 

Consistent with the requirements of the Endangered 

Species Act (1973) and BLM policy, all alternatives 

would ensure that actions are consistent with the conservation needs of special status species. The BLM would 

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). 

BLM would 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. 

BLM would cooperate and collaborate with federal, 

tribal, and state wildlife management agencies as well as 

private landowners to improve habitat for wildlife and 

special status plants. 

Conservation actions, inventories, and monitoring for 

special status wildlife and aquatic species would be 

prioritized based on habitats at risk and rarity. 

Timing restrictions 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 would be 

avoided or minimized. 

Sage grouse management activities would be designed 

and implemented to be consistent with adopted conservation strategies such as The National and Montana 

Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage 

Grouse in Montana (MSGWG 2005) and current, accepted science. 

Vegetation altering activities could occur in sage grouse 

habitat where it does not result in long-term loss of habitats or contribute to the need to list. Sufficient sagebrush 

densities and cover would be retained in sage grouse 

habitat. 

BLM would coordinate the fisheries program with other 

programs to improve aquatic habitat. 

Populations of special-status plants would be monitored 

to assess their condition and trend. 

BLM would maintain and improve critical or essential 

habitat to prevent deterioration and provide recovery for 

federally listed plant species. 

Field inspections would be conducted to identify specialstatus plant species prior to authorized surface disturbing 

activities. Waivers for on-the-ground inventory may be 

granted in areas determined to have low potential based 

on previous research. 

Alternative A – No Action 

MFWP and the USFWS would be consulted prior to 

implementing projects that may affect habitat for threatened and endangered species. 

Management actions would be consistent with the guidelines that were developed through the Interagency Wildlife Monitoring Program for mineral exploration and 

development. 

All management activities, including timber harvest and 

prescribed burning, in the Elkhorn Wildlife Management 

Area would be designed to maintain or improve wildlife 

habitat. New road construction would be kept to a minimum and all new roads would be closed to the public. 

Guidelines from the Montana Cooperative Elk-Logging 

Study (Lyons et al. 1985) would continue to be used in 

formulation of forest activity plans affecting occupied 

grizzly bear and elk habitat including: managing public 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 41 
Chapter 2 

vehicle access to maintain effectiveness of security 

cover and key seasonal habitat for deer and elk; maintaining adequate untreated peripheral zones around important moist sites; maintaining adequate thermal and 

security cover in deer and elk habitat, particularly within 

timber stands adjacent to primary winter foraging areas; 

ensuring slash depth in clear cuts does not exceed 1.5 

feet; and generally discouraging thinning immediately 

adjacent to clear cuts. 

The MFWP would be consulted in advance of timber 

harvest activities involving: construction of new access 

roads into unroaded elk summer and fall range; critical, 

crucial, or essential wildlife habitat; and sales of over 

250 MBF. 

Wildlife reintroduction proposals would be evaluated 

and recommendations would be made to the MFWP. 

Animal control projects would be coordinated with the 

USFWS and Wildlife Services, and in the case of aerial 

gunning with the Montana Department of Livestock. 

Seasonal timing restrictions on projects that cause disturbance would continue to be applied where they are 

needed to minimize the impacts of human activities on 

important seasonal wildlife habitat. The major types of 

seasonal wildlife habitat and the time periods which 

restrictions may be needed are: elk, mule deer, moose 

and bighorn sheep winter and spring range (12/1 to 

4/30), elk, mule deer and bighorn sheep calving 

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

(12/1-4/30) and mountain goat spring range (5/1-6/30), 

grizzly bear spring and summer range (4/1 to 9/1), and 

grizzly bear denning habitat (10/1 to 4/30). 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

All federally listed and BLM sensitive species and their 

habitats would be considered priority species and habitats. Additional priority wildlife species would be 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 2005b) would also be considered priority species and habitats. Priority habitats would 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. 

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 would be 

used to restore, maintain or improve the desired 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. 

BLM would maintain suitable habitat conditions and 

minimize fragmentation in linkage corridors among 

habitats occupied by special status species. BLM land 

would be managed to consider the relationship between 

large special status species populations and smaller 

isolated populations whenever possible. The intent 

would be to maintain the function and diversity of all 

habitats in large areas (patches) 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 the “patch” would be related to the 

size of the BLM parcel(s) and adjacent federal or state 

lands. 

BLM would coordinate with MFWP to determine 

whether habitat conditions exist that would allow successful reintroduction of locally or regionally absent 

species, such as westslope cutthroat trout, sage grouse, 

beaver, bighorn sheep, and prairie dogs. 

To the extent possible, BLM would: 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. 

During project level planning, key habitat components 

that would be emphasized would include: winter range, 

seasonal migration corridors, breeding sites, roosting 

sites, and foraging habitats adjacent to raptor nest sites. 

Disturbance of crucial wildlife breeding areas such as 

known den sites or big game breeding or winter range 

would be minimized. Actions that cause disturbance 

would 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. 

Seasonal timing restrictions on projects that cause disturbance would 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 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), 

grizzly bear spring and summer range (4/1 to 9/1), and 

grizzly bear denning habitat (10/1 to 4/30). These dates 

would be revised when new data becomes available. 

BLM would close rock climbing on spires with active 

raptor nests and educate the public about the importance 

of avoiding such locations. 

Within appropriate habitats, snags and down woody 

material would be managed to be well-distributed across 

42 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

the landscape in sufficient quantity and quality to support species dependent upon these habitats. 

At the project level, dead and down woody material 

would 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. 

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 would be left standing to the extent practicable. 

All action alternatives would 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. 

Caves and abandoned mines would be surveyed and 

assessed for bat use of features. BLM would determine 

the need for closures or seasonal closures for activities 

affecting caves and abandoned mines. Hibernacula closure dates would be approximately October 15 to May 1 

and maternity closure dates would be approximately 

April 15 to September 30. 

Bat gates or other suitable measures would be used to 

protect bat habitat when bat use of caves or abandoned 

mines is determined. Public health and safety would take 

precedence over protection of bat habitat if hazardous 

mine openings cannot be remediated with installation of 

bat gates. Efforts would be made to safely remove resident bats prior to closure. 

BLM would comply with the standards and guidelines in 

the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy 

(Appendix F – Wildlife). 

BLM would develop and implement human food storage 

regulations and guidelines in grizzly bear distribution 

zones in coordination with MFWP and other agencies. 

All action alternatives would emphasize maintaining 

diverse, healthy, productive, well-distributed aquatic 

habitats and communities to increase populations of 

native fish and other aquatic species. 

BLM would opportunistically enhance or restore habitat 

for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Arctic 

grayling. 

The distribution and abundance of native fishes and 

other aquatic species would be increased through the 

maintenance or restoration of habitat. 

In select areas identified for native fish restoration, BLM 

would collaborate with MFWP to remove non-native 

fish species that out-compete or hybridize with native 

cutthroat trout. 

Transportation system effects on fisheries resources 

would be reduced. To the extent possible, roads would 

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. 

Watershed restoration projects would be designed and 

implemented in a manner that promotes the long-term 

ecological integrity of ecosystems, conserves the genetic 

integrity of native species, and contributes to meeting 

riparian standards. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Alternative B would also emphasize protection and 

restoration of habitats for native wildlife, plants, and 

special status species. There would 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. Using vegetative treatments 

described in the previous sections of this chapter, this 

alternative would restore vegetation to become more 

consistent with natural disturbance regimes and with the 

landform, climate, and biological and physical characteristics of the ecosystem. Management would emphasize 

moderate to large vegetation patch sizes and distribution 

to be more consistent with natural disturbance regimes 

and ecosystem characteristics. 

At the Field Office scale, the intent would be to maintain, protect, and restore habitat for priority wildlife 

species including but not limited to: deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and sage grouse. 

Alternative B would maintain, improve, and restore 

habitats to support healthy, productive, and diverse wildlife populations and communities of native plants and 

animals. Where consistent with habitat capabilities and 

national conservation direction, Alternative B would 

contribute to meeting state wildlife species management 

objectives for deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and 

special status species. 

One objective under Alternative B would be to minimize 

disturbance to big game and grizzly bears. There would 

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. This alternative would also 

manage to reduce open road densities in big game winter 

and calving ranges, and within the current distribution of 

grizzly bear where they currently exceed 1 mi/mi2

. 

An additional objective under Alternative B would be to 

provide for security cover for big game within forested 

habitat types by maintaining core blocks of at least 250 

acres that are un-roaded or have closed roads during the 

hunting season and are not substantially altered by timber harvest. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 43 
Chapter 2 

At the Field Office scale, BLM would 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 would be avoided with projects in big 

game winter range whenever possible. When detrimental 

effects are unavoidable, loss of mountain mahogany 

would be minimized. BLM would 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. 

Alternative B would include an objective to 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 productivity, nutrient 

cycling, carbon cycles and other ecosystem processes. 

To determine the "range of natural conditions" for snag 

densities, BLM would follow the "Northern Region 

Snag Management Protocol", January 2000, USDA 

Forest Service Northern Region, until more current or 

site specific information becomes available. Prescribed 

fire, mechanical treatments, inoculation, or other appropriate methods would be used to create snags and down 

woody material, where deficient, in appropriate vegetation types across the landscape. 

Management for wildlife values associated with large 

amounts of down wood and snags would be emphasized 

less in WUI areas to allow for fuels reduction projects 

that would reduce the potential for extreme wildland 

fire. Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement 

would be considered for removal or reconstruction to 

follow BLM fence specifications for wildlife. 

Noise disturbance and management activities would be 

avoided or minimized within 0.5 miles of raptor nests 

during the nesting and brood rearing period. 

Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs, rocky outcrops or in 

trees) would be protected from removal or destruction 

for 5 years, or the period a known preferred prey species 

fluctuates from population highs to lows. Nests would 

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 would be maintained for 5 years. 

Vegetative competition, encroachment, and risk of fire 

to bald eagle roost and nest trees would be reduced and 

conditions for future perches/large trees would be enhanced. 

Clearing of vegetation, except noxious weeds, would not 

be allowed within 250 feet of the entrance of caves and 

abandoned mines with populations of bats 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. 

For habitat enhancement, fire rehabilitation and other 

restoration projects, a variety of techniques would be 

considered to protect plantings and seedlings from wildlife and domestic grazing including rest, fencing, netting, and wildlife repellants. 

Alternative B would manage for diverse and welldistributed aquatic habitats to increase and maintain 

habitat for native and locally important fish. 

Genetically pure and slightly hybridized (less than 20 

percent hybridization) westslope cutthroat trout populations would be managed by maintaining or restoring 

high-quality habitats and by expanding populations. 

Under Alternative B, the BLM would work with MFWP 

to remove brook trout and other non-native aquatic species that out-compete or breed with westslope cutthroat 

trout through the use of electroshocking or other physical or chemical means. 

To prevent spread of non-native, invasive aquatic species, BLM would post educational signage at all BLM 

boat ramps on waterborne invasive species. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would actively restore fewer acres of 

habitat through vegetative treatments for native wildlife 

and special status species than Alternatives B or D. 

Management would emphasize protecting small to large 

vegetation patch sizes. 

Habitat for locally important wildlife species such as 

deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and sage grouse 

would be maintained or protected. Fewer acres of habitat 

for these species would be proactively restored with 

Alternative C then the other action alternatives. Alternative C would emphasize protecting habitats to support 

healthy productive and diverse wildlife populations, and, 

where consistent with habitat capabilities and national 

conservation direction, contribute to meeting state wildlife species management objectives for deer, elk, pronghorn and bighorn sheep and other priority species. 

Alternative C would restore fewer vegetation communities to become more consistent with natural disturbance 

regimes and with the landform, climate, and biological 

and physical characteristics of the ecosystem. 

Like Alternative B, Alternative C would include the 

objective to minimize disturbance to big game and grizzly bears. There would be no net increase in permanent 

roads built in areas where open road densities are 1.5 

mi/mi2

 or less in big game winter and calving ranges and 

within the current distribution of grizzly bear. This alternative would also manage to reduce open road densities 

in big game winter and calving ranges and within the 

current distribution of grizzly bear where they currently 

exceed 0.5 mi/mi2

. 

An additional objective under Alternative C would be to 

provide security cover for big game within forested 

habitat types by maintaining core blocks of at least 500 

44 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Vegetation Communities 

acres that are unroaded or have closed roads during the 

hunting season and are not substantially altered by timber harvest. 

Natural processes and continued fire suppression would 

determine the structure and composition of mountain 

mahogany where conifers have become established. 

Mountain mahogany stands would be restored or enhanced opportunistically through other higher priority 

projects. Bitterbrush would be protected or restored 

opportunistically through other projects. 

Like Alternative B, Alternative C would include the 

objective of managing for adequate numbers, species, 

and sizes of snags and levels of down wood. To determine the "range of natural conditions" for snag densities, 

BLM would follow the "Northern Region Snag Management Protocol", January 2000, USDA Forest Service 

Northern Region, until more current or site specific 

information becomes available. Snags and down woody 

material would not be proactively created where deficient on the landscape but would be created opportunistically through other project work such as fuels reduction or ecosystem restoration. The focus would be snag 

and down wood protection instead of actively creating 

these features. 

Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement would 

be removed or reconstructed to follow BLM fence specifications for wildlife. Noise disturbance and management activities would be avoided or minimized within 1 

mile of raptor nests during the nesting and brood rearing 

period. 

Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs, rocky outcrops or in 

trees) would be protected from removal or destruction 

for 7 years, or the period a known preferred prey species 

fluctuates from population highs to lows. Nests would 

not have to be retained if physically damaged past the 

point of repair by raptors. In forested habitat types, a 0.5 

mile buffer of suitable habitat would be maintained 

around unoccupied nests for 7 years. 

As with Alternative B, vegetative competition, encroachment and risk of fire to bald eagle roost and nest 

trees would be reduced and conditions for future 

perches/large trees would be enhanced. 

As with Alternative B, clearing of vegetation, except 

noxious weeds, would not be allowed within 250 feet of 

the entrance of caves and abandoned mines with populations of bats except when needed for public safety. 

Vegetation could be removed when installing bat gates 

or when it becomes an obstruction to bat movement. 

For habitat enhancement, fire rehabilitation and other 

restoration projects, plantings, and seedlings would be 

protected from the effects of wildlife and domestic grazing using methods such as rest, fencing, netting, and 

wildlife repellants. 

All westslope cutthroat trout populations, regardless of 

hybridization, would be protected by maintaining highquality habitats and by expanding populations. 

BLM would work with MFWP to remove brook trout 

and other non-native aquatic species that out-compete or 

breed with westslope cutthroat trout through the use of 

electroshocking or other physical or chemical means. 

To prevent spread of non-native, invasive aquatic species, BLM would post educational signage at all boat 

ramps on waterborne invasive species 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would protect and restore habitat for native wildlife and special status species. Alternative D 

would restore more vegetative acres than Alternatives A, 

B, or C. Management would emphasize vegetation patch 

size and distribution to be more consistent with natural 

disturbance regimes and ecosystem characteristics. 

Alternative D would have a focus on biological diversity 

by restoring vegetation cover types and structural stages 

that have declined substantially from the historical to the 

current time period. Vegetation would be restored to 

become more consistent with natural disturbance regimes and with the landform, climate, and biological and 

physical characteristics of the ecosystem. Habitats would 

be maintained or improved to support healthy, productive, and diverse populations and communities of native 

plants and animals (including species of local importance). Where consistent with habitat capabilities and 

national conservation direction, Alternative D would 

contribute to meeting state wildlife species management 

objectives for deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and 

other priority species. 

Habitat for locally important wildlife species such as 

deer, elk, pronghorn, bighorn sheep, and sage grouse 

would be maintained, protected, and restored. 

As with Alternative B, Alternative D would include the 

objective of minimizing disturbance to grizzly bears by 

allowing no net increase in permanent open roads in 

areas where open road densities are 1 mi/mi2

 or less 

within the current distribution of grizzly bear. This alternative would also manage to reduce open road densities 

within the distribution of grizzly bear that currently 

exceed 1 mi/mi2

. 

Alternative D would also include the objective to minimize disturbance to big game. No net increase in permanent open roads would be allowed in areas where open 

road densities are 0.5 mi/mi2

 or less in big game winter 

and calving ranges. Open road densities would be reduced in big game winter and calving ranges where they 

currently exceed 1.5 mi/mi2

. Alternative D would include the same objective as Alternative B to provide 

security cover for big game within forested habitat types 

by maintaining core blocks of at least 250 acres that are 

unroaded or have closed roads during the hunting season 

and are not substantially altered by timber harvest. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 45 
Chapter 2 

BLM would enhance and improve big game winter 

range by protecting and restoring mountain mahogany 

stands where conifers have become established. BLM 

would proactively restore the distribution and vigor of 

bitterbrush stands through vegetative treatments designed to reduce competing plants, to create a variety of 

age classes, and to create conditions conducive to bitterbrush natural regeneration. 

In concert with the timber management program, a snag 

management program would be implemented to enhance 

habitat for cavity nesting birds. 

Fences identified as barriers to wildlife movement would 

be considered for removal or reconstruction on a case by 

case basis to follow BLM fence specifications for wildlife. Noise disturbance and management activities would 

be avoided or minimized within 0.25 mile of raptor nests 

during the nesting and brood rearing period. 

Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs, rocky outcrops or in 

trees) would be protected from removal or destruction 

for 3 years, or the period a known preferred prey species 

fluctuates from population highs to lows. Nests would 

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 would be maintained 

around unoccupied nests for three years. 

Genetically pure and slightly hybridized (less than 10 

percent hybridization) westslope cutthroat trout populations would be protected by maintaining or restoring 

high-quality habitats and by expanding populations. 

To prevent spread of non-native, invasive aquatic species, BLM would install boat wash stations at all major 

boating access sites. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND 

ACCESS 

Travel management and access is addressed at two levels. Proposed management is described at the Field Office level as part of the RMP decisions to be made. In 

addition, there are five Travel Planning Areas (TPAs) 

for which site-specific management by individual travel 

routes is proposed by alternative. Site-specific travel 

plan implementation decisions for each of these five 

areas will be made separately from the RMP level decisions. 

The vision for travel management is to provide for a 

range of quality motorized and non-motorized opportunities. 

Goal – 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. 

FIELD OFFICE LEVEL 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Regulations at 43CFR8340 through 43CFR8342.3 

would be applied in identifying area designations Field 

Office-wide and in identifying route-specific management where activity plan level decisions would be made 

for specific travel routes. 

Travel management would be conducted in a manner 

that would meet, or move toward meeting, Land Health 

Standards. 

Areas within the Decision Area would be 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 2003c), 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 ROD provides several 

exceptions to this rule (refer to ROD, pages 4-5). Examples include: 

1. Any military, fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency operations; 

2. Official BLM administrative business (prescribed 

fire, noxious weed control, range management, 

etc.); 

3. Other government agency business (surveying, 

animal damage control, etc.); 

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

livestock permittee maintaining fence, delivering 

salt, etc.); and, 

5. 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. 

Comprehensive inventories of all existing routes would 

be used. 

Travel Planning Areas that has existing travel plans are: 

1. Elkhorn Mountains – “limited” area designation – 

(with the exception of an approximately 631.88 

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. 

46 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

Additional travel planning has been completed for several smaller “sub-planning” areas; Confederate Gulch, 

Sawlog Creek, the Great Divide Ski area, and Nez Perce 

Ridge Road. Several “temporary area closures” are in 

effect as well, pending future travel planning. The temporary area closures include the North Hills, Sawmill 

Gulch, Ward Ranch, the McMasters, and Spokane Hills. 

All of these existing Travel Planning Areas, “subPlanning Areas”, and “temporary area closures” are 

being brought forward in the RMP, with no proposed 

management changes. 

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 proposed areas 

are: 

1. Helena (focus area – Scratchgravel Hills). High 

Priority; 

2. East Helena (focus area – North Hills). High Priority; 

3. Lewis and Clark Country Northwest (focus area – 

Marysville). High Priority; 

4. Boulder/Jefferson City. High Priority; 

5. Upper Big Hole River. High Priority; 

6. Missouri River Foothills. Moderate Priority; 

7. Jefferson County Southeast. Moderate Priority; 

8. Broadwater County South. Moderate Priority; 

and, 

9. Park/Gallatin. Moderate Priority 

The five high priority areas are being addressed at the 

activity plan level concurrently with this RMP revision. 

Travel planning for high priority areas is supposed to be 

initiated within two years of the OHV ROD, and moderate priority areas within five years of the OHV ROD. 

(Refer to the OHV ROD for complete details). 

Existing routes would 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 

non-motorized use would be developed. 

BLM would use a range of route management options, 

including Open Yearlong, Open with Restrictions, 

Closed Yearlong, and Decommissioned (Table 2-6). 

• 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. 

Table 2-6 

Field Office Level Route Management Summary 

Route Management Category Alt. A miles Alt. B miles Alt. C miles Alt. D miles 

Administrative Access Only 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 

Open Yearlong 471.8 261.0 244.3 304.8 

Open/Restricted as Follows: 

Closed 2/14 to 4/16 0 3.3 0 0 

Closed 9/1 to 12/1 0 0 0 3.6 

Closed 10/2 to 5/15 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 

Closed 10/15 to 12/1 34.8 2.1 2.1 1.9 

Closed 10/15 to 5/15 12.1 18.3 7.1 13.0 

Closed 12/2 to 4/15 2.2 1.9 1.9 0 

Closed 12/2 to 5/15 100.8 121.6 109.0 144.3 

Closed 12/2 to 6/15 5.0 6.1 5.4 7.6 

Closed 12/2 to 7/15 0 0 0 0.9 

Closed 12/2 to 10/5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 

Sub-Total Road Miles Open to Public 629.2 416.9 372.4 478.6 

Closed Yearlong 172.0 317.5 375.2 266.2 

Decommission 0 53.4 50.1 43.4 

Snowmobile Only 0 4.3 3.5 4.6 

Trails 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 

Game Retrieval Only 10.7 19.7 10.7 17.8 

Motorcycles Only 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 

ATV Only 18.8 18.8 18.8 21.0 

ATV Only Closed 12/2 to 4/1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 

Totals 856.4 856.4 856.4 857.3 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 47 
Chapter 2 

• 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 would 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 would 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. 

Opportunities would be sought to disperse or distribute 

users to help provide a quality recreational experience. 

Easement agreements would be pursued as needed to 

gain agency and public access to BLM lands. 

BLM would provide for interagency travel management 

consistency and route connectivity with adjoining public 

lands. 

Throughout the course of implementing the RMP, sitespecific route management decisions may need to be reevaluated and adjusted by BLM in order to accommodate interagency (Forest Service) connectivity. Proposed 

changes would be addressed on a case-by-case basis by 

an interdisciplinary team. 

Designated routes would be mapped and signed as open 

or open/with restrictions (seasonal use restriction, vehicle type use restriction, etc.). 

BLM would continue to participate with the Southwest 

Montana Interagency Travel Management Committee, 

maintaining map and sign consistency, and seasonal 

restrictions. 

BLM would continue to partner with the State Trails 

Program, seeking opportunities to improve existing as 

well as future trails and facilities. 

As roads and trails identified for decommissioning in 

site-specific travel plans are prioritized, site inventories 

would be conducted on cultural resources. To provide 

protection for known cultural resources and those yet to 

be discovered, sites would be evaluated to determine 

eligibility for National Register of Historic Places. Ineligible heritage sites would 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 would 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. 

BLM roads within the travel area would 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 would be 

given to vehicles legally registered to travel on public 

highways. 

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. 

Wheeled motorized vehicle travel would be allowed for 

any military, fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement 

vehicle for emergency operations. 

Temporary routes could be constructed where needed 

and where other routes are not available under approved 

travel management plans. Construction of such routes 

would be to minimal standards, adhering to BMPs (Appendix D – BMPs). 

BLM would minimize establishing travel routes in areas 

identified at risk for noxious weed infestations. 

In areas with sensitive soils, BLM would minimize establishing new routes and would consider closure, restriction (season or type of use), mitigation (relocation, 

reconstruction, etc.), or administrative management of 

existing travel routes. 

Travel analysis would be conducted on those routes 

documented during the inventory period. User-made 

routes determined to have been created since the inventory would not be brought forward for analysis and 

therefore are treated as if they are decommissioned. 

Short, site-specific sections of road/trail re-alignment, or 

reconstruction would continue to be implemented as 

needed to minimize resource damage and/or provide 

minor reroutes around private property. 

Alternative A – No Action 

All existing travel plans, including the sub-Planning 

Areas, temporary area closures, and the interagency 

cooperative mapping effort (Southwest Montana Interagency Visitor/Travel Map) would be brought forward 

and remain in effect. Travel management for the remainder of the BFO would continue in accordance with 

the 2003 Statewide OHV ROD. 

The ROD did not address snowmobile use. Under Alternative A, all existing snowmobile management would 

remain in effect. Existing management varies, and includes: unrestricted area cross-country travel (conditions 

permitting), seasonally restricted area cross-country 

48 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

travel, travel on all wheeled designated routes (during 

the season of use, December 2 through May 15), and 

snowmobile use only routes. 

BLM would continue to seek agency and public access 

agreements as needed for new route construction. 

Area designations of “Open”, “Closed”, and “Limited” 

under Alternative A are characterized in Table 2-7. 

Table 2-7 

Alternative A Field Office Wide Acres of Open, 

Closed and Limited Area Designations 

Designations Acres1 

Wheeled Vehicles 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

Snowmobiles 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

4,367 

31,500 

266,018 

143,206 

27,065 

131,614 

1 Acres are approximate. 

Applications for competitive, as well as non-competitive 

organized motorized events would continue to be evaluated on a case by case basis, subject to NEPA analysis. 

Areas not available to competitive motorized events 

would include those along lands along the Jefferson, 

Missouri Rivers, the Beartooth Game Range, the Sleeping Giant area, the Elkhorn Mountains, the Toston/Lombard area, Whitetail/Pipestone, Sheep Mountain, 

and all WSAs. 

Cattle guards/gates would be installed on newly constructed roads/trails as needed. 

Road and trail maintenance costs would be expected to 

continue at the same level. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Area designations Field Office wide would be the same 

for Alternatives B, C, and D for wheeled vehicles but 

would vary by alternative for snowmobiles as depicted 

in Table 2-8. 

BLM would maintain current management of existing 

TPAs 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 would be converted from 

open to limited. Existing routes located within the 

converted areas would remain open to the public; 

Table 2-8 

All Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Acres of Open, Closed and 

Limited Area Designations 

Designations Acres1 

Wheeled Vehicles 

(Alternative B, C, and D) 

Open 283 

Closed 31,500 

Limited 

Snowmobiles 

Alternative B 

270,102 

Open 112,682 

Closed 54,706 

Limited 

Alternative C 

134,497 

Open 26,148 

Closed 65,270 

Limited 

Alternative D 

210,467 

Open 139,138 

Closed 31,282 

Limited 131,465 

1 Acres are approximate. 

2. A small (less than one acre) “warm up” area located in the Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Planning 

Area would be converted from open to limited; 

and, 

3. Approximately one half of the 632-acre Radersburg open OHV use area would be converted 

from open to limited. 

Regarding the qualification, the motorcycle hill climb 

located in the Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Planning Area 

would 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 has 

been proposed to be managed under the closed area 

designation. These acres are not reflected in Table 2-8 

pending the RMP level decision and remaining pending 

land acquisition in this same area. 

In the context of route-specific travel planning within 

individual TPAs, BLM’s objective would be to use a 

systematic process that considers the unique resource 

issues and social environments of each TPA. Specific 

attributes analyzed would be based on written criteria 

developed from public and interdisciplinary team input. 

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) would be initiated within five years. Pending 

their completion, the BLM would, to the extent possible, 

provide preliminary maps and interim travel management guidelines. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 49 
Chapter 2 

A full range of management options would be used for 

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 would be closed or 

decommissioned based on route-by-route travel planning 

evaluations. Some decommissioned routes would be 

closed and rehabilitated to blend with the natural surroundings, while others would be permanently closed 

using earthen berms, fallen trees, or other techniques. 

All techniques used to decommission roads would 

eliminate resource impacts. 

BLM would cooperate with the MFWP, adjusting seasonal travel restrictions in accordance with big game 

hunting season extensions. 

Roads and trails closed to the public would be signed 

and gates or other barriers would be used as necessary. 

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.) would be rehabilitated to blend into the 

surrounding area. Roads subject to special uses under 

authorized exceptions would be stabilized to prevent 

unnecessary and undue soil erosion and water quality 

degradation. A priority list for work would be developed 

after each travel plan is completed. 

Travel route densities would conform to the management prescriptions in the wildlife section in the RMP. 

Loop-road connections would be established, where 

appropriate, to enhance public access and enjoyment. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Opportunities for motorized access across the Planning 

Area (Table 2-8) would be less than with Alternatives A 

and D, but greater than with Alternative C. Noncompetitive motorized organized events would be considered and evaluated on a case-by-case basis for the 

Pipestone area only (existing TPA). Competitive motorized events would not be allowed. 

With some exceptions (see site specific travel plan alternatives), cross-country snowmobile use would be allowed, as well as travel on all existing routes during the 

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

permitting. 

BLM would actively seek agency and public easement 

agreements in order to maintain current access for popularly traveled routes, and seek additional site-specific 

opportunities as needed. 

BLM would replace barbed wire gates (and similar closures) with cattle guards and/or easily operated metal 

gates wherever problems are known to occur. 

The southern portion of Spokane Hills (East Helena 

TPA) would be available for motorized access by “hunters with a disability”. See the Alternative B description 

for the East Helena TPA for details. 

Alternative C 

A lower level of motorized access would be provided as 

Alternative B, with more yearlong closures than any 

other alternative (Table 2-8). 

Competitive and organized motorized events would not 

be allowed. 

Unless otherwise managed, snowmobile use would be 

restricted to designated routes only (open or 

open/restricted), during the season of use (12/2 to 5/15), 

snow conditions permitting. 

BLM would seek public access easements as needed for 

new road or trail construction. 

Cattle guards/gates would be installed on newly constructed roads/trails as needed. 

With the exception of site specific road/trail realignment 

or reconstruction to minimize resource damage, no new 

road or trail construction is anticipated. 

Alternative D 

Opportunities for motorized access Field Office-wide 

would be less than for Alternative A, but more than for 

Alternatives B and C. 

Non-competitive motorized events would be considered 

and evaluated on a case by case basis for the Pipestone 

area (existing TPA). 

With some exceptions (see site-specific travel plan alternatives), cross-country snowmobile use would be allowed, as well as travel on all existing routes during the 

season of use (12/2 to 5/15), snow conditions permitting. 

BLM would seek agency and public access easements 

for all locations where BLM routes are accessed either 

from, or cross private property. 

BLM would replace barbed wire gates (and similar closures) with cattle guards and/or easily operated metal 

gates wherever they currently exist. 

Increased levels of reconstruction and new construction 

would be necessary to restore deteriorated routes and 

provide additional loop routes. 

50 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

ACTIVITY LEVEL PLANNING FOR FIVE 

HIGH PRIORITY TRAVEL PLANNING 

AREAS 

Nested within the Field Office-wide alternatives for 

travel planning, there are five TPAs for which sitespecific travel plan alternatives have been developed. 

These areas include: Helena, East Helena, Lewis and 

Clark County NW, Boulder/Jefferson City, and Upper 

Big Hole River. The following discussion describes 

these site-specific travel plan alternatives by RMP alternative. 

With this document there are two different map formats 

for site-specific travel plan alternatives. Hard copy 

Maps 6 through 25 in the map packet show one travel 

plan alternative for one Travel Planning Area per map. 

Due to size and scale limitations however, the hard copy 

maps do not include route numbers or snowmobile management because they would be too small to read. 

Readers interested in viewing or commenting on numbered routes or snowmobile management will need to 

refer to the electronic maps on the enclosed compact 

disk, using the enclosed Adobe Reader software. These 

maps are located in the “Travel Plan Maps” folder on 

the disk. In addition to individual route numbers, the 

electronic maps display geographical locations (road 

names, towns, streams, mountains, etc.) that will help 

orient the reader to the Travel Planning Area. The 

Adobe Reader software allows the reader to search for 

specific route numbers, “pan” the map, and zoom in on 

selected features as needed. For both the Helena and 

Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning Areas, each 

alternative for each of these areas is represented by one 

electronic map. However, due to the size of the other 

Travel Planning Areas and scattered distribution of 

BLM lands there, the remaining Travel Planning Areas 

are subdivided into sub-areas with one electronic map 

for each alternative for each sub-area. The East Helena 

Travel Planning Area is subdivided into four sub-areas. 

The Upper Big Hole River Travel Planning Area is subdivided into three sub-areas, while the Lewis and Clark 

County NW Travel Planning Area is subdivided into two 

sub-areas. 

The electronic maps are not numbered, but are instead 

titled by Travel Planning Area name, sub-area name if 

needed, and alternative. For example, the title of the 

electronic map for Alternative B of the Ward Ranch subarea of the East Helena Travel Planning Area is “East 

Helena Ward Ranch Alt B.PDF”. Names of sub-areas 

are provided in site-specific descriptions of travel plan 

alternatives below. 

General Overview of Alternative A for 

Site-Specific Plans 

Any existing travel planning for the five TPAs would be 

brought forward. Existing planning includes “subplanning” for the Big Hole (Southwest Interagency 

Travel Management Plan), Sawlog Creek, Great Divide 

Ski area, and Nez Perce Ridge Road areas. Several 

“temporary area closures” are in effect as well, including 

the North Hills, Sawmill Gulch, Ward Ranch, the 

McMasters, and Spokane Hills. 

Additional travel management would continue in accordance with the 2003 Statewide OHV ROD (refer to 

“Field Office Level Alternative A” for details). Under 

the ROD, in the absence of other existing travel plan 

direction, all motorized wheeled travel is restricted to 

existing roads and trails. An exception allows for motorized wheeled cross-country travel during any military, 

fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement emergency. 

The ROD did not address snowmobile use. Under Alternative A, existing snowmobile management would remain in effect. Under the existing management, cross 

country area use is allowed as well as travel on all existing routes during the season of use (12/2-5/15), snow 

conditions permitting. 

Travel management costs (implementation, routine 

maintenance, and monitoring) would remain the same. 

Working Group Proposal Development 

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 A – Travel Planning for further 

details on membership selection, and 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 Alternative B for the three TPAs. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 51 
Chapter 2 

Helena Travel Planning Area 

Maps 6 through 9 are the hard copy maps for the Helena TPA alternatives. Electronic maps by alternative 

showing route numbers are located in the Travel Planning Maps folder on the enclosed disk. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Other than the 2003 Statewide OHV ROD, there is no 

existing travel plan management for the Helena Travel 

Planning Area. Under the ROD, all existing routes 

would continue to be open yearlong to wheeled motorized travel (Map 6). The ROD did not address snowmobile use; area wide cross-country snowmobile use would 

continue to be allowed as well as travel on all existing 

routes during the season of use (December 2-May 15), 

snow conditions permitting. Alternative A would provide the greatest amount of open roads in the Helena 

TPA (Table 2-9). 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

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. Under Alternative B, motorized 

access would be restricted to five existing non-motorized 

trailheads, a relatively short, dead-end route, a loop 

route, and all existing public access rights of ways 

(Table 2-9, Map 7). The short dead end route begins off 

Norris Road, travels northwest on Route 0520, and then 

north on Route 050129, ending at a private property line. 

The loop route is located between Head Lane and Echo 

Lane. The rights-of-way provide primary access to residential housing. All of the above routes would be open 

yearlong. 

Cross-country snowmobile use would be allowed, as 

well as travel on all existing routes during the season of 

use (December 2 – May 15), snow conditions permitting. 

Alternative C 

Motorized access to the Scratchgravel Hills area would 

be restricted to the five existing trailheads (Table 2-9, 

Map 8). No motorized use would be allowed beyond the 

trailheads. No snowmobile use would be allowed, including the trailhead access routes. 

Alternative D 

Approximately 41 percent of the existing routes would 

be available for motorized access. 

The majority of the designated routes would be located 

in the Scratchgravel Hills area. Several new connector 

routes would need to be constructed; and several existing routes would require reconstruction (Table 2-9, 

Map 9). 

Cross-country snowmobile use would be allowed, as 

well as travel on all existing routes during the season of 

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

Table 2-9 

Helena Travel Planning Area Miles of Road By Proposed Management Category For All Alternatives 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

10,164 

0 

0 

10,164 

0 

0 

10,164 

0 

0 

10,164 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

Seasonally Restricted 

Closed 

Decommissioned 

52.2 

0 

0 

0 

13.6 

0 

32.1 

6.5 

7.0 

0 

40.7 

4.6 

21.9 

0 

27.7 

3.1 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

10,164 

0 

0 

10,164 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10,164 

10,164 

0 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel 52.2 52.2 7 52.2 

Miles of motorized routes available for snowmobile travel 

only 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes available for big game retrieval 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes available for disabled hunter access 0 0 0 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available 0 38.6 45.3 30.8 

52 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

East Helena TPA 

Maps 10 through 13 are the hard copy maps for the 

entire East Helena TPA alternatives. Electronic maps 

showing route numbers are located in the Travel Planning Maps folder on the enclosed compact disk. There 

are four sub-areas for the East Helena TPA represented 

on electronic maps titled by alternative as: East Helena 

North Hills, East Helena Spokane Hills, East Helena 

Townsend, and East Helena Ward Ranch. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Under Alternative A, with the exception of existing 

travel plan management, all existing routes would continue to be open yearlong to wheeled motorized travel as 

directed by the OHV ROD (Table 2-10, Map 10). Existing travel planning includes “temporary area closures” 

for the North Hills and the recent Ward Ranch, McMasters, and Spokane Hills acquisitions. The North Hills 

temporary area closure (interagency block hunting management area) restricts motorized access during the big 

game hunting season. The Ward Ranch, McMasters, and 

Spokane Hills temporary area closures restrict motorized 

access to several temporary trailheads, beyond which no 

motorized travel is allowed. 

The ROD did not address snowmobile use. With the 

exception of the Ward Ranch, McMasters, and Spokane 

Hills temporary closures, the East Helena TPA would 

remain available to cross-country area snowmobile use, 

as well as travel on all existing routes during the season 

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

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

The Alternative B proposal represents a combined 

(merged) effort between the BLM and the community 

based collaborative working group for the North Hills 

sub-area. (Table 2-10, Map 11). Motorized opportunities would decrease compared to Alternatives A and D. 

Route 516 would be open yearlong, providing primary 

access to a non-motorized trailhead at the junction with 

Route 517. The remaining road network would be seasonally restricted from February 14 to April 16 to prevent soil erosion. An additional non-motorized trailhead 

would be established at the end of Route 50108. The 

existing interagency block management hunting area 

would continue to be managed as in Alternative A. (See 

electronic map East Helena North Hills Alt B.PDF) 

With a few minor changes, the Alternative B proposal 

for the Ward Ranch, McMasters, and Spokane Hills 

areas would continue in accordance with the existing 

temporary area closures. 

Minor changes for the Ward Ranch area include: Routes 

050134 and 050137 would be open yearlong to the public up to the private property boundaries. Once the Ward 

Ranch residence is vacated, public access (via route 

050133A) would be extended from its current closure 

point to the ranch complex. No motorized use would be 

allowed beyond the ranch complex. 

Table 2-10 

East Helena Travel Planning Area Miles of Road by Proposed Management Category for All Alternatives 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use (in acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

20,266 

0 

0 

20,266 

0 

0 

20,266 

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 

Decommissioned 

36.6 

7.7 

0 

0 

26.4 

0 

13.7 

0 

0 

3.3 

41.9 

4.7 

12.0 

0 

0 

0 

54.6 

4.0 

36.0 

0 

1.95 

0 

29.7 

3.1 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

15,066 

1,588 

3,612 

6,362 

13,904 

0 

0 

0 

20,266 

14,461 

5,805 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel 

(in “Limited” areas during season of use, 12/2 to 5/15) 44.3 21.50 12 47.5 

Miles of motorized routes available for snowmobile travel only 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes available for big game retrieval 0 7.0 0 0 

Miles of routes available for disabled hunter access 0 7.0 0 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1

 26.4 47.1 59.1 32.6 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and decommissioned roads. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 53 
Chapter 2 

For the McMasters area, motorized access would 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) would 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) would be restricted to route EH037. A 

non-motorized trailhead would be constructed on the 

ridge top, near the end of EH 037. Snowmobile use 

would be restricted to designated routes. (See electronic 

map East Helena Ward Ranch Alt B.PDF) 

With the exception of two changes, management for the 

Spokane Hills area would continue in accordance with 

the temporary area closure. Under the existing temporary closure, motorized access is restricted to a nonmotorized trailhead at the end of route EH087A. The 

two changes are as follows: 

• The southern portion of Spokane Hills would 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 would be managed through a 

permit system. The permit requirements or restrictions would 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 

would be allowed to use these same identified 

routes for game retrieval as identified in the East 

Helena Spokane Hills Travel Management Plan. 

One route would be available for public access in 

the Townsend sub-area. 

Snowmobile management under Alternative B would be 

as follows: cross-country travel would be allowed, as 

well as travel on all existing routes (during the season of 

use 12/2 – 5/15, snow conditions permitting), for the 

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

of Prickly Pear Creek (refer to map). The remaining 

areas (e.g., McMaster Hills, Ward Ranch, and Spokane 

Hills, etc.) would be closed to all cross-country travel, 

including travel on existing roads and trails. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would provide the least amount of motorized access (Table 2-10, Map 12). 

Routes 0516A and 0516 would provide yearlong access 

to the North Hills. No other motorized routes would be 

available in that sub-area. (See electronic map East 

Helena North Hills Alt C.PDF) 

Motorized access for the Ward Ranch area would be the 

same as for Alternative B, except Route 050133A would 

remain closed at its current location, regardless if the 

Ward Ranch is vacated in the future. Visitors would park 

at the current motorized closure area, and walk approximately 0.25 mile to visit the ranch complex. (See electronic map East Helena Ward Ranch Alt C.PDF) 

As in Alternative B, motorized access for the McMasters 

area would continue to be restricted to three established, 

non-motorized trailheads, per the existing temporary 

closure. There would be no motorized access to the “Big 

Bend” area. Motorized access for the area located on the 

west side of Prickly Pear Creek (south of Black Sandy) 

would be restricted to the primary residential access 

routes. 

Access to the Spokane Hills area would be in accordance 

with the existing temporary area closure, where, motorized access is restricted to a non-motorized trailhead 

established at the end of route EH087A. (See electronic 

map East Helena Spokane Hills Alt C.PDF) As in 

Alternative B, the Townsend sub-area has one route 

available for public access. 

Under Alternative C, snowmobile use would be restricted to designated routes during the season of use 

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

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides the highest level of motorized 

access for the North Hills area of the action alternatives, 

and includes several designated routes not found under 

Alternative B (Table 2-10, Map 13). All of the designated routes would be open yearlong. A number of additional designated routes would be available yearlong, as 

well as one seasonally restricted route. (See routes 

EH502, EH050133A, EH057, and EH047). Snowmobile 

use would be restricted to designated routes during the 

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

(See electronic map East Helena North Hills Alt 

D.PDF) 

Motorized access for the McMasters area would increase 

as well. Under Alternatives A, B, and C, motorized 

access would be restricted to three established, nonmotorized trailheads, however, under Alternative D, a 

yearlong motorized loop route would be available, accessed from the existing northeast area trailhead. (See 

routes EH065, EH068A/B, EH068, and EH070 for details). Snowmobile use would be restricted to designated 

routes only, during the season of use, conditions permit 

ting. (See electronic map East Helena Ward Ranch Alt 

D.PDF) Motorized access for the area located on the 

west side of Prickly Pear Creek (south of Black Sandy) 

would be the same as for Alternative B, with one exception. Under Alternative D, route EH036 (located at the 

tip of Dana’s Bar) would be open yearlong. No snowmobile use would be allowed in this sub-area. (See electronic map East Helena Ward Ranch Alt D.PDF) 

Alternative D would provide two designated access 

54 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

routes for the “Big Bend” area. (See routes EH037 and 

EH041). Snowmobile use would be restricted to these 

two designated routes only, during the season of use 

(December 2 – May 15), snow conditions permitting. 

(See electronic map East Helena Ward Ranch Alt 

D.PDF) 

Alternative D would provide changes for the Spokane 

Hills area. Under Alternative D, routes EH 84, 85, 86, 

and 87 would be open yearlong. The existing trailhead 

would be relocated to a level bench top area near the end 

of route EH 084. Snowmobile use would be restricted to 

designated routes only, during the season of use (December 2 – May 15), snow conditions permitting. (See 

electronic map East Helena Spokane Hills Alt D.PDF) 

Alternative D would provide two additional, yearlong 

motorized routes for the Townsend sub-area (see routes 

EH095 and 96). (See electronic map East Helena 

Townsend Alt D.PDF) 

Snowmobile management under Alternative D would be 

as follows: Cross-country travel would be allowed, as 

well as travel on all existing routes (during the season of 

use, 12/2 - 5/15, snow conditions permitting) for the 

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

of Prickly Pear Creek (refer to East Helena PDF maps). 

The Ward Ranch and the Big Bend areas would be 

closed to all cross-country snowmobile use as well as 

travel on designated routes. 

Lewis and Clark County NW TPA 

Maps 14 through 17 are the hard copy maps for the 

entire Lewis and Clark County NW TPA alternatives. 

Electronic maps showing route numbers are located in 

the Travel Planning Maps folder on the enclosed compact disk. There are two sub-areas for the Lewis and 

Clark County NW TPA represented on electronic maps 

titled by alternative as: Lewis and Clark Lincoln, and 

Lewis and Clark Marysville. 

Alternative A – No Action 

With the exception of existing travel management for 

the Great Divide Ski (lease) Area, all existing routes 

would be open yearlong to wheeled motorized travel as 

directed by the OHV ROD (Table 2-11, Map 14). Under current management, with the exception of one or 

two designated routes, routes located within the Great 

Divide Ski area would continue to be closed to wheeled 

vehicles as well as snowmobiles to prevent damage to 

the ski slopes and prevent conflicts with skiers. The 

ROD did not address snowmobile use, therefore, outside 

the Great Divide Ski Area, cross-country snowmobile 

use would continue to be allowed as well as travel on all 

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

snow conditions permitting. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

The Marysville sub-area represents a combined effort 

between the BLM and the community-based collaborative working group. Under Alternative B, with the exception of a portion of the northwest corner of the 

Marysville area, all major motorized access routes 

would remain available to the public (Table 2-11, Map 

15). The routes within the upper northwest portion 

would be closed to help provide big game security and 

protection for threatened and endangered species (grizzly bear, Canada lynx). Cross-country snowmobile 

Table 2-11 

Lewis & Clark County NW Travel Planning Area Miles of Road 

By Proposed Management Category For All Alternatives 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

16,997 

0 

0 

16,997 

0 

0 

16,997 

0 

0 

16,997 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

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

Closed 

Decommissioned 

57.5 

6.7 

3.4 

0 

13.8 

14.3 

26.8 

10.9 

8.0 

11.7 

41.6 

5.2 

19.6 

14.5 

20.3 

8.8 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

16,112 

888 

0 

12,649 

888 

3,463 

0 

888 

16,112 

12,649 

888 

3,463 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel 56.5 49 8 49 

Miles of motorized routes available for snowmobile travel only 0 1.8 1.1 2.0 

Miles of routes available for big game retrieval 0 0 0 0.5 

Miles of routes available for disabled hunter access 0 0 0 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1 5.3 37.7 46.7 29.1 1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and decommissioned roads 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 55 
Chapter 2 

travel would be allowed throughout the Marysville area, 

with two exceptions, within the Great Divide Ski area 

(existing management), and the area identified in the 

northwest portion of the TPA. Snowmobile use in these 

areas would be restricted to designated routes only during the season of use (12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions 

permitting. 

The majority of routes in the Sieben Ranch area would 

remain available for public access, while most of the 

routes located in the Stemple Pass and Lincoln areas 

would be closed due to lack of public access and 

resource impact issues. 

Alternative C 

There would be no motorized access allowed in the 

northwest portion of the Marysville area (Table 2-11, 

Map 16). 

This alternative provides the least amount of motorized 

access throughout the TPA of all the alternatives. 

Snowmobile use would be restricted to designated routes 

(no cross country use allowed) during the season of use 

(12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions permitted. With the exception of one change for the Sieben Ranch area, motorized access for the Sieben Ranch, Stemple Pass, and 

Lincoln areas would be the same as Alternative B. 

Alternative D 

This alternative provides the greatest amount of motorized access in this area than any of the other alternatives. 

Under Alternative D, several additional routes would be 

available for motorized access in the Marysville area 

(Table 2-11, Map 17). Examples include a yearlong 

ATV Only route and a game retrieval route (see routes 

63, 65, and 050109 on electronic Lewis and Clark 

Marysville Alt D.PDF map). There would be an additional 2.2 miles of ATV Only route available in this 

alternative than the other alternatives. Snowmobile 

travel would be allowed on all existing routes (open, 

open/restricted, and closed) during the season of use 

(December 2 – May 15), snow conditions permitting. In 

addition, cross-country snowmobile travel would be 

allowed throughout the Marysville area, with two exceptions: within the Great Divide Ski Area and within the 

area identified in the northwest portion of the TPA. 

Snowmobile use in these areas would be restricted to 

designated routes only during the season of use (12/2 to 

5/15), snow conditions permitting. 

Several additional open yearlong routes would be available for the Stemple Pass and Lincoln areas. 

Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning 

Area 

Maps 18 through 21 are the hard copy maps for the 

Boulder/Jefferson City TPA. Electronic maps for the 

entire TPA showing route numbers are located in the 

Travel Planning Maps folder on the enclosed CD. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Other than the OHV ROD, there is no existing travel 

management for the Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning Area. Under the ROD, all existing routes would 

continue to be open yearlong to wheeled motorized 

travel (Table 2-12, Map 18, electronic map Boulder 

Jefferson City Alt A.PDF). The ROD did not address 

Table 2-12 

Boulder/Jefferson City Travel Planning Area Miles Of Road 

by Proposed Management Category For All Alternatives 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

14,487 

0 

0 

14,487 

0 

0 

14,487 

0 

0 

14,487 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

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

Closed 

Decommissioned 

60.5 

0 

0 

0 

3.7 

23.6 

30.5 

2.7 

3.0 

20.5 

34.2 

2.7 

5.3 

32.8 

20.6 

2.7 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

14,487 

0 

0 

14,487 

0 

0 

0 

0 

14,487 

14,487 

0 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel 60.5 60.5 3 60.5 

Miles of motorized routes available for snowmobile travel only 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes available for big game retrieval 0 0 0 0 

Miles of routes available for disabled hunter access 0 0 0 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1 0 33.2 36.9 23.3 

1

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and decommissioned roads 

56 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

snowmobile use; area wide cross-country snowmobile 

use would continue to be allowed as well travel on all 

existing routes (December 2 – May 15), snow conditions 

permitting. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Under Alternative B, most major motorized access 

routes would remain available to the public. (Table 

2-12, Map 19, electronic map Boulder Jefferson City 

Alt B.PDF), though fewer routes would be open than in 

Alternative A. Area wide cross-country snowmobile use 

would continue to be allowed, and travel on all existing 

routes during the season of use (12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions permitting. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C provides slightly fewer motorized access 

opportunities than Alternative B (Table 2-12, Map 20, 

electronic map Boulder Jefferson City Alt C.PDF). 

The main difference would be for the southwest corner 

of the Travel Planning Area, where a number of routes 

are proposed for closure to enhance non-motorized recreation opportunities (see routes 5115, 510122, 

510123A, and BJ040). Snowmobile use would be restricted to designated routes during the season of use 

(December 2 – May 15), snow conditions permitting. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides for the highest level of motorized 

access for the Boulder/Jefferson City TPA of the action 

alternatives, approximately 33 percent more routes than 

Alternative B (Table 2-12, Map 21, electronic map 

Boulder Jefferson City Alt D.PDF). Area wide crosscountry snowmobile use would continue to be allowed, 

and travel on all existing routes during the season of use 

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

Upper Big Hole River Travel Planning 

Area 

Maps 22 through 25 are the hard copy maps showing 

the entire Upper Big Hole River TPA by alternative. 

Electronic maps showing route numbers are located in 

the Travel Planning Maps folder on the enclosed compact disk. There are three sub-areas for the Upper Big 

Hole River TPA represented on electronic maps titled by 

alternative as: Upper Big Hole Fishtrap, Upper Big 

Hole Humbug Spires, and Upper Big Hole Jimmie New. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Existing management for the Upper Big Hole TPA includes the 1996 revised Southwest Montana Interagency 

Visitor/Travel Map agreement and the 2003 Statewide 

OHV ROD. The Visitor/Travel Map agreement is a 

coordinated interagency mapping effort, not a travel 

planning document per se. The map depicts area wide 

management as well as site-specific route management 

for wheeled vehicles as well as snowmobile use (see 

map). Under Alternative A, the Southwest Travel Plan 

continues to remain in effect with the exception of several areas, originally designated in 1993 as open to 

wheeled cross-country (off road) travel. In accordance 

with the ROD, these open designated areas would be 

converted to Limited. All existing routes located within 

these limited areas would continue to be managed as 

open yearlong to wheeled vehicles. Snowmobiles use 

within these same Limited areas would continue to be 

managed as open to area wide cross-country use as well 

as use on all existing routes during the season of use 

(12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions permitting (Table 2-13, 

Map 22). 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Existing management under the Southwest Interagency 

travel plan would continue to remain substantially in 

effect throughout the entire Planning Area, with the 

exception of several Southwest Travel Plan areas, originally designated in 1993 as open to wheeled cross country (off road) travel. In accordance with the 2003 Statewide OHV ROD, these open use areas would be converted to limited. By default, all existing routes within 

these converted limited areas are currently managed as 

open yearlong to wheeled vehicles. In many cases the 

management for these routes would change from open 

yearlong, to seasonally restricted (as needed) in order to 

maintain consistency with the Southwest Interagency 

travel plan (see Table 2-13, Map 23). 

Under Alternative B, all major motorized access routes 

located between Humbug Spires and Camp Creek would 

remain available to the public. Some existing seasonal 

use restrictions would be changed to enhance high elevation hunting opportunities (refer to routes 0200, 010113, 

0115, and 0150). (See electronic map Upper Big Hole 

Humbug Spires Alt B.PDF) 

Under Alternative B, most major motorized access 

routes located in the Jimmie New Creek area would 

remain available to the public. Existing management for 

the Nez Perce Ridge Road and the “temporary area closure” for Sawmill Gulch would remain in effect. 

Changes from Alternative A 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 would help provide 

big game security as well as enhanced opportunities for 

non-motorized recreation. (See electronic map Upper 

Big Hole Jimmie New Alt B.PDF) 

For the Fishtrap Creek area, the most notable change 

from Alternative A concerns Sawlog Gulch, 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. Under existing management 

(Alternative A), yearlong motorized access is allowed 

(fording the river). Under Alternative B, motorized access would be restricted to game retrieval only (10/15­

12/2, 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM). (See Route 189009B on 

electronic map Upper Big Hole Fishtrap Alt B.PDF) 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 57 
Chapter 2 

Table 2-13 

Upper Big Hole Travel Planning Area Miles Of Road 

By Proposed Management Category For All Alternatives 

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D 

Area available for wheeled, motorized use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

0 

0 

63,249 

0 

0 

63,249 

0 

0 

63,249 

0 

0 

63,249 

Miles of wheeled motorized route: 

Open Yearlong 

Seasonally Restricted (Total) 

Closed 9/1 to 12/1 

Closed 10/15 to 12/1 

Closed 10/15 to 5/15 

Closed 12/2 to 4/15 

Closed 12/2 to 5/15 

Closed 12/2 to 6/15 

Closed 12/2 to 7/15 

Closed 

Decommissioned 

70.6 

88.0 

0 

25.2 

10.5 

2.2 

50.2 

0 

0 

7.4 

0 

21.1 

59.8 

0 

0.2 

16.8 

1.9 

39.8 

1.1 

0 

51.4 

28.5 

19.2 

40.8 

0 

0.2 

5.5 

1.9 

32.8 

0.4 

0 

69.3 

33.5 

26.8 

70.6 

1.6 

0 

11.4 

0 

54.1 

2.6 

0.9 

33.2 

25.7 

Area availability for snowmobile use (in Acres) 

Open 

Closed 

Limited 

31,600 

31,607 

0 

13,243 

46,932 

3,032 

0 

31,607 

31,600 

31,600 

31,607 

0 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel 90.2 53 14 90.2 

Miles of motorized routes available for snowmobile travel 

only 0 2.5 2.4 2.5 

Miles of routes available for big game retrieval 0 1.9 0 6.6 

Miles of routes available for disabled hunter access 0 0 0 0 

Miles of non-motorized trails available1 11.0 83.5 106.9 62.9 1

This change would help prevent resource damage by 

minimizing the number of vehicular crossings of the Big 

Hole River, improving big game security, and helping 

provide a non-motorized recreational experience. 

Under Alternative B, existing snowmobile management 

would continue to remain substantially in effect as represented by the 1996 Southwest Interagency Visitor/ 

Travel Map. However, several additional areas would 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. Proposed 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 would be restricted to designated routes and 

trails during the season of use (12/2 – 5/15), snow conditions permitting. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would provide moderately fewer motorized access opportunities than for Alternative B (Table 

2-13, Map 24C). Under Alternative C, big game security and non-motorized recreational opportunities would 

be enhanced through additional route closures. 

 includes all existing trails, as well as closed and decommissioned roads 

Most major motorized access routes located in the Humbug Spires area would remain available to the public. 

Differences from Alternatives A and B include additional yearlong closures for the high elevation routes 

located between the Soap Gulch and Camp Creek travel 

corridors. Examples include routes 0110, 010119, 127, 

010115, 138, and 139. (See electronic map Upper Big 

Hole Humbug Spires Alt C.PDF) 

Most major motorized access routes located in the 

Jimmie New Creek area would remain available to the 

public. Existing management for the Nez Perce Ridge 

Road; and the “temporary area closure” for Sawmill 

Gulch would remain in effect. Differences include additional yearlong closures for the area located north of 

Highway 43, bounded by the Johnson and Jerry Creek 

access routes. See routes 10109 and 033. (See electronic 

map Upper Big Hole Jimmie New Alt C.PDF) The 

reduction in road density would help provide Big Game 

security as well as enhanced opportunities for nonmotorized recreation. 

For the Fishtrap Creek area, the most notable change 

from Alternatives B and C concerns Sawlog Gulch. 

Under Alternative C, the Sawlog Gulch route (189009B) 

would be closed yearlong. (See electronic map Upper 

Big Hole Fishtrap Alt C.PDF) 

58 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Travel Management and Access 

For areas open to snowmobile use under the Southwest 

Montana Interagency Visitor/Travel Map, travel would 

be restricted to designated routes only. No cross-country 

travel would be allowed. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D provides the highest level of motorized 

access for the Planning Area of all the action alternatives, approximately 33 percent more routes than found 

under Alternative B (Table 2-13, Map 25). 

Several additional routes would be available compared 

to Alternatives B and C for the Humbug Spires area. 

Other differences include adjusting existing seasonal 

route restrictions to allow for high elevation big game 

hunting access. Examples include routes 0110, 

010119,122, 123, 141, and 148. (See electronic map 

Upper Big Hole Humbug Spires Alt D.PDF) 

Under Alternative D, several additional routes would be 

available for the Jimmie New Creek area, including 

game retrieval routes. Notable examples include routes 

010100, 032, 010101, 010102, 010110, 189012, 189016, 

026, and 051. (See electronic map Upper Big Hole 

Jimmie New Alt D.PDF) 

For the Fishtrap Creek area, one difference from Alternatives B and C concerns Sawlog Gulch. Under Alternative D, the Sawlog Gulch route (189009B) would be 

managed as open/restricted, with a seasonal closure from 

12/2 to 7/15. (See electronic map Upper Big Hole Fishtrap Alt D.PDF) 

Snowmobile management would be the same as described for Alternative A. 

TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES 

Goal 1 – Maintain facilities, roads, and trails to provide 

for public and/or administrative use and safety while 

mitigating impacts to resources. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Transportation and road management activity would 

meet, or move toward meeting Land Health Standards. 

Comprehensive assessments would be conducted for all 

maintained roads and facilities and maintenance actions 

would be implemented as needed. 

Roads and trails would 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 would be 

assigned maintenance levels, if needed. Roads would be 

managed in accordance with assigned maintenance levels and in consideration of resource issues. All roads and 

trails would be maintained in accordance with standards 

and guidelines in BLM Handbook 9113 and 9114. Roads 

and trails would be inspected on an established schedule 

in accordance with the Bureau’s Condition Assessment 

guidance. 

Recreation sites, administrative sites, buildings, and 

bridges would 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 would be coordinated with other federal, state, 

and local government agencies, private landowners and 

the general public as needed. 

New roads and trails determined to be necessary for 

permanent or long term use as part of BLM’s transportation system would be constructed subject to NEPA and 

approved engineering standards. Consideration would be 

given to use demands, location, safety, and resource 

constraints when determining the level of road necessary, in accordance with Handbook 9113. Where a new 

permanent road would provide better access, existing 

routes in the vicinity would 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). 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Roads would be built to the minimum standard necessary that allows reasonable access and has the least impact on resource values. 

If an existing road is substantially contributing to the 

standards not being met, the road would be considered 

for redesign, closure, or decommissioning to minimize 

the adverse impacts. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Road designs would 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; 

• Minimizing disruption of natural hydrologic flow 

paths; and, 

• Minimizing sidecasting of soil or snow. 

Roads would 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 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 59 
Chapter 2 

culverts at stream crossings, and by repairing ruts and 

failures to reduce erosion and sedimentation of aquatic 

habitats. 

Alternative C 

Road design considerations would include the same 

items listed above in Alternative B. 

Roads would 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 stream crossings capable of accommodating 100-year storm events including 

associated sediment and debris, and by repairing ruts and 

failures to reduce erosion and sedimentation of aquatic 

habitats. 

Alternative D 

Transportation and road management activity would 

meet, or move toward meeting Land Health Standards. 

Road designs would consider at a minimum: 

• Minimizing road and landing locations in Streamside Management Zones; 

• Minimizing sediment delivery to streams from 

roads 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; 

Roads would 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. 

RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1 – Provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities while maintaining healthy public land resources. 

Goal 2 – Establish, manage, and maintain quality recreation sites and facilities to meet a broad range of public 

needs subject to resource constraints. 

Goal 3 – Manage commercial, competitive, or special 

events with special recreation permits that eliminate or 

minimize impacts on resources and conflicts with other 

users. 

Goal 4 – Manage recreation opportunities to provide a 

sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect 

non-market economic values. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

“Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices would 

be promoted to enhance the sustainability of resourcebased activities. 

BLM would 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. 

BLM would support and utilize volunteer participation 

and recruit and train volunteers to provide effective 

visitor contact assistance. 

BLM would continue to provide a diverse range of quality recreation opportunities and experiences within the 

BFO commensurate with public demands, resource 

considerations, and management capabilities. 

The BFO would 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, and other BLM directives that 

are related to recreation management. 

Comparable, cost effective and value based fee systems 

would be established for services and facilities provided 

to public users in accordance with BLM directives and 

the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. 

There are no known significant caves or karsts in the 

Decision Area. Should these resources be discovered, 

BLM would develop management plans that address 

management, marketing, monitoring and administrative 

needs appropriate for the specific resource. 

Recreation users would 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) would continue. 

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

at other sites if camping demands frequently exceed capacities during periods of the fee use season (Memorial Day to Labor Day). 

Personal property of recreational users could not be 

unattended for more than 24 hours at recreation sites or 

for more than 72 hours on other BLM lands. 

BLM would establish and maintain information kiosks 

with site maps, brochures, interpretive and educational 

information, important contacts, and site regulations. 

BLM would maintain and develop a web-site of BLM 

recreation sites and areas that provides access information and available opportunities. 

60 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Recreation Management 

BLM would conduct periodic visitor satisfaction surveys 

and distribute annual fee collection and accomplishment 

reports to the public and encourage continual feedback 

from visitors. 

BLM would strive to enhance voluntary compliance 

among recreation users through effective public education outreach efforts. 

BLM would continue to conduct periodic accessibility, 

safety, and condition assessments in accordance with 

Bureau policy at developed recreation sites. Prioritize 

available funds to resolve deferred and corrective maintenance needs. 

BLM would 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. 

An objective would be 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 (PPL) of Montana would 

be continued during the life of the project license 

within the Missouri River corridor and responsibility agreements made under the Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation Plan 

would be fulfilled. 

• Challenge Cost Share opportunities and grants to 

offset funding shortages would be sought and utilized. 

• Working relationships with tourism organizations, 

recreation interest groups, and local/state/other 

federal governments would be maintained and expanded to enhance visitor services, management 

efficiencies, and recreation opportunities. 

• BLM would develop and maintain an agreement 

with FWPS that would establish partnership efforts and responsibilities to collectively manage 

the Black and White Sandy sites on Hauser Lake. 

• BLM would pursue opportunities to expand dayuse parking capacities on Holter Lake in cooperation with the Missouri/Madison Comprehensive 

Recreation Plan. 

BLM would continue to issue special recreation use 

permits as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and 

special events on a first come basis 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 would not be 

authorized. Existing permittees would be given preference. 

BLM would continue to prioritize funding and management efforts at developed recreation sites that receive the 

heaviest visitation rates. Sites that cannot be managed to 

acceptable health and safety standards would be closed 

until deficiencies are corrected. 

Alternative A 

No fees would be charged for commercial fishing and 

floating outfitters using developed BLM river access 

sites. 

Variances (extensions) to the 14-day camping limit 

would be issued on a case-by-case basis subject to the 

following considerations: resource impacts, social conflicts, sanitation concerns, no livestock, or commercial 

activities would be involved. 

BLM would continue to allow recreational activities 

including motorized vehicle uses within the Scratchgravel Hills 24 hours/day. 

Authorization of commercial camping activity would be 

considered throughout the Field Office on a case-by-case 

basis subject to resource constraints, management capabilities, social conflicts, and public health and safety 

concerns. 

Permit requests by outfitter and guide hunters would be 

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

Office subject to environmental, social, and public 

health and safety concerns. 

Boat-in camping would continue to be allowed on BLM 

shoreline lands on Hauser and Holter Lakes subject to 

current regulations only. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

BLM would develop a management plan to establish 

specific guidance for managing designated boat-in camp 

sites along the shoreline of Holter Lake and consider a 

similar planning effort for the Hauser Lake shoreline, 

should resource concerns warrant. 

Commercial permits would be extended from 5 to 10 

years for permittees demonstrating satisfactory performance standards. 

New special recreation use permits would be analyzed 

and mitigated to meet management objectives. These 

include ROS compatibility, resource protection, social 

conflict concerns, travel plan conformance, public education, responsible recreation services, partnership/employment opportunities, public safety concerns, 

management capabilities, costs, public needs, and other 

issues as appropriate. 

BLM would coordinate with MFWP to manage appropriate uses at BLM launch sites as necessary to ensure 

quality recreation opportunities on State streams and 

lakes in the Planning Area. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 61 
Chapter 2 

New sites would be developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. Priority would be given to new sites that have 

partnership funding strategies and are consistent with 

established ROS and SRMA management guidelines. 

If an existing developed recreation site significantly 

contributes to Land Health Standards not being met, the 

impacts from the site would be minimized to the extent 

possible. 

All new recreation sites would be designed, constructed, 

and managed to meet, or move toward meeting, Land 

Health Standards. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

In order to receive a fair economic return from commercial fishing and floating outfitters/guides, an annual 

Recreational Use Permit (RUP) fee per commercial 

guided boat would be charged. This annual day-use fee 

would allow commercial operators the use of all BLM 

developed access sites along state rivers/lakes within the 

BFO. BLM would coordinate with the Montana Board 

of Outfitters to obtain a list of licensed outfitters. These 

commercial users would then be sent letters stating that a 

recreation user fee must (RUP) be paid in advance if 

they intend to use BLM developed sites for their commercial benefit. These payments would be collected 

through RUP envelopes and receipt stubs would be 

displayed on their vehicle dashboards when using BLM 

sites. The fee amount would be established in accordance with FEA. 

Variances to the 14-day camping regulation would be 

limited to developed recreation campground sites only, 

after the high use fee season only. These sites would be 

favored as they are hardened with graveled RV pads and 

provide toilet facilities. 

The entire Scratchgravel Hills area would be closed to 

motorized vehicle use after dark (dusk to dawn) yearlong. Signs and gates would be installed where needed 

to notify users of the closure at appropriate access 

points. 

Commercial camping permits within developed fee sites 

would not be allowed during the fee season (Memorial 

Day to Labor Day). 

In order to reduce user conflicts and resource impacts, 

special recreation use permits during the hunting season 

would be limited to day-use activities with the exception 

that camping uses would be considered within developed 

recreation sites with hardened camping units during the 

non-fee season. 

Boat-in camping along the BLM shoreline on Hauser 

and Holter Lakes would be limited to developed sites 

and designated undeveloped sites that pose the least 

impacts to other resource values. Site availability would 

be determined through a field evaluation process by an 

Interdisciplinary Team. 

Under Alternative B, human food storage regulations 

would be developed and implemented for all recreation 

sites with high potential and/or known encounters between people and bears. 

Alternative C 

Day-use Special Recreation Permits would be issued for 

each commercial fishing and floating outfitter that uses 

developed BLM river access sites. Outfitters would be 

billed in advance at a rate of $90.00 per year. Final bills 

would be assessed based on actual use reports and established BLM policies. An estimated additional 200 to 300 

permits per year would need to be processed. 

No variances to 14-day camping limits would be allowed. 

The entire Scratchgravel Hills area would be closed to 

both motorized and non-motorized recreational uses 

after dark (dusk to dawn) yearlong. 

Commercial camping permits within developed fee sites 

would not be allowed during the fee season (Memorial 

Day to Labor Day). 

Special recreation use permits during the hunting season 

would be limited to day-use activities only. 

The entire BLM shoreline along Hauser and Holter 

Lakes excluding developed sites would be closed to 

camping. 

Like in Alternative B, human food storage regulations 

would be developed and implemented for all recreation 

sites with high potential and/or known encounters between people and bears. 

Alternative D 

BLM would postpone fees for commercial fishing and 

floating outfitters using developed BLM river and lake 

sites accessing state waterways until a multi-agency 

statewide fee system is established. Under this system 

BLM would receive a portion of collections based on a 

percentage of total sites under the statewide system. This 

system would be customer friendly and would ensure 

interagency coordination for managing uses on state 

waterways. 

Variances to the 14-day camping limit would be issued 

on a case-by-case basis subject to the following considerations: resource impacts, social conflicts, sanitation 

concerns, no livestock, or commercial activities would 

be involved. 

Motorized and non-motorized recreational uses would 

be allowed 24 hours/day in the Scratchgravel Hills area 

in accordance with the travel management plan. 

Authorization of commercial camping activity would be 

considered throughout the Field Office on a case-by-case 

basis subject to resource constraints, management capabilities, social conflicts, and public health and safety 

concerns. 

62 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Recreation Management 

Permit requests by outfitter and guide hunters would be 

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

Office subject to environmental, social, and public 

health safety concerns. 

Boat-in camping along the BLM shoreline on Hauser 

and Holter Lakes would continue under current regulations. 

RECREATION SITES 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Recreation sites and facilities would be maintained and 

managed to promote resource value protection, public 

safety and health, quality facilities, visitor experiences, 

management efficiency, and value based returns. The 

location of these sites is displayed on AMS Figures 2-

24a, 2-24b, and 2-24c. 

RECREATION OPPORTUNITY 

SPECTRUM 

Alternative A – No Action 

There would be no ROS classifications to identify and 

map essential landscape settings to meet public preferences and manage recreation-related experience expectations. Recreation opportunities would be evaluated on a 

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

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Under the action alternatives, an objective would be to 

manage ROS classes for desired recreation opportunities, experience levels, facility developments, and other 

resource uses. Appendix G – Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum contains a description of ROS categories. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Recreation settings and opportunities would be managed 

in accordance with the classifications in Table 2-14. (See 

Map 26) This alternative emphasizes slightly more 

motorized recreation than Alternative C but less than 

Alternative D. 

Table 2-14 

Alternative B Proposed ROS 

ROS Class Acres1 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 36,800 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 66,500 

Roaded Natural 171,100 

Roaded Modified 16,600 

Rural 11,000 

1

 Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 100. 

Alternative C 

Recreation settings and opportunities would be managed 

in accordance with the classifications in Table 2-15, 

Map 27 display these classes throughout the Field Office. This alternative provides for the greatest amount of 

non-motorized recreation, and less motorized recreation 

than any of the action alternatives. 

Table 2-15 

Alternative C Proposed ROS 

ROS Class Acres1 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 63,700 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 61,600 

Roaded Natural 158,100 

Roaded Modified 15,900 

Rural 2,700 

1

 Acres are approximate and rounded to nearest 100. 

Alternative D 

Recreation settings and opportunities would be managed 

in accordance with the classifications. Table 2-16 and 

Map 28 display these classes throughout the Field Office. This alternative provides for the greatest amount of 

motorized recreation, and the least amount of nonmotorized recreation than any of the alternatives. 

Table 2-16 

Alternative D Proposed ROS 

ROS Classes Acres1 

Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized 30,000 

Semi-Primitive Motorized 32,300 

Roaded Natural 186,100 

Roaded Modified 19,600 

Rural 34,000 

1

 Acres are approximate and rounded to the nearest 1,000. 

SPECIAL RECREATION MANAGEMENT 

AREAS (SRMAS) 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

The objective for Special Recreation Management Areas 

would be to manage them to meet the needs for their 

primary recreation tourism markets, needed recreation 

management zones, Recreation Opportunity Spectrum, 

and primary recreation opportunities. Special Recreation 

Management Areas would be designated under all alternatives to guide recreation management priorities. The 

remaining BLM lands not designated as SRMAs would 

be managed as an Extensive RMA. This area would be 

managed on a lower priority basis with a few exceptions 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 63 
Chapter 2 

at some specific sites/locations due to use concentrations, resource concerns, and/or public demand. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Planning efforts, recreation opportunities and management would continue to be prioritized at the five Special 

Recreation Management Areas (Holter Lake/Sleeping 

Giant, Lewis & Clark National Trail, Upper Big Hole 

River, Humbug Spires, and Scratchgravel Hills) displayed on Map 29. The remainder of the field office, 

identified as the Headwaters Extensive Recreation Management Area, would be managed on a custodial or 

lower priority basis with a few exceptions at some specific sites. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Implementation plans for Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) and delineated Recreation Management Zones would be developed where specific management, marketing, monitoring and administrative 

guidance is needed. 

Although designation of SRMAs varies under the action 

alternatives by alternative, if designated, Table 2-17 

indicates the primary recreational management strategy 

(primary recreation tourism market, needed recreation 

management zones, ROS, and primary recreation opportunities) for each of the potential SRMAs. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Nine SRMAs would be designated for priority management. This alternative would establish two new areas 

(Pipestone and Sheep Mountain); split the Holter 

Lake/Sleeping Giant SRMA into two separate areas 

(Sleeping Giant and Holter Lake/Missouri River given 

their distinctly separate Recreation Tourism Markets 

(RTMs)); and replace the Lewis & Clark Trail with two 

priority areas (Hauser Lake/Lower Missouri River and 

Toston Reservoir/Missouri River). 

These nine SRMAs are depicted on Map 30. These 

areas are: 

• Holter Lake/Missouri River, 

• Sleeping Giant, 

• Hauser Lake/Lower Missouri River, 

• Toston Reservoir/Missouri River, 

• Scratchgravel Hills, 

• Sheep Mountain, 

• Pipestone, 

• Upper Big Hole River, and 

• Humbug Spires. 

Portions of the Lewis and Clark Trail would not be designated as SRMA, but would be managed within the 

Butte Extensive Recreation Management Area. 

Table 2-17 

Management of Special Recreation Management Areas 

SMRA 

Recreation 

Tourism 

Market 

Recreation 

Management 

Zones 

ROS Primary Recreation Opportunities 

Holter Lake/ 

Missouri River Community One Rural 

Developed camping and day-use activities, lake 

access for motorized boating, fishing, swimming, picnicking, and group gatherings. 

Sleeping Giant Undeveloped 

Two subunits 

separated by 

ACEC boundary 

ACEC; 

Semi-Primitive, 

Non-motorized 

Non-ACEC; 

Semi-primitive, 

Motorized 

ACEC; Primitive shoreline camping, fishing, 

hiking, horseback riding and natural viewing. 

Non-ACEC; Limited motorized travel, pleasure 

driving, hunting, horseback riding and natural 

viewing. 

Lewis & Clark 

National Trail Community One Primarily 

Roaded Natural 

Developed camping and day-use activities, lake 

access for boating/floating, fishing, swimming, 

picnicking, and group gatherings. 

Scratchgravel Hills Community One Rural Hiking, mountain biking, horseback riding, 

hunting, and driving for pleasure. 

Pipestone Community One Roaded Natural 

OHV riding, driving for pleasure, semideveloped camping, hunting, horseback riding, 

hiking and mountain biking. 

64 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations 

SMRA 

Recreation 

Tourism 

Market 

Recreation 

Management 

Zones 

ROS Primary Recreation Opportunities 

Upper Big Hole 

River Destination One Primarily 

Roaded Natural 

Semi-developed camping, limited motorized 

pleasure driving, river access for floating and 

fishing, fall hunting, hiking and natural viewing. 

Humbug Spires Destination One Semi-primitive, 

Non-motorized 

Hiking, backpacking, rock climbing, primitive 

camping, fishing, and hunting. 

Hauser Lake/ 

Lower Missouri 

River 

Community Two separated 

by Hauser Dam 

Hauser Lake: 

primarily Roaded 

Natural 

Lower Missouri 

River: 

Semi-primitive 

motorized 

Hauser Lake: Developed camping, lake access 

for boating, fishing, swimming, picnicking, and 

group gatherings. 

Lower Missouri River: Primitive camping, 

hiking, boating/canoeing, fishing, hunting, 

scenic and wildlife viewing. 

Toston Reservoir/ 

Missouri River Community One Primarily Rural 

Semi-Developed camping, lake access for motorized and non-motorized boating, fishing, 

picnicking and upland hunting. 

Sheep 

Mountain Community 

Two sub-units 

separated by 

Sheep Mountain 

Access road 

Northern sub-unit; 

Semi-primitive, 

Non-motorized 

Southern sub-unit; 

Roaded Natural 

Northern sub-unit; Hiking, rock climbing, hunting and natural viewing. 

Southern sub-unit; OHV riding, driving for 

pleasure, semi-developed camping, and hunting. 

Two new areas, Pipestone and Sheep Mountain, would 

be designated as SRMAs. Planning guidance would 

include area specific travel management plans, recreation site plans, ROS and VRM classifications and other 

directives. Should portions or all of the Sleeping Giant 

SRMA be congressionally designated as Wilderness, its 

RTM classification would be modified from Undeveloped to Destination. 

Alternative C 

The same nine SRMAs designated in Alternative B 

would also be designated in Alternative C. These 

SRMAs are depicted on Map 30. 

Alternative D 

Five SRMAs would be designated for priority management. Management would focus on the most developed 

and heavily used areas. These five SRMAs are depicted 

on Map 31. The areas are: 

• Holter Lake/Missouri River, 

• Hauser Lake/Lower Missouri River, 

• Toston/Missouri River, 

• Pipestone, and 

• Upper Big Hole River. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

INCLUDING AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONCERN (ACECS), NATIONAL TRAILS, WILD AND 

SCENIC RIVERS AND WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

(WSAS) 

ACECS 

Goal – Designate ACECs where special management 

attention is required to protect important and relevant 

values. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

The Sleeping Giant ACEC would continue to be managed as an ACEC. While this 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. 

Alternative A – No Action 

No new ACECs would be established. The pre-existing 

Sleeping Giant ACEC (11,679 acres) would continue to 

be managed under the original management plan. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 65 
Chapter 2 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Information on the relevant and important values evaluations of the five potential ACECs reviewed in this planning process is summarized in Table 2-18, Chapter 3, 

and Appendix H – ACECs. The general location of the 

five Potential ACECs is shown on Map 32. Boundaries 

of Sleeping Giant, Humbug Spires, Spokane Creek, and 

Ringing Rocks potential ACECs would be the same (as 

shown on Map 32) in all alternatives in which they are 

individually proposed. Map 32 displays proposed ACEC 

designations under Alternative C in which all potential 

ACECs would be proposed. Boundaries of the Elkhorns 

potential ACEC vary by alternative as described and 

shown below. 

In discussions of each individual ACEC below, general 

management direction is characterized by major management activity category. Special management prescriptions are designated as such: 

 special management prescriptions 

Relevant and important values in areas not proposed for 

ACEC designation under a given RMP alternative would 

be managed in accordance with the direction specified 

for each resource or program under that particular alternative. 

In the event that WSAs designated as ACECs become 

designated as wilderness, ACEC management would be 

dropped upon development of wilderness management 

plans. 

Sleeping Giant ACEC 

Sleeping Giant ACEC (11,679 acres) would be managed 

as an ACEC under all action alternatives under its original management plan with the following modifications. 

Management direction is characterized by major management category in the existing plan. 

 Area would be closed to all new rights-of-way. 

Maintenance of the existing Towhead/Falls Gulch 

Power line would be allowed. Future upgrades 

would be authorized provided impacts to the ACEC 

resources are not degraded. 

 Discretionary management actions would only be 

allowed to protect or enhance ecosystems, and longterm ACEC values (naturalness, primitive and unconfined forms of recreation, solitude experiences, 

visual resources, native wildlife, and cultural resources). 

 Livestock grazing would be restricted along the 

river shoreline north of Homestead Pasture from 

Memorial weekend through Labor Day weekend to 

enhance primitive recreation experiences, 

soil/water quality conditions, visual resources, and 

natural values. 

• BLM would seek opportunities to allow for prescribed natural fires and develop a coordinated 

management plan if appropriate. 

• In addition to controlling noxious weeds through 

chemical and biological means, mechanical (hand 

pulling) efforts would also be utilized where practical. 

• ROS management for the ACEC would be semiprimitive non-motorized. 

• With the exception of the Beartooth Landing Site, 

docks would not be authorized at the primitive 

shoreline sites. 

 Cutting of dead and down material for firewood 

would not be allowed unless specifically authorized. 

 Aerial spraying along the streams and river (300 

feet from water) would be prohibited. 

Table 2-18 

Potential ACECs 

ACEC Relevant and Important Values 

Sleeping Giant 

• Outstanding scenic qualities. 

• Diverse upland and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish. 

• Outstanding primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities. 

Elkhorn Mountains 

• Important cultural/historic sites. 

• Diverse upland and aquatic habitat for wildlife and fish. 

• Unique National management area. 

Spokane Creek • Natural aquatic and riparian habitat. 

• Critical fish spawning stream for Hauser Lake. 

Ringing Rocks • Rare and unique geological rock feature. 

Humbug Spires 

• Outstanding scenic qualities. 

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

• Outstanding primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities (especially rock climbing). 

66 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations 

Humbug Spires Potential ACEC 

The Humbug Spires potential ACEC (8,374 acres) 

would be managed as an ACEC under all action alternatives under the following management guidance. Management direction is characterized by critical resource 

and resource use categories below. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

• ACEC would be managed for Semi-Primitive 

Non-motorized experiences. 

Motorized Travel Management 

• Area would be closed yearlong to all motorized 

travel in order to protect natural and scenic values. 

• No new roads or motorized trails would be authorized. 

• Motorized route closures would be managed 

within the area in accordance with the Upper Big 

Hole River Travel Plan. 

Visual Resource Management 

• ACEC would be managed for VRM Class II objectives. 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

• All BLM lands would be retained in the ACEC. 

 High priority would 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. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes patent actions. 

Land Use Authorizations 

 Area would be closed to all new rights-of-way and 

2920 Permits and Leases. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes lease actions. 

Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

 Oil and Gas activities would be subject to No Surface Occupancy (would apply if the Humbug Spires 

WSA were released from wilderness consideration). 

 Area would be unavailable to all other mineral 

leases. 

Locatable Minerals 

• ACEC values would be protected from undue and 

unnecessary degradation. 

• A Plan of Operations would be required for any 

surface disturbing activity greater than casual use 

in the ACEC. 

Salable Minerals 

• The area would be unavailable to salable minerals. 

Vegetation Management 

 Management activities would be allowed to restore 

ecosystems provided natural, primitive recreation, 

native wildlife and scenic values are protected. 

Fire 

• BLM would seek opportunities with surrounding 

landowners (private/FS) to allow natural fires to 

burn when they are within established prescriptions and beneficial to ACEC values. 

• Prescribed fires would only be used in situations 

that would benefit ACEC values. 

Livestock Grazing 

• Management would ensure against unauthorized 

livestock grazing (maintain/build boundary 

fences, cattle guards and closely monitor livestock 

trailing). 

• Management activities would only be allowed to 

protect or enhance ecosystems and ACEC values. 

Additional Special Management 

 BLM would assess alternatives and implement 

measures to minimize visitor encounters and enhance solitude experiences along the established 

hiking trail. 

 The existing trail would be rerouted/maintained to 

address erosion and water quality concerns. 

 Outfitter camping use within 200 feet of existing 

trail would be eliminated. 

 Special permit uses would be eliminated during 

summer holiday weekends if conflicts arise with 

other public visitors. 

 BLM would close rock climbing on spires with active raptor nests to outfitter uses and educate the 

public about the importance of avoiding such locations. 

 The interpretative information displayed at the 

Moose Creek Trailhead would be improved to: 

• Describe the area and its important/relevant 

characteristics. 

• Educate visitors about resource protection and 

Leave No Trace principles. 

• Display a quality map of the area. 

Elkhorns Potential ACEC 

The Elkhorns potential ACEC would be managed as an 

ACEC in all action alternatives. The size of this potential ACEC would vary by alternative as described for 

each alternative below. Management direction is characterized by major management activity categories by 

alternative. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 67 
Chapter 2 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

All five potential ACECs would be designated totaling 

73,666 acres. These areas are Sleeping Giant (11,679 

acres), Elkhorns (53,439 acres), Humbug Spires (8,374 

acres), Spokane Creek (14 acres), and Ringing Rocks 

(160 acres). The Elkhorns ACEC would include priority 

wildlife and primitive recreation lands as a subset of the 

area described in the interagency MOU as the Elkhorn 

Mountains Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit 

boundary (Map 33). Therefore the Elkhorns ACEC 

boundary in Alternative B does not match the area described as the cooperative management unit in the interagency MOU. 

Proposed management of Sleeping Giant and Humbug 

Spires is described in “Management Common to Action 

Alternatives” above. 

Spokane Creek Potential ACEC (14 acres) 

Proposed management for Spokane Creek potential 

ACEC is described by major management activity category below. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

• ACEC would be managed for Semi-Primitive 

Non-motorized uses. 

Motorized Travel Management 

• ACEC would be closed yearlong to public motorized uses. 

 New road construction would not be allowed. 

Visual Resource Management 

• ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

• All BLM lands would be retained. 

 High priority would be given to acquire the subsurface minerals in the E1⁄2SW1⁄4NW1⁄4 in Section 1, 

Township 10 North, Range 2 West. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes patent actions. 

Land Use Authorizations 

 Area would be closed to new rights-of-way and 

2920 Permits and Leases. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes lease actions. 

Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

• No Surface Occupancy restrictions would apply 

wherever BLM manages the subsurface minerals. 

Locatable Minerals 

• The portion of the ACEC (60 percent) where 

BLM owns both the surface and subsurface has 

“acquired” status and would not be open to mineral entry. 

• The western portion of the ACEC where BLM 

owns only the surface would not be subject to 

3809 regulations. BLM would work with any potential mineral developer to try to prevent mining 

related discharges into Spokane Creek. 

Salable Minerals 

• ACEC would be closed to salable minerals sales 

where BLM owns the mineral estate. 

• The western portion of the ACEC where BLM 

owns only the surface would not be subject to 

3600 regulations. BLM would work with any potential developer to try to prevent mining related 

bank disturbance and discharges into Spokane 

Creek. 

• If subsurface minerals are acquired, no minerals 

sales would be allowed. 

Vegetation Management 

• Management activities would be allowed to enhance habitat and stream values. 

• No aerial spraying for weeds would occur within 

the ACEC. 

Fire 

• Prescribed fires would only be used in situations 

that would benefit ACEC values. 

Livestock Grazing 

• Entire area would be closed to livestock grazing. 

Additional Special Management 

BLM would do the following: 

 Develop a coordinated plan to restore and maintain 

resource values in ACEC and upstream conservation easement lands. 

 Monitor the BLM’s conservation easement on the 

land to the south of the ACEC for compliance. 

 Pursue fishing closure with MFWP to protect 

spawning fish. 

 Amend type of use as needed to reserve water rights 

for in-stream uses. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

• ACEC would be managed for Roaded Natural experiences. 

Motorized Travel Management 

• Motorized route closures would be maintained in 

accordance with the Pipestone Travel Plan. 

 No new permanent roads/trails or any new motorized uses would be allowed within the ACEC. 

68 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations
 

Lewis & Clark
 

County
 

Helena 

Jefferson 

County 

Elkhorn
 

Mountains
 

Proposed
 

ACEC
 

City 

Interstate 

US Route 

MT Route 

BLM Ownership 

Proposed ACEC 

County Boundary 

Map shows boundaries of the potential Elkhorns
 

ACEC as proposed under Alternative B. This
 

potential ACEC would be 53,439 acres in size in
 

this alternative and is located in Jefferson and
 

Broadwater counties just west of Townsend and
 

south of Helena.
 

Miles 

0 12 Map Scale 1:1,500,000 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 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. 

Broadwater
 

County
 

Townsend 

Gallatin 

County 

Map 33: Elkhorn Mountains Proposed 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) Under Alternative B 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Draft RMP/EIS
 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 69 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Visual Resource Management 

• ACEC would be managed as VRM Class II. 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

• All lands within the ACEC would be retained. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes Act patent actions. 

Land Use Authorizations 

Area would be closed to future rights-of–way and 

2920 Permits and Leases. 

Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes lease actions. 

Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas) 

 Oil and Gas activities would be subject to No Surface Occupancy. 

 Area would be unavailable to all other mineral 

leases. 

Locatable Minerals 

• Current withdrawal of the area to mineral entry 

would be continued. 

Ringing Rocks Potential ACEC (160 acres) 

The Ringing Rocks withdrawal was established 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. 

Salable Minerals 

 The area would be unavailable to salable minerals. 

Vegetation Management 

 Vegetation treatments would be planned to ensure 

that the visual qualities of the 160-acre area are not 

adversely impacted. 

Additional Special Management 

BLM would manage the area as follows. 

 Improve interpretative information displayed at the 

site to: 

o Discuss the uniqueness of the rock formation. 

o Educate visitors about the importance of 

protecting the rock features 

o Describe the cultural / mining history of the 

area 

 Collection/removal of rocks within the formation 

would not be allowed. 

 Reclaim the nearby abandoned mine shaft. 

 Protect any cultural features at risk. 

Elkhorns Potential ACEC (53,439 acres) 

The Elkhorns potential ACEC boundary was developed 

based on modifications to the geographic area described 

for management of the Elkhorns Cooperative Wildlife 

Management Unit in the interagency MOU. Modifications to that boundary are proposed in this alternative to 

focus most on areas important to wildlife and nonmotorized recreation (Map 33). Management direction 

for the Elkhorns ACEC by major management categories is described below. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

• Majority of the area would be managed as Roaded 

Natural. 

• Elkhorns Tack-on WSA would be managed as 

Semi-Primitive Non-motorized. 

• Wood-Horse Gulch area North of BPA road 

would be managed as Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

• Nursery-Golconda Creek area northwest of WSA 

would be managed as Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

• Parcels between Dutchman and Prickly Pear 

Creek would be managed as Semi-Primitive Motorized. 

• Johnny-Keating area would be managed as 

Roaded Modified. 

Motorized Travel Management 

• Motorized travel would be “limited” to designated 

routes in order to protect wildlife and nonmotorized recreation values. 

• No new permanent roads or motorized trails 

would be authorized for public use (road relocation would be allowed to protect resources, maintain access and/or protect human safety). 

• Existing road closures would be maintained and 

enforced per the 1995 Elkhorns travel plan. BLM 

would re-evaluate and/or monitor routes to determine if changes to existing plan are required. 

 Non-motorized recreation would be promoted and 

emphasized. 

Visual Resource Management 

• The majority of the area would be managed as 

VRM Class III and IV. 

70 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations 

• The Elkhorns Tack-on WSA would be managed 

as VRM Class II. 

High visibility lands along Missouri River, canyon cliffs 

along Indian Creek and scattered parcels adjacent to FS 

north and west boundaries would be managed as VRM 

Class II. 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

 All BLM lands within the ACEC would be retained 

in BLM public ownership. 

 Areas would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes patent actions. 

 Priority would 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. 

Land Use Authorizations 

 The ACEC would be open to new rights-of-way and 

2920 Permits and Leases with restrictions to protect 

area values. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes lease actions. 

Leasable Minerals (including Oil and Gas) 

• No Surface Occupancy would be allowed in 

Muskrat Creek Watershed. 

• No Surface Occupancy would be allowed in Crow 

Creek Campground. 

• No Surface Occupancy would be allowed in sensitive plant population locations. 

• Remaining area would be subject to stipulations 

for oil and gas exploration for Alternative B. 

Locatable Minerals 

 Approximately 180 acres in riparian areas of the 

Muskrat and Nursery Creek drainages would be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

Westslope cutthroat trout have declined in abundance, 

distribution, and genetic diversity throughout their native 

range. In the Missouri River drainage of Montana genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to 

persist in less than 5 percent of the habitat they once 

occupied. To prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act, federal and state managers need to ensure conservation of local populations, preservation of genetic 

diversity and work towards the long-term, selfsustaining persistence of westslope cutthroat trout 

(MFWP 1999). 

Muskrat Creek has importance to westslope cutthroat 

trout restoration beyond the local level because after a 

ten year, $50,000 restoration effort, its population is now 

used as a donor source to re-establish westslope cutthroat trout in a number of different locations in the 

State of Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has 

identified Muskrat Creek as the most secure and having 

the strongest population of westslope cutthroat trout in 

the entire Elkhorn Mountain range. 

The 180 acres proposed for the Muskrat/Nursery Creek 

withdrawal would provide the minimum amount of 

protection to water quality, stream morphology, and 

riparian function to protect the restored and unique 

population of westslope cutthroat trout. This withdrawal 

would protect the genetically pure westslope cutthroat 

trout population in Muskrat Creek by preventing loss of 

riparian vegetation, streambed and bank destabilization, 

erosion and sedimentation, loss of floodplain vegetation, 

alteration of floodplain morphology, and alteration of 

stream channel morphology that could occur in association with locatable mineral activity, particularly placer 

mining. Another key impact that placer mining (including casual use) could have on westslope cutthroat trout, 

is excavation, crushing, or disturbance of streambed 

gravels during the critical period when trout are spawning and eggs are incubating/hatching. If mining operations cause a decline in the population, the population 

would no longer be able to function as a donor source 

for Montana and impede restoration efforts.” 

Muskrat and Nursery Creek are located in the southern 

Elkhorn WSA which was evaluated in the joint Bureau 

of Mines and USGS report Mineral Summary Bureau of 

Land Management Wilderness Study Areas in Montana 

(1990). In the Muskrat and Nursery Creek areas the 

report concluded that there is high resource potential for 

copper, molybdenum and tungsten with a certainty level 

of D (available information clearly defines the level of 

mineral resource potential, the highest level of confidence), as well as a moderate mineral resource potential 

for uranium and thorium with a certainty level of C 

(Available information gives a good indication of the 

level of resource potential, US DOI Bureau of Mines 

and USGS, 1990). 

No potential for placer mining has been identified in 

either Muskrat or Nursery Creek; therefore there is a 

very low probability of any proposals being submitted to 

the BLM. In the absence of a mineral withdrawal, should 

a miner propose to conduct placer mining in these drainages, timing stipulations could be attached to the permit 

to protect critical periods of spawning and incubation/ 

hatching. Should lode mining be proposed for any of 

resources identified in the Bureau of Mines report mining practices, BMPs, reclamation/rehabilitation techniques, and bonding would be applied. If unavoidable 

impacts were to occur they would be mitigated through 

restoration at the conclusion of mining to the extent 

practicable. In spite of these measures, minerals operations that substantially reduce the size of the westslope 

cutthroat trout population and/or have long-term substantial adverse effects on aquatic habitat could eliminate the ability to use this fish population as a donor 

source to re-establish other populations. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 71 
Chapter 2 

The remaining ACEC lands would be open to operations under the Mining Laws. An approved Plan of Operations would be required for surface disturbing activity greater than casual use. 

Salable Minerals 

• Salable minerals sales would be allowed in a way 

that minimizes impacts to wildlife and recreation. 

Vegetation Management 

 The Elkhorns would 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. 

 No timber salvage would be allowed unless beneficial to ACEC values or needed for human safety. 

Wildlife 

 Current direction outlined in the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) signed by MFWP, USFS, 

and BLM would be followed within a modified 

boundary from the one described in the MOU. 

• Wildlife and wildlife habitats would 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. 

• Management activities would have long-term 

benefits to wildlife and would minimize shortterm impacts (with the exception of mining). 

• BLM would seek opportunities to convert sheep 

allotments to cattle allotments to protect bighorn 

sheep populations. 

• BLM would continue to actively participate in 

partnerships. 

 BLM would continue to work with MFWP and the 

USFS to resolve issues in the Elkhorn Mountain 

Range. 

• Activity timing restrictions for burning, noise and 

ground disturbance would be enforced. 

Fire 

• BLM would seek opportunities with surrounding 

landowners (private/FS) to allow natural fires to 

burn when within established prescriptions. 

• BLM would continue following the existing Elkhorns Fire Management Plan but evaluate all opportunities for natural fire use. 

Livestock Grazing 

• BLM would provide priority management to ensure against unauthorized livestock grazing (maintain/build boundary fences, cattle guards and 

closely monitor livestock trailing). 

• Management activities would be allowed only to 

maintain or enhance ecosystems, natural qualities, 

and scenic values. 

Cultural 

• BLM would refrain from developing any additional roads to prevent further degradation to historic ditches, dams, and reservoirs. 

Alternative C 

All five potential ACECs would be designated totaling 

87,893 acres. These areas are Sleeping Giant (11,679 

acres), Elkhorns (67,665 acres), Humbug Spires (8,374 

acres), Spokane Creek (14 acres), and Ringing Rocks 

(160 acres). The Elkhorns ACEC would be enlarged to 

include all BLM lands within the interagency MOU 

boundary (Map 34). 

Management direction for Sleeping Giant and Humbug 

Spires would be the same as that described in “Management Common to Action Alternatives” above. Management direction for Spokane Creek and Ringing Rocks 

would be the same as that described for Alternative B. 

Elkhorns Potential ACEC (67,665 acres) 

The proposed boundary for this ACEC in this alternative 

incorporates the geographic boundary described in the 

interagency Elkhorns Wildlife Management Unit MOU. 

Management direction for the Elkhorns ACEC would be 

the same as that described for Alternative B with the 

following variations. 

Motorized Travel Management 

• Motorized travel would be “Limited” to designated routes in order to protect wildlife and nonmotorized recreation values (except for play area 

near Radersburg). 

 Non-motorized recreation would be emphasized and 

promoted except in the Radersburg play area. 

Wildlife 

 The current direction outlined in MOU signed by 

MFWP, the USFS and the BLM would be followed 

within the entire boundary around the Elkhorn 

Mountain Range as described in the MOU. 

Cultural 

• BLM would conduct thorough research on the 

Hassel Canyon flume with the intent of restoring 

all or part of the structure at some point in the future. 

• BLM would research and inventory the Indian 

Creek watershed and contributing watershed systems to fully determine the extent of the ditchand-flume system. 

72 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations
 

Lewis & Clark
 

County
 

Helena 

Jefferson 

County 

Elkhorn
 

Mountains
 

Proposed 


ACEC
 

City
 

Interstate
 

US Route
 

MT Route 

BLM Ownership 

Proposed ACEC 

County Boundary 

Map shows boundaries of the potential Elkhorns
 

ACEC as proposed under Alternative C. This
 

potential ACEC would be 67,665 acres in size in
 

this alternative and is located in Jefferson and
 

Broadwater counties just west of Townsend and
 

south of Helena.
 

Miles 

0 12 

Map Scale 1:1,500,000 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 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. 

Broadwater
 

County
 

Townsend 

Gallatin 

County 

Map 34: Elkhorn Mountains Proposed 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) Under Alternative C 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Draft RMP/EIS
 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 73 
Chapter 2 

Alternative D 

Three potential ACECs would be designated in Alternative D totaling 23,628 acres. These areas are Sleeping 

Giant (11,679 acres), Elkhorns (3,575 acres), and Humbug Spires (8,374 acres). The Elkhorns ACEC boundary 

would be reduced to include only the WSA lands within 

the MOU boundary (Map 35). 

Management direction for Sleeping Giant and Humbug 

Spires would be the same as that described above. 

Elkhorns Potential ACEC (3,575 acres) 

In this alternative the Elkhorns potential ACEC would 

only include the 3,575 acre WSA boundary. Proposed 

management for this area by major management category is described below. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

The area would be managed as Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized. 

Motorized Travel Management 

• Motorized travel would be “limited” to designated 

routes in order to protect wildlife and nonmotorized recreation values. 

• No new permanent roads or motorized trails 

would be authorized for public use (road relocation would be allowed to protect resources, maintain access and/or protect human safety). 

• Existing road closures would be maintained and 

enforced in accordance with the 1995 Elkhorns 

travel plan. BLM would re-evaluate and/or monitor routes to determine if changes to existing plan 

are required. 

• Non-motorized recreation would be emphasized 

and promoted within the ACEC. 

Visual Resource Management 

• The area would be managed as VRM Class II. 

Land Ownership/Adjustment 

 All BLM lands within the ACEC would be retained 

in BLM public ownership. 

 Area would be classified as not suitable for Recreation and Public Purposes actions. 

 Priority would 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. 

Land Use Authorizations 

 The ACEC would be open to new rights-of-way and 

2920 Permits and Leases with restrictions to protect 

area values. 

Leasable Minerals (including Oil and Gas) 

• No Surface Occupancy would be allowed in 

Muskrat Creek Watershed. 

Locatable Minerals 

 Approximately 180 acres in riparian areas of the 

Muskrat and Nursery Creek drainages would not be 

recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry. 

• The remaining ACEC lands would be open to operations under the Mining Laws. An approved 

Plan of Operations would be required for surface 

disturbing activity greater than casual use. 

Salable Minerals 

• Salable minerals sales would be allowed in a way 

that minimizes impacts to wildlife and recreation. 

Vegetation Management 

 No timber salvage would be allowed unless beneficial to ACEC values or needed for human safety. 

Wildlife 

 The current direction outlined in MOU signed by 

MFWP, the USFS and the BLM would be followed 

within the existing WSA boundary. 

• The Muskrat and Nursery Creek drainages would 

be managed as an ecological unit for the purpose 

of sustaining ecological systems, including the full 

range of potential biological diversity and ecosystem processes. 

• Wildlife and wildlife habitats would 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. 

• Management activities would have long-term 

benefits to wildlife and would minimize shortterm impacts (with the exception of mining where 

long-term impacts could potentially occur). 

• BLM would seek opportunities to convert sheep 

allotments to cattle allotments to protect bighorn 

sheep populations. 

• BLM would continue to actively participate in 

partnerships. 

• Activity timing restrictions with burning, noise 

and ground disturbance would be enforced to protect wildlife. 

Fire 

BLM would seek opportunities with surrounding landowners (private/FS) to allow natural fires to burn 

when within established prescriptions. 

74 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations
 

Lewis & Clark
 

County
 

Helena 

Elkhorn Mountains 

Jefferson Proposed County ACEC 

City
 

Interstate
 

US Route 

MT Route 

BLM Ownership 

Proposed ACEC 

County Boundary 

Map shows boundaries of the potential Elkhorns
 

ACEC as proposed under Alternative D. This
 

potential ACEC would be 3,575 acres in size in
 

this alternative (to match the Elkhorns tack-on
 

WSA boundary) and is located in Jefferson and
 

Broadwater counties just west of Townsend and
 

south of Helena.
 

Miles 

0 12 Map Scale 1:1,500,000 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 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. 

Broadwater
 

County
 

Townsend 

Gallatin 

County 

Map 35: Elkhorn Mountains Proposed 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACEC) Under Alternative D 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Draft RMP/EIS
 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 75 
Chapter 2 

• BLM would continue following the existing Elkhorns Fire Management Plan but evaluate all opportunities for natural fire use. 

Livestock Grazing 

• BLM would provide priority management to ensure against unauthorized livestock grazing (maintain/build boundary fences, cattle guards and 

closely monitor livestock trailing). 

• Management activities would only be allowed to 

maintain or enhance ecosystems, natural qualities, 

and scenic values. 

Cultural 

• BLM would refrain from developing any additional roads to prevent further degradation to historic ditches, dams, and reservoirs. 

NATIONAL TRAILS 

Goal – Manage National Trails to promote public enjoyment and protect their designated values. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

The Continental Divide Trail would be managed cooperatively with the USFS in accordance with national 

policy guidelines. The Lewis and Clark Historic Trail 

would be managed cooperatively with the National Park 

Service (NPS) in accordance with national policy guidelines. 

BLM would seek opportunities to cooperatively manage 

National Trails through partnerships. 

BLM would continue cooperative efforts with PPL Montana 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 would continue 

to be managed in a manner that promotes public accessibility, resource protection, visitor safety, and interpretive 

education. 

Alternative A – No Action 

No ROS, VRM, or specific travel management plans 

(with the exception of Sleeping Giant) would be developed to guide the future management of the two National Trails (Continental Divide National Scenic Trail 

and Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail). Protective 

measures for these trail settings and associated experiences would continue to be applied through resource use 

project plans. The Continental Divide Trail segment 

would continue to be managed for both motorized and 

non-motorized uses. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

The two National Trails (Continental Divide National 

Scenic Trail and Lewis and Clark National Historic 

Trail) would be managed to protect natural resource 

values, minimize recreation conflicts, and enhance recreation opportunities and experiences. Lands within 

these extensive corridors would be retained in public 

ownership. Additional management guidance would be 

established in accordance with the ROS classes, VRM 

classes, travel plan direction, and oil and gas stipulations 

established under the action alternatives. 

BLM would evaluate opportunities to re-route the Continental Divide Trail segment 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. 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS 

Goal – Identify river segments suitable for inclusion in 

the National Wild and Scenic River System. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

In cooperation with other agencies, local governments, 

and special interest groups, management would be conducted in a manner to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values for each suitable river segment. 

Table 2-19 depicts the outstanding remarkable values 

and tentative classifications of the four eligible Wild and 

Scenic River segments. Additional information is provided in Appendix I – National Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

Table 2-19 

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments 

WSR Segment 

Name 

Outstanding 

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classification 

Upper Big 

Hole River Recreational, Fish Recreational 

Missouri River Recreational, 

Wildlife, Scenic Scenic 

Moose Creek Recreational, 

Scenic Scenic 

Muskrat River Fish Scenic 

76 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations 

Alternative A – No Action 

The suitability study of the four river segements in the 

Field Office determined to be eligible for designation in 

the National Wild and Scenic River System (Map 36) 

would not be completed and protective management 

would continue indefinitely on all four river segments 

(Upper Big Hole River - 2.3 miles, Missouri River - 3.1 

miles, Moose Creek - 4.0 miles, and Muskrat Creek - 2.6 

miles). Protective management would be subject to valid 

existing rights and to actions within BLM’s authority. A 

case-by-case review of proposed activities would be 

completed to ensure that Wild and Scenic River eligibility and tentative classification would not be affected. 

Protective management objectives would include: 

• Free-flow characteristics would not be modified 

by stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, or riprapping. 

• Each segment would be managed to protect identified outstandingly remarkable values, and to the 

extent practicable such values would be enhanced. 

Development of the eligible river and its corridor 

would not be modified to the extent that the eligibility or tentative classification would be affected. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives 

Suitability studies were conducted for the four eligible 

river segments (Big Hole River, Missouri River, Moose 

Creek, and Muskrat Creek) to determine whether any or 

all of these areas should be recommended to Congress 

for inclusion into the NWSRS. These suitability recommendations vary under the three action alternatives. See 

Appendix I for additional information about these areas 

and the study process. 

Alternative B - Preferred Alternative 

Under Alternative B, Muskrat Creek (2.6 miles) would 

be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). Missouri 

River (3.1 miles) would be found preliminarily suitable, 

but would 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 would be necessary to forward the 

Missouri River segment as suitable for inclusion in the 

NWSRS. The Upper Big Hole River and Moose Creek 

would be identified as non-suitable for inclusion. 

The following protective management under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act would be applied to Muskrat 

Creek until it is either designated by Congress or released to multiple use. This management would also be 

applied to the Missouri River until the possibility of 

recommending it for NWSRS designation is resolved 

with the USFS. The direction would continue to apply if 

the Forest Service supports recommending a designation. Protective management would be subject to valid 

existing rights and to actions within BLM’s authority. A 

review of proposed activities would be completed to 

ensure that Wild and Scenic River eligibility and tentative classification would not be affected. 

Protective management objectives would include: 

• Free-flow characteristics would not be modified 

by stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, or riprapping. 

• Each segment would be managed to protect identified outstandingly remarkable values, and to the 

extent practicable such values would be enhanced. 

• Development of the eligible river and its corridor 

would not be modified to the extent that the eligibility or tentative classification would be affected. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C all four eligible river segments 

(totaling 12 miles) would be recommended as suitable 

for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers 

System. 

The following protective management under the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act would be applied to these rivers 

until they are either designated by Congress or released 

to multiple use. Protective management would be subject to valid existing rights and to actions within BLM’s 

authority. A case-by-case review of proposed activities 

would be completed to ensure that Wild and Scenic 

River eligibility and tentative classification would not be 

affected. Protective management objectives include: 

• Free-flow characteristics would not be modified 

by stream impoundments, diversions, channelization, or riprapping. 

• Each segment would be managed to protect identified outstandingly remarkable values, and to the 

extent practicable such values would be enhanced. 

Development of the eligible river and its corridor would 

not be modified to the extent that the eligibility or tentative classification would be affected. 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D all four of the eligible river segments would be identified as non-suitable for inclusion 

in the National Wild and Scenic River System. These 

river segments and their associated corridors would be 

managed in accordance with the prescriptions described 

throughout Alternative D rather than under the protective management objectives for eligible or suitable rivers. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 77 
Chapter 2
 

Lewis & Clark 

County 

Missouri River 

Muskrat Broadwater Creek County 

Jefferson
 

County
 

Anaconda 

Deer Lodge Butte County 

Silver Bow 

County 

Gallatin 

County 

Big Hole River 

Moose Creek 

Livingston Bozeman 

Park City County Interstate
 

US Route
 

MT Route
 

Rivers and Streams 

County Boundary 

Field Office Boundary 

River Segments Proposed as Eligible
 

for Further Study (Wild and Scenic)
 

Map shows the locations of eligible Wild and Scenic
 

River segments within the Butte Field Office Planning
 

Area. Segments include Muskrat Creek (2.6 miles),
 

Missouri River (3.1 miles), Upper Big Hole River
 

(2.3 miles), and Moose Creek (4.0 miles). 

Miles 

0 40 

Map Scale 1:1,500,000
 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007
 

Albers Equal Area, NAD83 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 36: National Wild and Scenic
 

River System Eligible Segments
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
 

Bureau of Land Management
 

Butte Field Office
 

Draft RMP/EIS
 

78 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Special Designations 

WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS 

Goal – Manage Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) to 

maintain their suitability for potential wilderness designation. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

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. 

All six WSAs (Humbug Spires – 11,320 acres, Sleeping 

Giant – 6,666 acres, Sheep Creek – 3,801 acres, Black 

Sage – 5,917 acres, Elkhorn Tack-on – 3,575 acres, and 

Yellowstone River Island – 69acres) would 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 would continue to be protected under the IMP 

directives. 

Those areas designated wilderness by Congress would 

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 would be developed. 

WSAs would continue to be managed in accordance 

with the established monitoring and sign plans for each 

WSA. 

In addition to the Interim Management Protection mandates, both the Sleeping Giant and the Sheep Creek 

WSAs would continue to be managed as part of the 

Sleeping Giant ACEC and management plan written in 

1988. 

Alternative A – No Action 

All six WSAs would continue to be managed under the 

Interim Management Policy and Guidelines. This alternative assumes that no Congressional action would occur over the life of the plan to designate or release these 

WSAs. 

All areas are under consideration by Congress. Portions 

of Humbug Spires, all of Sleeping Giant, and all of 

Sheep Creek were recommended to Congress as suitable 

for wilderness designation. The Black Sage and Yellowstone River Island Wilderness Study Areas were recommended by BLM as unsuitable. The Elkhorn Tack-on 

WSA has not been studied for wilderness suitability, and 

its existence under the wilderness review process is 

dependent upon the adjoining USFS lands which are 

under wilderness review. BLM would complete a suitability study for this WSA if the FS recommends its 

adjacent lands for wilderness through its Land Use Plan. 

No recommendation currently exists. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

WSAs released from further consideration as wilderness 

would be managed consistent with surrounding lands 

and prescriptions identified in the land use plan alternatives. Release management is described for each WSA in 

the specific alternative descriptions below. 

Under all action alternatives the Sleeping Giant, Sheep 

Creek, Humbug Spires, and Elkhorns Tack-on WSAs 

would be managed as ACECs. These administrative 

designations would promote continued protection of the 

existing wilderness characteristics for these four areas. 

In the event that WSAs designated as ACECs become 

designated as wilderness, ACEC management would be 

dropped upon development of wilderness management 

plans. See ACEC section for detailed descriptions of 

proposed ACEC management of these areas. 

Should the FS lands adjacent to the Elkhorns Tack-on be 

removed from wilderness review, this Section 202 

(FLPMA) WSA would 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. 

Protection of the wilderness characteristics for Black 

Sage and the Yellowstone River WSAs varies under 

each of the action alternatives. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

The Black Sage and Yellowstone River Island WSAs 

would continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy Guidance for WSAs. In the event that 

Congress releases these two areas from wilderness consideration, these areas would be managed as described 

below for Alternative B. 

Black Sage – MT-075-115 

The Black Sage WSA would continue to be managed to 

provide semi-primitive, motorized recreation opportunities. Motorized travel within the area would be 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. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 79 
Chapter 2 

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 

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 undue 

or unnecessary degradation as per discussion below for 

the island. 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 developed for Alternative B. All other 

resources and uses would be managed in accordance 

with Alternative B management direction. 

Yellowstone River Island – MT-075-133 

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 would be closed to rights-of-way. 

The island would be open to locatable mineral entry 

subject to requirements to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation. Oil and gas development activities 

would be subject to stipulations described Field Office 

wide for Alternative B. 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 Alternative B management direction. 

Alternative C 

The Black Sage and Yellowstone River Island WSAs 

would continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy Guidance for WSAs. In the event that 

Congress releases these two areas from wilderness consideration, these areas would be managed as described 

below for Alternative C. 

Black Sage – MT-075-115 

Management would be the same as described under 

Alternative B for ROS, motorized travel, VRM, land 

ownership, and salable and leasable minerals other than 

oil and gas. Oil and gas stipulations described FieldOffice wide for Alternative C would apply. All other 

resources and uses would be managed in accordance 

with Alternative C management direction. 

Yellowstone River Island – MT-075-133 

Management would be the same as described under 

Alternative B for ROS, motorized travel, VRM, land 

ownership, rights-of-ways, minerals, livestock grazing 

and forest management. Oil and gas development activities would be subject to stipulations described Field 

Office wide for Alternative C. All other resources and 

uses would be managed in accordance with Alternative 

C management direction. 

Alternative D 

The Black Sage and Yellowstone River Island WSAs 

would continue to be managed under the Interim Management Policy Guidance for WSAs. In the event that 

Congress releases these two areas from wilderness consideration, management of these areas is described below for Alternative D. 

Black Sage – MT-075-115 

The area would be open to salable and leasable minerals 

including oil and gas. Oil and gas development activities 

would be subject to stipulations described Field Office 

wide for Alternative D. Management would be the same 

as described under Alternative B for ROS, motorized 

travel, VRM, land ownership, and rights-of-way. All 

other resources and uses would be managed in accordance with Alternative D management direction. 

Yellowstone River Island – MT-075-133 

The island would be available for land adjustment, and 

salable and leasable minerals. Oil and gas development 

activities would be subject to stipulations described 

Field Office wide for Alternative D. Management would 

be the same as described under Alternative B for ROS, 

motorized travel, VRM, rights-of-way, locatable minerals, oil and gas, livestock grazing and forest management. All other resources and uses would be managed in 

accordance with Alternative D direction. 

MANAGEMENT CONCERNS 

AIR QUALITY 

Goal – 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 Common to All 

Alternatives 

BLM would continue to participate in local, state, and 

federal ambient air quality monitoring programs, as 

required. Management of non-attainment areas within 

the Planning Area would be guided by the state. 

BLM would comply with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements. 

All resource uses would meet the Land Health Standards 

for air quality. 

80 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

Management would minimize or prevent air quality 

degradation throughout the Planning Area by applying 

mitigation measures to projects. 

Air resources would continue to be evaluated on a caseby-case basis as part of project level planning to ensure 

compliance with local, state, and federal regulatory 

requirements. Evaluations would consider the significance of the proposed project and the sensitivity of air 

resources in the affected area. Mitigation measures 

would be developed as appropriate to ensure compatibility of projects with air resource management. 

SOIL RESOURCES 

Goal 1 – Manage uses to minimize accelerated soil 

erosion and compaction and maintain surface soil water 

infiltration based on site-specific conditions. 

Goal 2 – Maintain or improve soil health and fertility, 

prevent or minimize erosion and compaction while supporting multiple use management. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Soil management objectives would 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. 

BLM would continue to implement soil conservation 

and BMPs to meet these management objectives. Examples of BMPs that would 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. 

Soil conservation practices and soil BMPs would provide the basis for maintaining soil productivity, fertility, 

and stability, and maximizing infiltration of natural 

precipitation and minimizing runoff, soil erosion, and 

sedimentation. 

Consideration of soil conditions and types and their 

influence on management actions would occur on a 

case-by-case basis. Best Management Practices and 

mitigation measures would be implemented at the sitespecific project level to maintain or improve the soil 

resource. Soils susceptible to compaction and erosion 

would receive greater consideration when assessing proposed activities. 

Soil compaction and erosion problems would be diagnosed using Land Health Standards. 

Appropriate mitigation or seasonal restrictions would be 

applied to activities in areas with significant soil compaction or accelerated erosion. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

BLM would reseed disturbed areas where needed. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Goal 1 – Maintain, restore, or improve the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of water resources to 

protect designated beneficial uses and achieve water 

quality standards. 

Goal 2 – Maintain existing or acquire new water rights 

land in the Decision Area to ensure water availability for 

multiple-use management. 

Goal 3 – Minimize erosion and subsequent sedimentation for improved stream and watershed health. 

Goal 4 – Maintain or improve morphological conditions 

to a stable state that can fully support beneficial uses. 

Goal 5 – Protect water quality for municipal, industrial, 

agricultural, recreation, and residential purposes by 

adopting protective measures to meet tribal, state, and 

local water quality requirements. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Management would seek to prevent water quality degradation, and improve watershed function throughout the 

Planning Area. 

The objective on Decision Area lands would be 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 

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. 

The Land Health Standards would be implemented to 

ensure water quality meets State standards and beneficial 

uses are protected or restored. BMPs would be used to 

prevent non-point source water pollution and mitigation 

measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis. 

Permits pertaining to projects affecting water quality, 

wetlands, or streams would be obtained, and outside 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 81 
Chapter 2 

applicants would be required to provide copies of pertinent permits prior to BLM authorization. 

BLM would continue to coordinate and cooperate with 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(MDEQ) and communities in the development of Water 

Quality Restoration Plans and Source Water Protection 

Plans. 

BLM would use the State of Montana BMPs to address 

non-point source water pollution (Appendix D - BMPs). 

BLM would comply with the non-degradation provisions of the Montana Water Quality Act. 

Projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to 

minimize impacts to water quality. BLM would use 

“reasonable land, soil, and water conservation practices” 

to prevent harm to public health, recreation, safety, welfare, livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, or other wildlife 

prior to the adoption of a water quality restoration and 

TMDL plans. 

Water rights and instream flow reservations would be 

maintained subject to Montana water law. BLM would 

participate in the Montana Statewide water adjudication 

process and comply with Montana law for water rights. 

Alternative A – No Action 

There is no additional management in this alternative 

beyond that described above in “Management Common 

to All Alternatives.” 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Existing water rights would be maintained to ensure 

water availability for multiple-use management and 

proper functioning riparian and upland areas. 

Water quality would be monitored to establish baseline 

conditions, identify areas of concern, and document 

progress from mitigation measures. 

BLM would 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. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

BLM would examine "Water Quality Restoration Plans" 

(Plans) to determine if reduction targets of pollutants 

(TMDLs) are reasonable and attainable. Plans would be 

implemented as funding becomes available. 

BLM would consider acquiring water rights from willing 

sellers. 

Burned areas would be monitored for weed infestations 

and accelerated soil erosion. Where sedimentation impacts adjacent streams, erosion would be remediated. 

Alternative C 

BLM would reduce pollutants in streams to levels indicated in "Water Quality Restoration Plans.” Plans would 

be implemented as funding becomes available. 

BLM would consider acquiring water rights from willing 

sellers. 

Burned areas would be monitored for weed infestations 

and accelerated soil erosion. Accelerated soil erosion 

and sedimentation in burned areas would be remediated. 

Alternative D 

BLM would continue present levels of stream restoration 

activities. Progress of past actions to improve water 

quality would be monitored. 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Goal 1 – Manage visual resources in accordance with 

VRM classifications described in Appendix B – VRM. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, visual resources would be managed according to established guidelines for VRM 

classes as described in Appendix B – VRM. 

Visual resource design techniques and best management 

practices would be used to minimize short and long-term 

visual impacts. 

Contrast ratings would be completed for proposed projects in Class I and II areas, and for proposed projects in 

Class III and IV that are high impact projects or located 

in highly sensitive areas. 

VRM Class I objectives for all WSAs would be maintained. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Visual resources would continue to be evaluated as part 

of activity and project planning. Such evaluation considers the significance of the proposed project and the visual sensitivity of the affected area. Mitigation measures 

would be attached as appropriate to assure compatibility 

of projects with management objectives for visual resources. 

Under the continuation of current management, visual 

resources in the Decision Area would be managed as 

follows: 

Approximately 31,500 acres, including the six WSAs, 

would be managed as VRM Class I. 

All lands along the Yellowstone River, Missouri River 

(Upper Holter Lake to Spokane Hills), Upper Big Hole 

River Corridor (0.5 miles from each bank) and the 

Sleeping Giant ACEC totaling about 25,400 acres, 

would continue to be managed as VRM Class II. 

82 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

All remaining lands totaling about 245,350 acres would 

be managed as VRM Class III and IV. These areas 

would continue to be evaluated and protected on a caseby-case basis through project/activity plans. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives 

Management classifications would be 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 VRM classifications have higher visual resource 

values and protection measures. 

Alternative B - Preferred Alternative 

Under Alternative B, the majority of lands in the Decision Area would be managed under VRM Class III. 

VRM Class II would be increased by 18,200 acres while 

VRM Classes III and IV would be decreased accordingly as compared to Alternative A. Under Alternative 

B, objectives for visual resources would be to manage 

Decision area lands in accordance with the following 

acreages by VRM classes: 

• Approximately 31,500 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class I. These lands include all six WSAs. 

• Approximately 43,600 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

• Approximately 125,200 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class III. 

• Approximately 101,700 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class IV. 

Map 37 depicts the location of these classes throughout 

the Decision Area. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, objectives for visual resources 

would be to manage Decision Area lands as follows: 

• Approximately 31,500 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class I, including all WSAs. 

• Approximately 62,300 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

• Approximately 151,700 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class III. 

• Approximately 56,500 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class IV. 

Map 38 depicts the location of these classes throughout 

the Decision Area. This alternative promotes additional 

protection of visual resources and therefore has the 

highest acreages proposed under VRM Classes I and II. 

Alternative D 

Lands managed under VRM Class IV would increase in 

comparison to Alternatives B and C, but would still be 

less than under Alternative A, while VRM Classes II and 

III would decrease slightly. 

Under Alternative D, objectives for visual resources 

would be to manage Decision Area lands as follows: 

• Approximately 31,500 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class I, including all WSAs. 

• Approximately 1,300 acres would be managed as 

VRM Class II. 

• Approximately 142,900 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class III. 

• Approximately 126,300 acres would be managed 

as VRM Class IV. 

This alternative has the highest acres proposed under 

Classes III and IV. Map 39 depicts the location of these 

classes throughout the Decision Area. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES, TRADITIONAL 

CULTURAL PROPERTIES AND 

PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Goal 1 – Identify cultural resource sites, traditional 

cultural properties, and paleontological localities and 

mitigate impacts from natural or human-caused deterioration. 

Goal 2 – 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. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Cultural Resources and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

At the project level, the BLM would 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 Effect (APE). The BFO would continue Section 106 compliance by working through the 

State Protocol Agreement with the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. BLM would continue to make 

determinations of eligibility or non-eligibility for historic properties on land it manages and document all 

inventories and decisions effecting cultural resources in 

an annual report. If the project cannot be redesigned to 

avoid disturbance, the sites would be evaluated for their 

eligibility for listing on the National Register for Historic Places. If eligible sites cannot be avoided, the BLM 

would, in consultation with the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office, facilitate mitigation to recover data 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 83 
Chapter 2 

that would otherwise be lost. The BLM would also conduct inventories to gather information about cultural 

resources, as per Section 110 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

BLM’s consultation process for historic mining sites 

would 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. 

BLM would 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 would 

include other tribal resource specialists who may have 

an interest in project planning and management issues. 

Tribal consultation would be most frequent with those 

entities who historically occupied the Planning Area. 

Meeting with tribal representatives would be conducted 

at least once a year to coordinate consultation requirements and to maintain a good working relationship. 

All recorded sites would be assigned a use category to 

facilitate management of those cultural resources. See 

Definitions of Use Categories in Appendix J – Cultural 

Resources, section .42, A-F. 

Paleontological Resources 

Fossil localities would be afforded the same consideration as historic sites in project planning, and if localities 

are in the Area of Potential Effect, then projects would 

be redesigned where feasible in accordance with 

FLPMA and BLM Manual Section 8270. If projects 

cannot be redesigned to avoid fossil localities, then 

specimens would be excavated by permitted paleontologists. Assistance from permitted institutions and/or individuals would be routinely sought in order to properly 

map and record fossil localities. 

Opportunities for public outreach and education would 

be pursued as staffing and funding resources permit. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Cultural Resources and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

BLM would continue a dedicated program to inventory 

100 acres per year to meet obligations under Section 110 

of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

BLM would continue to provide public outreach and 

interpretive information on Montana prehistory and 

history at developed areas, and recreational and interpretive opportunities at significant historic sites with easy 

access to the public. 

Paleontological Resources 

At the project level, BLM would continue to map fossil 

localities so as to avoid those localities during project 

implementation. If the locality cannot be avoided, permitted institutions or individuals would be contacted to 

properly map, record, and/or recover, if necessary, paleontological resources. Public education and outreach 

would be conducted as time and funding permit. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives 

During the oil and gas leasing process, the following 

stipulation 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 would 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. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Cultural Resources and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

As an inventory objective, BLM would 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 would be inventoried each year for comparison. 

Educational and public outreach programs on cultural 

resources would be provided as requested. 

Eligible historic buildings would be maintained consistent with National Park Service standards by including 

them on the deferred maintenance schedule. Deteriorating cultural resources falling under the Experimental or 

Scientific Use Categories eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be mitigated by 

intensive recordation or data recovery. 

Paleontological Resources 

Direction for managing paleontological resources would 

be the same as Alternative A. 

84 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

Alternative C 

Cultural Resources and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

As an inventory objective, BLM would identify areas 

with a high potential for various archeological/historical 

site types, and conduct 1,000 acres of proactive inventory in those areas. Three hundred acres of low potential 

areas would be inventoried each year for comparison. 

Educational and public outreach programs would be 

provided for cultural and paleontological resources. 

BLM would develop volunteer agreements with local 

universities and interest groups to sponsor research and 

assist with fieldwork and maintenance responsibilities. 

Eligible historic buildings would be maintained consistent with National Park Service standards by including 

them on the deferred maintenance schedule. 

Paleontological Resources 

At the project level, BLM would continue to map fossil 

localities so as to avoid those localities during project 

implementation. If the locality cannot be avoided, permitted institutions or individuals would be contacted to 

properly map, record, and/or recover, if necessary, paleontological resources. BLM would cooperate with permitted institutions and/or individuals to map and record 

fossil localities. 

Alternative D 

Cultural Resources and Traditional Cultural 

Properties 

BLM would conduct proactive inventories of archeological/historical sites as time permits. 

Educational and public outreach programs would be 

provided as requested. 

Paleontological Resources 

Direction for managing paleontological resources would 

be same as for Alternatives A and B. 

LANDS AND REALTY 

Goal 1 – Look for opportunities to acquire non-federal 

land or interest in non-federal land with important resources and resource uses. 

Goal 2 – 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. 

LAND USE AUTHORIZATIONS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Land uses would 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; 

and Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) leases. 

R&PP transfers are handled below under the Land Ownership Adjustment section. 

Requests for land use authorizations would 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 would be followed as appropriate. In accordance 

with current policy, land use authorizations would 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 would 

not be required for those activities that are considered 

casual use of public lands. 

New right-of-way facilities would 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-ofway applications across roads that have been closed or 

have seasonal restrictions would be analyzed on a case 

by case basis. 

New communication site users would be grouped into 

existing facilities at established communication sites to 

reduce impacts and expedite application processing. Site 

plans would be completed prior to authorizing communication site uses in new areas. The use of alternative 

power sources would be considered where electric 

power is not available. 

Section 368 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 directs 

that the Secretary of the Interior, Department of Energy 

(DOE), USDA, Department of Commerce, and Department of Defense work together to identify energy corridors on federal land in the 11 western states. BLM is colead with DOE in the preparation of the Interagency 

West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS (PEIS) 

which is currently being prepared by an Interagency 

Corridor Planning Team. The Final PEIS will provide 

plan amendment decisions that will address numerous 

energy corridor related issues, including the utilization 

of existing corridors (enhancements and upgrades), 

identification of new corridors, supply and demand 

considerations, and compatibility with other corridor and 

project planning efforts. Decisions from this PEIS would 

be followed and implemented on Decision Area lands. 

BLM would provide recreation and public purposes 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 85 
Chapter 2 

leases or patents on BLM land that meets classification 

criteria. 

Proposals for renewable energy development would 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 and one near Livingston, are 

anticipated to have wind energy development in the 

future (Map 40). Guidelines from the Wind Energy 

Development Programmatic EIS (ROD signed December 2005) would be used when considering wind energy 

projects on BLM land. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) Interim Guidance to Avoid and Minimize 

Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines (USDI-FWS 

2003) would be utilized in the authorization of any new 

wind facilities. 

The latest version of Suggested Practices for Raptor 

Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 1996) would be 

implemented in the construction and operation of rightof-way facilities. 

Owners of non-Federal land surrounded by public land 

managed under FLPMA would be allowed a degree of 

access across public land which would provide for the 

reasonable use and enjoyment of the non-Federal land. 

The use of certain rights-of-way constructed on public 

lands prior to FLPMA are recognized as a valid use 

even though the laws under which they were authorized 

were repealed by FLPMA (i.e., ditches and canals under 

the Act of July 26, 1866; highways, roads, and trails 

under R.S. 2477, etc.). Recent regulations state that 

BLM would not renew grants issued before FLPMA. 

The holders of these authorizations must apply for a new 

FLPMA grant. 

Alternative A – No Action 

There would be no utility corridors formally designated 

under the No Action alternative. The Headwaters RMP 

designated avoidance areas for utilities in the Scratchgravel Hills, Sleeping Giant/Holter Lake, and Limestone 

Hills areas. Generally, areas of high public recreation 

use, high scenic and wildlife values, and residential 

areas would be avoided. Under this alternative 74,489 

acres would remain designated as avoidance and 952 

acres would be identified as “windows” where existing 

major facilities cross avoidance areas. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

The existing Communication Sites at Boulder, Bull 

Mountain, Limestone Hills, Montana City, Mt. Belmont, 

Toston, and Wickes would be formally designated as 

communication sites for the BFO. BLM would consider 

applications for new communications facilities and limit 

those uses to the designated sites. Map 40 shows the 

existing sites. Any new facilities to be located within the 

designated sites would be required to conform to the 

existing site plans and the designated uses identified on 

Table 3-28 in Chapter 3. 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. 

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

exclusion areas (approximately 27,361 acres). New 

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

allowed unless there are no other routing options (approximately 75,626 acres). Valid existing rights-of-way 

in avoidance areas would be recognized and holders of 

such authorizations would be allowed to maintain their 

facilities (Map 40). 

Two of the existing right-of-way corridors delineated in 

the 1992 “Western Regional Corridor Study”, (updated 

in 2003), would be designated where they cross public 

lands. The corridors are each currently occupied by 

electrical transmission lines. Nominal corridor width for 

the north-south oriented corridor would be 1,320 feet in 

width either side of the centerline of the existing facilities. The east-west oriented corridor would be 660 feet 

in width either side of the centerline of the existing facilities. Applicants for electrical transmission lines 69kV 

and larger and pipelines 10 inches in diameter and 

greater would be encouraged to locate such facilities 

within these two designated corridors. Each corridor 

would be designated for power lines (above ground and 

buried), telephone lines, fiber optic lines, pipelines, 

access roads, and other linear type right-of-ways. Specific proposals would require site-specific environmental 

analysis and compliance with permitting processes. 

Right-of-way facilities would not be placed adjacent to 

each other if safety, incompatibility issues, or conflicts 

were identified. 

Access to and along right-of-way corridors and use areas 

necessary to maintain existing facilities and construct 

new facilities would be provided across public lands. 

Other uses of right-of-way corridors and use areas would 

be permitted to the extent that they did not interfere with 

or preclude the use of these locations for their intended 

purpose and were consistent with other portions of the 

plan. 

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

would be authorized in a manner consistent with meeting Land Health Standards and applicable Best Management Practices. Renewals of existing authorizations 

would be analyzed, and if required, special stipulations 

would be added to meet or move toward meeting Land 

Heath Standards. In addition, an attempt would be made 

to negotiate changes in existing authorizations which 

would meet or move toward meeting Land Health Standards. 

86 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

WITHDRAWALS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

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

withdrawals would 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 would be 

recommended for revocation or modification. Other 

agency requests for withdrawal relinquishments, extensions, or modifications would be considered. 

Department of Interior and BLM policy will be followed 

in the consideration of any new withdrawals. New withdrawal proposals would 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, leases, permits, or cooperative 

agreements are inadequate to protect the resource values. 

A Legislative Environmental Impact Statement is currently being 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. Under all alternatives, the Congressional action resulting from this proposal/Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement would subsequently 

amend the Butte RMP. 

Land classifications are required to determine the suitability of public lands for transfer out of Federal ownership under a number of public land laws (Recreation and 

Public Purposes Act, Carey Act, Indian Allotments, 

Desert Land Entries, State Selections). The only one of 

these laws applicable in this Planning Area is the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. Classifications are 

essentially determinations of a parcel’s greatest value, or 

highest utilization, and are based on criteria in 43 CFR 

2400. 

Land classifications, as “de facto” withdrawals, would 

also be reviewed to determine if they should be continued or terminated. Any remaining Classification and 

Multiple Use Act retention classifications would be 

terminated. 

All new classifications would 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 

and therefore this classification would be terminated. 

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. Under all alternatives the 

R&PP classification would be revised to allow for 

R&PP patent. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Withdrawals would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis, in accordance with current withdrawal and mineral policy. 

Alternatives B and C 

Priority for new withdrawals would be for all developed 

recreation sites followed by new acquisitions through 

exchange or purchase, and in ACECs to protect resources and values as needed, in accordance with current 

withdrawal and mineral policy. 

Specific sites recommended for withdrawal from mineral entry are identified in the Locatable Minerals section, under Alternative B and C. Nine priority recreation 

sites are identified for withdrawal due to special existing 

or planned conditions such as exclusive public recreation 

uses for camping and day-use activities, high level of 

infrastructural development, highly concentrated visitation, and limited size. Riparian areas in the Muskrat 

Creek drainage are also proposed for locatable mineral 

withdrawal to protect an important westslope cutthroat 

trout population. 

Alternative D 

Withdrawals would be considered on a case-by-case 

basis in accordance with current withdrawal and mineral 

policy. 

LAND OWNERSHIP ADJUSTMENT 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

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 

would be retained and managed by BLM and lands in 

the disposal category would be available for land ownership adjustment. Methods of adjustment include exchanges, sales, transfers, fee acquisition, and donation. 

Land ownership adjustments would be considered on a 

case-by-case basis. 

Public lands with high resource values would generally 

be retained in federal ownership. All proposed land 

ownership adjustment actions would be analyzed in 

project specific environmental reviews. 

• Public access would be maintained or improved 

through all land ownership adjustment transacButte Draft RMP/EIS 87 
Chapter 2 

tions. Land transfers to other public agencies 

would be considered where improved management efficiency would result. BLM lands could be 

made available for community expansion if there 

are no other lands available to communities. 

• Direct purchase would be limited to cases where 

no practical alternatives exist and high public values would be acquired. Land and interests in lands 

obtained with LWCF appropriation would not be 

available for disposal by any means, nor would it 

be open to mineral entry or mineral leasing. 

• The need to protect newly acquired lands would 

be considered as part of the analysis prior to acquisition. If withdrawn, acquired lands would be 

managed under the terms and conditions of the 

withdrawal. Disposal parcels would 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 K – 

Lands) 

In addition to meeting the disposal criteria, lands to be 

sold would meet the following disposal criteria from 

FLPMA: 

• Such land must be 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 must have been acquired for a specific 

purpose and must no longer be required for that or 

any other federal purpose. 

• Disposal of such land would serve important public objectives that can only be achieved prudently 

or feasibly if the land is removed from public 

ownership and if these objectives outweigh other 

public objectives and values that would be served 

by maintaining such land in federal ownership. 

• No BLM lands in the BFO are suitable for Desert 

Land Entry. 

• If over the life of the plan land status updates 

identify additional parcels administered by BLM, 

those lands would be managed in the same manner 

as adjacent parcels or those in the same vicinity in 

regard to retention or disposal. 

• Federal minerals underlying non-Federal surface 

would 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. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Planning guidance with respect to land ownership adjustment would be the same as that provided by the 1984 

Headwaters RMP and the 1979 Dillon MFP. Further and 

more specific guidance would be provided by the “Land 

Pattern and Land Adjustment, Supplement to the State 

Director Guidance for Resource Management Planning 

in Montana and the Dakotas, 1984” (USDI-BLM 

1984b). This guidance was later amended by the 1989 

State Director’s guidance pertaining to access. This 

direction established land exchange as the predominant 

method of land ownership adjustment. It also established 

retention, disposal, and acquisition criteria to be used in 

categorizing public land. Criteria in the supplement were 

used to identify retention and disposal zones within the 

Butte Planning Area. These zones would be applied in 

this alternative. 

State Director Guidance for resource management planning in Montana and the Dakotas (USDI-BLM 1984b) 

provides criteria for retention or disposal, and for identifying acquisition priorities. Principle considerations 

would include public resource values, current use, and 

location, proximity to other agencies, manageability, and 

compatibility with adjacent land uses. 

Non-Federal land to be acquired by the BLM through 

exchanges generally would be located in retention areas. 

BLM administered land to be sold would meet the disposal criteria identified in State Director Guidance and 

the criteria derived from FLPMA. The method of sale 

would be determined on a case-by-case basis with the 

goal of avoiding unnecessary hardships on current public 

land users and surrounding or adjacent landowners. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Lands would be categorized as either retention or disposal for management purposes. Specific land ownership 

adjustment criteria developed for retention, disposal, and 

acquisition would be followed. (See Appendix K – 

Lands) 

Lands identified for retention and disposal are displayed 

on Map 41. Approximately 294,600 acres would be in 

the retention category. These are lands that would generally not be subject to land ownership adjustments. High 

priority lands for retention and potential future acquisition by the BLM would 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 would 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 would be considered to be consistent with 

88 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

this RMP and therefore plan amendments would not be 

required. 

Approximately 7,472 acres of land would be identified 

as available for disposal. These lands would be available 

for exchange or sale, subject to the criteria described in 

Appendix K – Lands. Legal descriptions of these parcels are located in Appendix K – Lands. Lands leased 

or conveyed under the Recreation and Public Purposes 

Act, would be classified for such disposal under Sec 7 of 

the Taylor Grazing Act (42 USC 315f) and 43 CFR 

2400. 

Right-of-way holders would be issued perpetual easements for their facilities prior to the disposal of any 

BLM parcels. 

ACCESS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

For the purposes of this section, access refers to the 

physical ability and legal right of the public, agency 

personnel, and authorized users to reach public land. 

BLM would acquire legal public access and administrative access to BLM land from willing landowners. 

Methods of accomplishing this would be through fee 

purchase, exchange, donation, and / or long term land 

use agreements. Easement acquisition would be the 

predominant method of obtaining legal access. If necessary, when BLM parcels are patented in land ownership 

adjustments, existing access could be retained using 

appropriate patent reservations. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Access would continue to be sought based on planning 

guidance provided by the Headwaters RMP/EIS as supplemented by the State Director Guidance on Access 

(USDI-BLM 1989). Legal public or administrative access would be obtained from willing landowners on a 

case-by-case basis as the need or opportunity arises 

using the criteria in the State Director’s guidance. (See 

Appendix K – Lands) 

In accordance with guidance in this latter document, the 

BFO would focus its access acquisition efforts on: 

• Larger blocks of BLM-administered land which 

are designated for retention in BLM ownership. 

• Areas with important resource values. 

• Areas where public demand for access is high. 

• Areas with substantial BLM investments. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

BLM would follow specific access criteria outlined in 

Appendix K – Lands for obtaining new access and 

managing existing access to BLM administered lands. 

Acquisition efforts would be focused on those routes 

designated as “open” in the travel plan that lack legal 

public access. 

UNAUTHORIZED LAND USE 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

BLM would abate realty-related unauthorized use 

through prevention, detection, and resolution. Unauthorized use of BLM administered land would be resolved 

through termination, short or long term authorization, 

sale, or exchange as appropriate. Resolution of trespasses would require settlement of trespass liabilities 

and reclamation of any resource damage. 

Resolution of trespasses would be conducted in accordance with 43 CFR 9230. 

ENERGY AND MINERALS 

Goal 1 – Ensure that federal minerals are available for 

energy and mineral exploration and development. 

Goal 2 – Manage exploration and development of mineral resources and ensure they are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. 

Goal 3 – Where possible, conserve significant or unique 

geological features. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

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. All Energy and Minerals exploration, development, and production activities would be 

managed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Mineral operations permits would identify requirements 

and BMP's necessary to avoid or minimize adverse effects on natural resources. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

For all exploration and mining proposals BLM would 

ensure operations take all practical measures to maintain, protect, or minimize disturbances to resources. 

Mineral activity would be managed to meet, or move 

toward meeting, Land Health Standards. 

Future changes to ESA listings of species or occupied 

habitats may require changes or modifications of proposed activities to comply with the requirements of the 

act. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 89 
Chapter 2 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Where no alternative to road construction exists, roads 

(including roads in riparian areas) would be kept to the 

minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity. 

Roads and facilities would be closed and the landscape 

rehabilitated when no longer required for mineral or land 

management activities. 

Alternative C 

No new or existing mineral operations (salable, leasable, 

and locatable) would be allowed to construct new structures, support facilities, or roads inside Riparian Management Zones. 

Alternative D 

New and existing mineral operations (salable, leasable, 

and locatable) would be allowed to construct structures, 

support facilities, and roads within riparian areas using 

stipulations and BMPs when necessary. Roads and facilities no longer required for mineral or land management activities would be reclaimed to the best extent 

possible. 

LEASABLE SOLID MINERALS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

BLM would 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 case by case basis. Site specific environmental analysis would be required to lease these minerals. 

LEASABLE FLUID MINERALS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Oil and Gas 

Federal oil and gas leasing authority for public lands is 

found in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended; 

and for acquired lands in the Acquired Lands Leasing 

Act of 1947, as amended. Leasing of federal oil and gas 

is affected by other acts such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, FLPMA (1976), the Wilderness Act 

of 1964, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, and the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas leasing 

Reform Act of 1987. Regulations and other guidance 

governing federal oil and gas leasing and lease operations are contained in 43 CFR Group 3100, Onshore 

Operating Orders, Notices to Lessees, and BLM handbooks, manuals and instruction memorandums. Regulations governing geophysical exploration are found at 43 

CFR 3150. 

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 (modifications of 

the lease), and permit approval requirements. 

The terms of existing oil and gas leases cannot be 

changed by the decisions in this document. When the 

lease expires, the area would be managed for oil and gas 

according to the decisions reached in this document. 

The BLM planning process determines availability of 

federal mineral estate lands for oil and gas leasing 

(Table 2-20). For federal oil and gas where the surface 

is managed by another federal agency, the BLM would 

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. RegulaTable 2-20 

Acres of Federal Mineral Estate Available or Not for Fluid Mineral Leasing 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D 

Acres Available for Oil and Gas Leasing 629,089 649,367 77,490 649,324 

No Surface Occupancy 

Timing Limitations 

Controlled Surface Use 

Standard Lease Terms 

265,296 

299,513 

25,651 

38,629 

292,171 

296,520 

40,869 

19,807 

26,109 

0 

32,504 

18,877 

104,069 

453,232 

15,315 

76,708 

Acres Unavailable for Oil and Gas Leasing 49,099 28,774 600,650 28,774 

Non-discretionary 28,774 28,774 28,774 28,774 

Discretionary 20,325 0 571,876 0 

Acreages shown do not exclude approximately 5,700 acres of lands acquired with Land and Water Conservation Funds that 

would not be open to oil and gas leasing. 

90 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

tions at part 43 CFR 3100.0-3(d); the Secretary’s general 

authority to prevent the waste and dissipation of public 

property; and the Attorney General’s Opinion of April 2, 

1941 (Vol. 40 Op. Atty. Gen 41) allow the BLM to lease 

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. 

Unavailable lands for this RMP (Table 2-20) would 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 would be leased 

with a no surface occupancy and no subsurface occupancy stipulation with no waiver, modification or exception provisions. There would only be a paper transaction 

with no physical impacts on the unavailable lands. There 

would be no exploration or development (drilling or 

production) within the unavailable lands. After issuance 

of a lease, the lease would be committed to a communitization agreement and the United States would then 

receive revenue in proportion to its acreage interest as it 

bears to the entire acreage interest committed to the 

agreements. 

Areas where oil and gas development could coexist with 

other resource uses would be open to leasing under standard lease terms or with added stipulations. 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 

“Leasing Process” in the “Oil and Gas” section of Appendix L – Fluid Minerals) 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. If the 

authorized officer determines the change to be substantial, the preferred alternative would be subject to a 30­

day public review period. 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. 

On Bureau of Reclamation lands, in addition to the resource specific stipulations under each alternative (e.g., 

wildlife, recreation); stipulations that are recommended 

by the Bureau of Reclamation would be used (see Oil 

and Gas section in Appendix L – Fluid Minerals). 

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. 

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 would result in the use 

of the same lease stipulation identified in this plan. 

These areas would be added to the existing data inventory without a plan amendment. In cases where the 

changes constitute a change in resource allocation outside the scope of this plan, a plan amendment would be 

required. 

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 Order, and (3) regulations and laws. (See “Permitting” in the “Oil and Gas” section of Appendix L – 

Fluid Minerals) 

Development of coal bed natural gas in and around 

Bozeman Pass in Gallatin County would be constrained 

by the zoning regulations developed for the Bozeman 

Pass Zoning District recently established by Gallatin 

County. These regulations established coal bed natural 

gas development as a "Natural Resources Conditional 

Use.” These uses are allowed upon obtaining a Natural 

Resource Conditional Use Permit through the county as 

described in the zoning district regulations. 

None of the lands within the Sheep Creek, Black Sage, 

Sleeping Giant, Elkhorns Tack-on, Humbug Spires, or 

Yellowstone Island Wilderness Study Areas would be 

available for oil and gas leasing under any of the alternatives unless they are released from their existing status, 

at which point they would be managed under the terms 

and conditions of the selected alternative identified from 

this RMP. 

Geothermal 

Lands in the Planning Area would be available for geothermal leasing, unless located within wilderness or 

WSAs or in instances where it is determined that issuing 

the lease would cause unnecessary or undue degradation 

to public lands or resources. There are Known Geothermal Resource Areas in the Planning Area at Boulder Hot 

Springs, Corwin Springs, and Marysville. A site-specific 

environmental analysis would be prepared should interest be expressed in exploring for or developing geothermal resources in the Planning Area. This analysis would 

address the application of stipulations and develop any 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 91 
Chapter 2 

additional mitigating measures over and above the lease 

stipulations required. 

Stipulations developed in this document for oil and gas 

leases would 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. 

Geophysical Exploration 

Oil and gas geophysical activity which is administered 

by the BLM is governed by regulations found at 43 CFR 

Subparts 3150, 3151, and 3154. Additional guidance is 

found in BLM Manual Section 3150 and Handbook 

3150. For additional information on geophysical operations and the BLM’s procedures and regulations see the 

“Geophysical Operations” portion of the oil and gas 

section of the Appendix L – Fluid Minerals. 

The BLM would review Notices of Intent to Conduct 

Geophysical Exploration in the Planning Area and develop appropriate mitigation measures so as not to create 

undue and unnecessary degradation. A site-specific 

environmental analysis would be prepared for each NOI 

filed. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Under the continuation of current management, approximately seven percent (49,099 acres) of BLM subsurface ownership administered by the BFO would not 

be available for oil and gas leasing (Table 2-20). This 

includes the Sleeping Giant, Sheep Creek, Elkhorns 

Tack-on, Black Sage, Humbug Spires, and Yellowstone 

Island WSAs. Other areas unavailable for oil and gas 

leasing in this alternative include core areas of state 

wildlife management areas. 

The remainder of federal mineral estate lands would be 

available for leasing, subject to the stipulations specified 

in Table 2-21, Appendix L – Fluid Minerals, or under 

Standard Lease Terms. Map 42 depicts lands available 

and unavailable for leasing under Alternative A. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

Approximately four percent (approximately 28,774 

acres) of BLM-administered federal mineral estate lands 

in the Planning Area would not be available for oil and 

gas leasing (Table 2-20). This includes the Sleeping 

Giant, Sheep Creek, Elkhorns Tack-on, Black Sage, 

Humbug Spires, and Yellowstone Island Wilderness 

Study Areas. The remainder of federal mineral estate 

lands in the Planning Area would be available for leasing, subject to the stipulations specified in Table 2-21, 

Appendix L – Fluid Minerals, or to Standard Lease 

Terms. Map 43 depicts lands available and unavailable 

under Alternative B. 

The timing limitation applied to sage grouse breeding 

habitats would be based on a three mile buffer for the 

BFO area rather than a more generally accepted two 

mile buffer. Radio telemetry studies in southwest Montana indicate that some populations of sage grouse are 

migratory and move considerable distances during their 

annual life cycle, including during their nesting season. 

In addition, habitat in the Planning Area is unevenly 

distributed. Based on the most current research examined in the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife 

Agencies' guidelines (Connelly et al. 2000), a five kilometer buffer is recommended for unevenly distributed 

habitats (thus the three miles for the BFO). The timing 

restriction applies to potentially suitable sage grouse 

habitat (sagebrush areas with adequate sage cover for 

nesting); therefore, not all acres within the three-mile 

buffer would be affected by the stipulation. Timeframes 

for the timing limitation have also been adjusted to limit 

use from March 1 through June 30 rather than March 15 

through June 15. This is because higher elevations in the 

southwest part of Montana (in comparison to eastern 

Montana) result in later use of breeding and nesting 

areas in certain portions of the Planning Area, while 

information from radio telemetry studies show use of 

low elevation leks as early as March 1. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, approximately 88 percent (600,650 

acres) of BLM subsurface ownership administered by 

the BFO would not be available for oil and gas leasing 

(Table 2-20). This includes the WSAs identified in 

Alternative B, plus lands in these additional locations: 

• Prairie Dog Towns 

• Sage Grouse Winter/Spring Range 

• Lands within 0.5 mile of Sage Grouse Strutting 

Grounds (leks) 

• State Wildlife Management Areas 

• Big Game Winter/Spring Range 

• Elk Calving/Big Game Birthing Areas 

• Lands within 1 mile of Bald Eagle Nesting/Breeding areas 

• Lands within 0.5 mile of Raptor Breeding Areas 

• Lands within 1 mile of peregrine falcon breeding 

territories 

• Lands within 0.5 mile of ferruginous hawk breeding territories 

• Lands within 1 mile of 99 to 100 percent pure 

westslope cutthroat trout habitats 

• Yellowstone Cutthroat Habitat 

• Municipal Watersheds 

The remainder of mineral estate in the Planning Area 

would be available for leasing, subject to the stipulations 

specified in Table 2-21, Appendix L – Fluid Minerals 

or to Standard Lease Terms. 

92 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
 

 

 

Alternatives: Management Concerns 

Table 2-21 

Lease Terms and Stipulations by Alternative 

Key 

TL Timing Limitation Stipulation NSO No Surface Occupancy Stipulation 

CSU Controlled Surface Use Stipulation NL No Lease 

SLT Standard Lease Terms NA Not Applicable 

Distances are enumerated and those equal or greater than 100 are feet and those 3 or less are miles. Time periods are month/day. 

Resource Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Wildlife 

Grizzly Bear – Recovery Zone CSU NSO NSO CSU 

Grizzly Bear – Denning Habitat (Distribution 

Zone) CSU TL 4/1-6/30, 

9/15-10/15 NSO CSU 

Gray Wolf Dens – NW MT Recovery Area CSU TL 4/15-6/30 1 NSO 1 CSU 

Prairie Dog Towns NSO 1⁄4 NSO NL NSO 

Sage Grouse Winter/Spring Range TL 3/1-6/30 TL 12/1-5/15 NL TL 12/1-5/15 

Sage Grouse Strutting Grounds (leks) NSO 500 NSO 1⁄4 NL 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄4 

Sage Grouse Breeding Habitat SLT TL 3/1-6/30 3 NSO 3 TL 3/1-6/30 3 

Wildlife Management Areas NL/NSO NSO NL NSO 

Big Game Winter/Spring Range TL 12/1-5/15 TL 12/1-5/15 NL TL 12/1-5/15 

Elk Calving/Big Game Birthing Areas TL 5/1-6/30 TL 4/1-6/30 NL SLT 

Bighorn Sheep Yearlong Range TL 12/1-5/15 TL 11/1-6/30 NL TL 11/1-6/30 

Bighorn Sheep Core Areas TL 12/1-5/15 NSO NL SLT 

Bald Eagle Nest Sites/Breeding Habitat NSO 1⁄2 + NSO 1⁄2 + NL 1 NSO 1⁄2 + 

TL 2/1-8/31 1 TL 2/1-8/31 1 TL 2/1-8/31 1 

Raptor Breeding Territories (Golden eagle, Prairie 

falcon, Swainson’s Hawk) NSO 1⁄4 TL 3/1-7/31 1⁄2 NL 1⁄2 SLT 

Peregrine Falcon Nest Sites/Breeding Habitat NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1 NL 1 NSO 1 

Ferruginous Hawk Breeding Territories NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 NL 1⁄2 + 

TL 3/1-8/31 1 TL 3/1-7/31 1⁄2 

Threatened and Endangered Species CSU CSU CSU CSU 

Fisheries 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat (90-99% pure) NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄2 CSU 1⁄2 

Westslope Cutthroat Trout Habitat (99-100% pure) NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 NL 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄2 

Fluvial/Adfluvial Arctic Grayling Habitat NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄2 CSU 1⁄2 

Bull Trout Habitat CSU NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1 NSO 1⁄2 

Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout Habitat NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 NL 1⁄2 CSU 1⁄2 

Class 1 Fisheries (Blue Ribbon) NSO 1000 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1 CSU 1⁄2 

Recreation 

Developed Sites NSO 300 NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 CSU 1⁄4 

Special Recreation Management Areas SLT CSU NSO SLT 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

Inventory Requirement CSU CSU CSU CSU 

National Register of Historic Places Eligible 

Properties/Districts and Paleontological Localities NSO 300 NSO 300 NSO 300 NSO 300 

Traditional Cultural Properties SLT NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄2 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 93 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Table 2-21 

Lease Terms and Stipulations by Alternative 

Key 

TL Timing Limitation Stipulation NSO No Surface Occupancy Stipulation 

CSU Controlled Surface Use Stipulation NL No Lease 

SLT Standard Lease Terms NA Not Applicable 

Distances are enumerated and those equal or greater than 100 are feet and those 3 or less are miles. Time periods are month/day. 

Resource Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D 

Visual Resources 

VRM Class II, III & IV Areas CSU CSU CSU SLT 

Vegetation, Wetlands, Riparian and Water Quality 

Wetlands, Floodplains and Riparian Areas NSO 500, 1000 NSO NSO NSO 

Special Status Plant Habitats CSU CSU CSU CSU 

Known or Discovered Special Status Plants or 

Populations NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄4 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 

Municipal Watersheds SLT NSO NL CSU 

Soils 

Slopes >30 percent on non-Boulder Batholith Soils 

or >20 percent on Boulder Batholith Soils CSU CSU CSU SLT 

Trails, Rivers and Special Designations 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Marysville) NSO 300 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1⁄2 SLT 

Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail SLT NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1 SLT 

Rivers Suitable for WSR Designation NSO 1000 NSO 1⁄2 NSO 1 NA 

Lands & Realty 

R&PPs and 2920 Authorizations SLT NSO NSO NSO 

Map 44 depicts lands available and unavailable under 

Alternative C. 

Alternative D 

Under Alternative D, approximately four percent 

(28,774 acres) of BLM subsurface ownership administered by the BFO would not be available for oil and gas 

leasing, including the WSAs (Table 2-20). The remainder of mineral estate in the Planning Area would be 

available for leasing, subject to the stipulations specified in Table 2-21, Appendix L – Fluid Minerals or to 

Standard Lease Terms. Map 45 depicts lands available 

and unavailable under Alternative D. 

LOCATABLE MINERALS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

The BLM recognizes that public lands are an important 

source of the Nation’s energy and non-energy mineral 

resources. The BLM is responsible for making public 

lands available for orderly and efficient development of 

these resources under principles of Multiple Use Management, and the concept of Sustainable Development. 

Standard management practices for locatable minerals 

in public land administration would continue across all 

alternatives. BLM would continue to coordinate with 

the MDEQ on the review, approval, inspection, and 

reclamation of all mining operations on federal lands. 

At a minimum, an annual compliance inspection of 

each active notice would be conducted. Requirements 

of all state and federal laws would be met in the management of mining operations. 

BLM would provide opportunities for mineral exploration and development. 

BLM would ensure accessibility to mineralized areas 

for exploration and development. 

No casual use areas of concern or suction dredge use 

areas would be identified or designated. 

BLM would strive to provide for timely permit evaluation and processing of federal energy and solid mineral 

exploration and development proposals. 

A Plan of Operations would 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 

94 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

resource sites and fossil localities, etc.) may require 

special measures to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation during mineral exploration (and geophysical 

exploration) and development would be identified. 

BLM would develop and implement measures to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation from exploration, mining, and reclamation activities. BLM would 

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. 

Reclamation and restoration activities would be monitored to determine effectiveness of the practices. 

For locatable minerals, placer mining operations, reclamation activities would be required to restore the 

stream channel and riparian habitat to functioning condition as close to pre-mining conditions as possible. 

As information becomes available, known areas of 

geological hazards (for example landslide prone areas, 

avalanche areas, rock fall areas and unstable ground) 

would be mapped. 

The Devil’s Elbow Recreation Area located on Hauser 

Lake would continue to be withdrawn due to its high 

level of visitation, development, and exclusive use for 

concentrated recreation activities. This recreation area 

totals approximately 142 acres and includes three developed sites (Devil’s Elbow, Clark’s Bay, and Two 

Camps Vista). 

Approximately 5,700 acres of land acquired with Land 

and Water Conservation Funds since development of 

the Headwaters RMP and Dillon Management Framework Plan would not be opened to locatable mineral 

entry. 

Approximately 8,883 acres of land are withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry (with some exceptions primarily 

for Public Water Reserves described in chapter 3). 

These lands would remain withdrawn under all alternatives. 

Alternative A – No Action 

No additional areas would be proposed for mineral 

withdrawal. 

Locatable minerals would be managed as described 

under “Management Common to All Alternatives.” 

Alternatives B and C 

Locatable minerals would be managed as described 

under “Management Common to All Alternatives” and 

“Management Common to Action Alternatives” under 

Energy and Minerals. 

In Alternatives B and C, in addition to the approximately 8,883 acres previously described as withdrawn 

under “Management Common to All Alternatives”, an 

additional approximately 407 acres would be proposed 

for withdrawal from mineral entry. Approximately 227 

of these acres would be in highly visited and developed 

recreation sites that are exclusively used and constitute 

substantial financial investments by BLM. An additional approximately 180 acres of riparian areas in 

Muskrat Creek and Nursery Creek would be proposed 

for withdrawal (Table 2-22, Map 46). All sites listed in 

Table 2-22 are developed recreation sites, with the 

exception of the Muskrat/Nursery Creek area. 

Table 2-22 

Areas Proposed For Withdrawal From 

Mineral Entry in Alternatives B and C 

Site Name Approximate Acres 

Departure Point 5 

Divide Bridge 8 

Divide Campground 17 

French Bar 44 

Holter Dam 13 

Holter Lake 29 

Log Gulch 39 

Spokane Bay 8 

White Sandy 64 

Muskrat/Nursery Creek 180 

Total Acres 407 

The Muskrat/Nursery Creek proposed withdrawal is 

intended to protect habitat for a genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout population (sensitive species) that 

has undergone a successful interagency restoration 

project over the past 10 years. Funding and labor from 

the USDA Forest Service, BLM, MFWP, Montana 

State University, and Trout Unlimited have successfully 

eradicated non-native brook trout from Muskrat Creek, 

thus creating a currently thriving genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout population. Muskrat Creek has 

importance to westslope cutthroat trout restoration 

beyond the local level because after the ten year, 

$50,000 restoration effort, its population is now used as 

a donor source to re-establish westslope cutthroat trout 

in a number of different locations in the State of Montana. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has identified 

Muskrat Creek as having the most secure and strongest 

population of westslope cutthroat trout in the entire 

Elkhorn Mountain range (Lee Nelson, MFWP Fisheries 

Biologist, personal communication 2006). 

Westslope cutthroat trout have declined in abundance, 

distribution, and genetic diversity throughout their 

native range. In the Missouri River drainage of Montana genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to persist in less than 5 percent of the habitat 

they once occupied. To prevent listing under the Endangered Species Act, federal and state managers need 

to ensure conservation of local populations, preservation of genetic diversity and work towards the longterm, self-sustaining persistence of westslope cutthroat 

trout (MFWP 1999b). 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 95 
Chapter 2 

The 180 acres proposed for the Muskrat/Nursery Creek 

withdrawal would provide the minimum amount of 

protection to water quality, stream morphology, and 

riparian function to protect the restored and unique 

population of westslope cutthroat trout. This withdrawal would protect the genetically pure westslope 

cutthroat trout population in Muskrat Creek by preventing loss of riparian vegetation, streambed and bank 

destabilization, erosion and sedimentation, loss of 

floodplain vegetation, alteration of floodplain morphology, and alteration of stream channel morphology that 

could occur in association with locatable mineral activity, particularly placer mining. Another key impact that 

placer mining (including casual use) could have on 

westslope cutthroat trout, is excavation, crushing or 

disturbance of streambed gravels during the critical 

period when trout are spawning and eggs are incubating/hatching (June 15 through August 31). If mining 

operations cause a decline in the population, the 

population could no longer be able to function as a 

donor source for Montana and impede restoration 

efforts. Muskrat and Nursery Creek are located in the southern 

Elkhorn WSA which was evaluated in the joint Bureau 

of Mines and USGS report Mineral Summary Bureau of 

Land Management Wilderness Study Areas in Montana 

(1990). In the Muskrat and Nursery Creek areas the 

report concluded that there is high resource potential for 

copper, molybdenum and tungsten with a certainty level 

of D (available information clearly defines the level of 

mineral resource potential, the highest level of confidence), as well as a moderate mineral resource potential 

for uranium and thorium with a certainty level of C 

(Available information gives a good indication of the 

level of resource potential, US DOI Bureau of Mines 

and USGS, 1990). 

No potential for placer mining has been identified in 

either Muskrat or Nursery Creek; therefore there is a 

very low probability of any proposals being submitted 

to the BLM. In the absence of a mineral withdrawal, 

should a miner propose to conduct placer mining in 

these drainages, timing stipulations could be attached to 

the permit to protect critical periods of spawning and 

incubation/hatching. Should lode mining be proposed 

for any of resources identified in the Bureau of Mines 

report mining practices, BMPs, reclamation/rehabilitation techniques, and bonding would be 

applied. If unavoidable impacts were to occur they 

would be mitigated through restoration at the conclusion of mining to the extent practicable. In spite of 

these measures, minerals operations that substantially 

reduce the size of the westslope cutthroat trout population and/or have long-term substantial adverse effects 

on aquatic habitat could eliminate the ability to use this 

fish population as a donor source to re-establish other 

populations. 

Alternative D 

A total of approximately 8,883 acres would remain 

withdrawn from mineral entry. Many acres of BLM 

administered lands along the Missouri River Chain of 

lakes are included in Power Site Reserve and Power 

Project withdrawals. Many of these lands are adjacent 

to existing reservoirs and power projects. An additional 

160 acres are withdrawn to include the unique geological feature of the Ringing Rocks area. 

No additional areas would be proposed for mineral 

withdrawal. 

Locatable minerals would be managed as described 

under “Management Common to All Alternatives” and 

as described under “Management Common to Action 

Alternatives” under Energy and Minerals. 

SALABLE MINERALS 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

BLM would dispose of salable minerals on unpatented 

mining claims only for a public purpose when no reasonable alternative exists. Salable mineral sites would 

have an approved mining and reclamation plan and an 

environmental analysis prior to being opened. Mineral 

material would be sold at a fair market value to the 

public, but would be free to state, county, or other local 

governments when used for public projects. Mineral 

material sales would be processed on a case-by-case 

basis. 

Alternative A – No Action 

The BLM would 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 would be encouraged and all 

impacts to natural resources would be minimized. 

Alternative B – Preferred Alternative 

The BLM would 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 would be 

encouraged. All development and operating impacts to 

natural resources and local residence would be minimized. 

96 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Management Concerns 

Alternative C 

The BLM would not allow the purchase of salable 

minerals (common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, 

pumice, cinders, clay and petrified wood), unless desired by the state or counties, or within existing community pits. 

Alternative D 

The BLM would 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. 

ABANDONED MINE LANDS 

Goal 1 – Reclaim AML sites on public land to improve 

water quality, plant communities, and diverse fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

Goal 2 – Reduce and/or eliminate risks to human health 

from hazardous mine openings. 

Goal 3 – Protect historic resources and wildlife habitat 

commonly associated with AML sites. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

To the extent possible on BLM lands, BLM would 

strive to meet state and federal water quality standards 

in watersheds impacted by historic mining. 

BLM would assess level of risks at AML sites and 

prioritize for reclamation based on standardized risk 

assessment. Reclamation would be implemented at the 

highest risk sites first. 

Where deemed appropriate by BLM personnel, BLM 

would restore severely impacted soils and watersheds 

as close as possible to pre-disturbed conditions that 

support productive plant communities and ensure properly functioning watersheds. 

Closures of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine 

sites would be designed to reduce the risks to human 

health and safety, restore the environment, and protect 

geological and cultural resources and meet or move 

toward meeting Land Health Standards. 

Restoration and reclamation activities and repositories 

would be monitored to determine effectiveness of reclamation practices. 

Operation, maintenance, and evaluation activities 

would be conducted in a manner to ensure the effectiveness of the selected remediation. 

To the extent possible on BLM lands, BLM would 

strive to meet state and federal air quality standards in 

the interest of protecting human health potentially impacted by fugitive dust emissions. 

All resource activities would be required to reclaim and 

restore AML or hazard reduction sites to the extent 

necessary to protect work performed on the site. 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

MANAGEMENT 

Goal 1 – Minimize threats and reduce risks to the public and environment from hazardous materials. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

BLM would comply with all appropriate laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials. Disposal of hazardous materials on public lands would 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 would be 

applied to comply with appropriate laws, regulations, 

and policies. In the event of hazardous materials incidents on public land, standard operating procedures 

would be used to respond. Cleanups and reclamation 

would be conducted in accordance with the National 

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan and the NEPA decision. 

BLM would 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. 

BLM would minimize and remediate hazardous materials spills or incidents. 

Environmental Site Assessments would be conducted 

for land acquisitions, land disposals, and for right-ofways if applicable. Land uses would be authorized and 

managed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials incidences on public land. 

BLM would assess level of risk at hazard sites and 

conduct remediation at highest priority sites that are the 

greatest risks to the public and environment. 

Pollutants, such as flammable liquids and lubricants, 

would 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). 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 

ENVIRONMENT 

Goal 1 – Provide opportunities for economic benefits 

while minimizing adverse impacts on resources and 

resource uses. 

Goal 2 – Provide for a diverse array of activities that 

result in social benefits for local residents, businesses, 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 97 
Chapter 2 

visitors, interested citizens, and future generations, 

while minimizing negative social effects. 

Goal 3 – 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 4 – Protect visual quality, wildlife habitats, and 

recreation opportunities to sustain non-market values. 

Goal 5 – Make resource commodities available to provide a sustainable flow of economic benefits within the 

capability of the ecosystem. 

Management Common to Action 

Alternatives (B, C, and D) 

Identified Special Recreation Management Areas and 

the remaining Extensive Recreation Management Areas 

would be managed for identified user markets, activities, and experience levels. 

Collaborative and/or stewardship processes would be 

used in the analysis and treatment of all resources and 

uses, as possible. 

BLM would 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. 

Use of new and developing technologies and industries 

would be encouraged in achieving healthy forest, stewardship, biomass utilization, and fuel management 

goals. 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ) 

Goal – 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”. Evaluate and disclose whether actions have negative consequence on EJ populations and avoid where practical. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, BLM would 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. 

TRIBAL TREATY RIGHTS 

Goal – Accommodate treaty and legal rights of Native 

American groups in management of public lands. Tribal 

treaties affecting the Decision Area are contained in 

Appendix J – Cultural Resources. 

Management Common to All 

Alternatives 

BLM would notify and consult with tribes on BLM 

actions. Consultation and coordination would be conducted on a government to government basis with federally recognized tribes. 

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 

BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL 

The following alternatives were considered but not 

analyzed in detail because they were outside of the 

technical or legal constraints of developing land use 

plans for public lands and resources. 

INCREASED MOTORIZED ACCESS 

In the context of travel planning, an alternative was 

proposed to emphasize motorized recreation in the 

Scratchgravel Hills and Marysville areas beyond currently available motorized access. This alternative was 

not analyzed in detail because it did not meet the purpose and need for site-specific travel planning (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) and 

because it entailed promoting public use of a number of 

routes for which BLM currently lacks legal access 

through private lands for public use. Portions of this 

alternative were incorporated into Alternative D where 

BLM has legal access through private lands. 

CONSTRUCTION OF A CAMPGROUND 

AND MOTORIZED TRAILHEAD IN THE 

MARYSVILLE AREA 

An alternative to include campground and trailhead 

construction are generally activity plan decisions not 

regularly addressed at the RMP scale. Construction of 

these facilities could follow in the future if they are 

found to be consistent and complementary to the travel 

plan and RMP decisions that will be made for the 

Marysville area with this RMP. Future decisions on 

whether to construct these facilities would consider the 

relative priority of these facilities compared to other 

facility construction and maintenance in the BFO. 

ADDITIONAL ACEC NOMINATIONS 

Jerry Johnson Creek, City of Butte Big Hole River 

Diversion, Soap Gulch-Camp Creek, and High Ore 

Creek areas were nominated as ACECs. None of these 

areas were carried forward as potential ACECs because 

each failed to meet either relevance or importance criteria to qualify as potential ACECs (see Appendix H – 

ACECs). 

98 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Alternatives: Comparison of Alternatives 

MORATORIUM ON LAND EXCHANGES 

An alternative to place a moratorium on land exchanges 

was considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

Congress, through the passage of the Federal Land 

Policy and Management Act (43 U.S. C.1716), has 

determined that land exchanges are an appropriate land 

management tool to consolidate land ownership for 

more efficient management as long as individual exchanges are determined to be in the public interest and 

are done within regulatory constraints. Appendix K – 

LANDS includes criteria that would be used in evaluating potential land parcels involved with land exchanges. 

REDUCED LIVESTOCK GRAZING 

An alternative to substantially reduce the number of 

AUMs in some BLM grazing allotments (excluding 

allotments acquired through recent land acquisitions 

and exchanges) was considered as a means to minimize 

conflicts between livestock grazing and recreational 

users and wildlife. This alternative was not analyzed in 

detail because across all alternatives individual allotments would be assessed and managed through implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and 

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

Adjustments to livestock management practices or 

livestock numbers, including increases or decreases, 

would be made in accordance with the results of rangeland health assessments, monitoring studies, and allotment evaluations and interdisciplinary review. (These 

decisions are activity plan or implementation level 

decisions.) 

COMPARISON OF 

ALTERNATIVES 

Table 2-23 presents a comparison of the main concepts 

which comprise the alternatives and the numerical 

contrast between alternatives in terms of acres affected 

by the various management prescriptions. This table is 

organized by issue and management concern as presented in Chapter 2. 

COMPARISON OF IMPACTS 

The environmental impacts of the alternatives can be 

compared by examining the key components described 

in Table 2-24. Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences 

includes a detailed description of the probable outcomes. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 99 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives ISSUE 1: Vegetation Communities

General Management 

GENERAL APPROACH TO VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Goals

• Maintain and/or improve ecological health of woodland communities for sustainability and diversity. • Manage dry forest types to contain healthy stands of site-appropriate species.• Manage moist forest types to contain healthy stands that combine into a diversity of age classes and structure. • Manage old growth forest structures in a sustainable manner.• Minimize infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds. • Manage upland vegetation communities by including a full range of herbaceous and shrub species.• Maintain or enhance communities of priority habitats to provide desired ecological functions and values. • Manage riparian and wetland communities for the appropriate composition, density and age structure. • Manage wetland and riparian habitats to support healthy, diverse and abundant populations of fish and associated aquatic and riparian dependent species. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Treatments in dry forest types (Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, interspersed with limber pine) would be designed to mimic pre-fire suppression conditions. • Emphasis would be on mechanical or hand thinning treatments in Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) areas.• Outside WUI areas prescribed burning would be emphasized except when not economically feasible or if effects could be detrimental to vegetation or soils.• Treatments in cool, moist forest types (Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine fir, and spruce) would be focused on reducing stem densities and creating appropriate openings to mimic pre-fire suppression conditions.• In lodgepole pine stands, mechanical treatments (including timber harvest) would be used to create openings to mimic stand-replacing fire events and to regenerate lodgepole pine.• Grassland and shrubland habitats would be treated to remove conifers that have encroached into these areas in part due to fire suppression. • Riparian vegetation would be treated to re-establish pre-fire suppression conifer stem densities and distribution. In areas of aspen this would include removing conifers. 

 100 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT TOOLS

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Mechanical treatments including thinning small and large diameter sized trees, chipping, grinding, or piling non-commercial sized trees would be used to restore vegetative conditions as needed in all vegetation types.• Prescribed burning would be used to eliminate conifer encroachment and stimulate vegetative regrowth in grassland/shrubland habitats; and to reduce fuels, 

thin understories, recycle nutrients, and create small openings in forested vegetation types. 

• Noxious weed treatments would include hand-pulling, chemical spray, biological treatments, cultural treatments, and public outreach. 

Grasslands and Shrublands – Priority Treatment Areas Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Sagebrush and grassland distribution and vigor would be restored through vegetative treatments. • Conifer reduction treatments could result in commercial forest products such as biomass, post and poles, and firewood. • Up to 850 acres of crested wheatgrass seedlings, agriculture fields and weed infestations in the McMasters and Ward Ranch acquisitions would be converted 

from non-native vegetation to native vegetation.

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Priority treatment areas would includebig game winter range, sagebrush,bighorn sheep habitat, and the Wildland Urban Interface. 

Priority treatment areas would includebig game winter range, Wildland UrbanInterface, and current sage grouse habitat. 

Priority treatment areas would include

big game winter range, Wildland Urban

Interface, current and historic sagebrush habitat, forest meadows andparks, and bighorn sheep habitat.

Grasslands Objectives - Proposed Range of Grassland Treatment Acres Per Decade by Major Watershed 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Big Hole - N/A Big Hole -500 to 2,500 (of 16,344) Big Hole - 100 to 250 (of 16,344) Big Hole - 1,000 to 3,500 (of 16,344)

Blackfoot - N/A Blackfoot - 0 to 50 (of <100) Blackfoot – 0 (of <100) Blackfoot - 0 to 100 (of <100) 

Gallatin - N/A Gallatin - 0 to 200 (of 860) Gallatin – 0 (of 860) Gallatin - 0 to 400 (of 860)

Jefferson - N/A Jefferson - 500 to 3,000 (of 39,720) Jefferson - 400 to 500 (of 39,720) Jefferson - 1,000 to 6,000 (of 39,720)

Missouri - N/A Missouri - 1,750 to 6,000 (of 73,965) Missouri - 750 to 1,250 (of 73,965) Missouri - 3,500 to 9,000 (of 73,965)

Yellowstone - N/A Yellowstone - 0 to 50 (of 4,409) Yellowstone – 0 (of 4,409) Yellowstone - 0 to 50 (of 4,409)

Total - 5,250 (of 135,398) Total - 2,750 to 11,800 (of 135,398) Total - 1,250 to 2,000 (of 135,398) Total - 5,500 to 19,050 (of 135,398) 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 101 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Shrublands Objectives - Proposed Range of Shrubland Treatment Acres Per Decade by Major Watershed 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Big Hole -N/A Big Hole -550 to 2,000 (of 12,126) Big Hole -150 to 450 (of 12,126) Big Hole -1,100 to 4,000 (of 12,126)

Blackfoot - N/A (of < 100) Blackfoot - 0 to 50 (of < 100) Blackfoot – 0 (of < 100) Blackfoot - 0 to 100 (of < 100)

Gallatin - N/A Gallatin - 0 to 50 (of < 100) Gallatin – 0 (of < 100) Gallatin - 0 to 100 (of < 100)

Jefferson - N/A Jefferson - 300 to 1,000 (of 5,452) Jefferson - 75 to 200 (of 5,452) Jefferson - 600 to 1,500 (of 5,452)

Missouri - N/A Missouri - 150 to 500 (of 1,714) Missouri - 25 to 100 (of 1,714) Missouri - 150 to 1,000 (of 1,714)

Yellowstone - N/A Yellowstone - 0 to 50 (of 366) Yellowstone – 0 (of 366) Yellowstone - 0 to 100 (of 366)

Total – 0 (of 19,858) Total - 1,000 to 3,650 (of 19,858) Total - 250 to 750 (of 19,858) Total - 1,850 to 6,800 (of 19,858)

Grasslands and Shrublands - Revegetation Seed Mix 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Native Seed Mixture Unless ModifiedThrough NEPA 

Native or low impact, non-invasive seedmixtures would be used to restore vegetation on disturbed ground. 

Only native seed species would beused to restore vegetation on disturbedground. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Forests and WoodlandsGoals

• Restore and/or maintain the health and productivity of public forests, to provide a balance of forest and woodland resource benefits to present and future generations. • Manage forestry resources to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic values. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Vegetation structure, density, species composition, patch size, pattern, and distribution would be managed in a manner to reduce the occurrence of unnaturally large and severe wildland fires and forest insect outbreaks.• Stands with characteristics indicating a substantial risk of developing epidemic levels of forest insects and/or disease would be high priority for treatments to

reduce risk. 

• BLM would continue to provide personal use firewood and Christmas tree cutting permits offered cooperatively with the Forest Service, valid for wood collection from BLM and National Forest lands.• Salvage of forest products resulting from wildland fire, prescribed fire, forest insects and disease, weather induced or other forest mortality events would be 

considered. 

• Timber salvage project areas would consist of small openings, thinning between openings, and retention patches. In the event of large-scale disturbances, 

patches of dead and dying forest would be maintained for wildlife dependant upon this type of habitat. 

 102 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

• In all areas with dead and dying trees, tree cutting would be allowed to provide for human safety, fire rehabilitation, and forest or stream restoration activities. • Tractor logging would generally be limited to slopes with average gradients of less than 40 percent and the season of logging would be limited to reduce soil 

compaction and rutting.

• Mechanical treatments would be laid out to minimize risk of windthrow, and shelterwood harvests would be made to improve genetic composition of regenerated stands. • Whenever possible, openings larger than 20 acres resulting from forest treatments or disturbance events would be planted when natural regeneration does not 

occur at desired levels within 15 years or cannot be reasonably expected in 5 to 15 years.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Natural disturbance regimes would be maintained or mimicked so that plant communities are resilient when periodic outbreaks of insects, disease, and wildland fire occur. • Vegetation manipulation projects would be designed to minimize impacts to wildlife habitat and improve it when possible. • Forest management would emphasize old forest structures, snag management, and large diameter trees for cavity nesters where appropriate. • BLM would design fire restoration/rehabilitation standards on a case-by-case basis, compatible with landscape resource management objectives and longterm (25-year) vegetation health protection and fuels management.

FOREST PRODUCTS

• In all action alternatives, commercial harvest of forest products would normally be associated with vegetative restoration (including forest health) and fuels 

treatments and would 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.

• Special forest and range products would be managed according to sustainability limits and where consistent with other resource management objectives. • Residual stands left by disturbance events would be maintained to provide for natural regeneration and diversity of forest systems. • Firewood cutting would not be allowed in WSAs.

Forests and Woodlands (Dry Forest) Objectives – Proposed Range of Dry Forest Treatment Acres Per Decade by Major Watershed 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D

Big Hole - N/A Big Hole - 1,150 to 2,500 (of 19,905) Big Hole - 250 to 650 (of 19,905) Big Hole - 2,000 to 3,500 (of 19,905)

Blackfoot - N/A Blackfoot - 0 to 100 (of 368) Blackfoot – 0 (of 368) Blackfoot - 0 to 200 (of 368)

Gallatin - N/A Gallatin - 0 to 150 (of 533) Gallatin – 0 (of 533) Gallatin - 0 to 300 (of 533)

Jefferson - N/A Jefferson - 1,000 to 4,000 (of 31,936) Jefferson - 650 to 1,450 (of 31,936) Jefferson - 2,000 to 5,000 (of 31,936)

Missouri - N/A Missouri - 1,900 to 7,000 (of 59,988) Missouri - 1,150 to 2,700 (of 59,988) Missouri - 3,000 to 7,700 (of 59,988)

Yellowstone - N/A Yellowstone - 100 to 1,000 (of 2,196) Yellowstone – 0 (of 2,196) Yellowstone - 300 to 1,500 (of 2,196)

Total - 5,100 (of 114,926) Total - 4,150 to 14,750 (of 114,926) Total - 2,050 to 4,800 (of 114,926) Total - 7,300 to 18,200 (of 114,926) 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 103 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Forests and Woodlands (Cool, Moist Forest) Objectives - Proposed Range of Cool, Moist Forest Treatment Acres Per Decade by Major Watershed

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Big Hole - N/A Big Hole - 200 to 1,600 (of 9,868) Big Hole - 20 to 200 (of 9,868) Big Hole - 400 to 1,800 (of 9,868)

Blackfoot - N/A Blackfoot - 0 to 100 (of <500) Blackfoot – 0 (of <500) Blackfoot - 0 to 150 (of <500)

Gallatin - N/A Gallatin - 0 to 50 (of <100) Gallatin – 0 (of <100) Gallatin - 0 to 100 (of <100)

Jefferson - N/A Jefferson - 50 to 300 (of 2,059) Jefferson - 5 to 50 (of 2,059) Jefferson - 50 to 500 (of 2,059)

Missouri - N/A Missouri - 200 to 1,600 (of 7,165) Missouri - 20 to 275 (of 7,165) Missouri - 500 to 2,300 (of 7,165)

Yellowstone - N/A Yellowstone - 0 to 100 (of 551) Yellowstone - 5 to 25 (of 551) Yellowstone - 50 to 200 (of 551)

Total - 2,400 (of 20,243) Total - 450 to 3,750(of 20,243) Total - 50 to 550 (of 20,243) Total - 1,000 to 5,050 (of 20,243)

Forests and Woodlands (Forest Products Objectives) - Probable Sale Quantity 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Probable Sale Quantity would be 12 to27 MMBF (40,000 to 97,000 CCF) perdecade. 

Probable Sale Quantity would be 9 to25 MMBF (33,000 to 91,000 CCF) perdecade. 

Probable Sale Quantity would be 5 to12 MMBF (19,000 to 41,000 CCF) perdecade. 

Probable Sale Quantity would be 10 to30 MMBF (36,000 to 107,000 CCF)per decade. 

Forests and Woodlands (Forest Products) - Small Sales

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

The following permit types and estimated quantities would be anticipatedto be permitted per decade:

• 350 Permits: • 4,500 Christmas Trees• 750 Cords Firewood• 1,650 MBF Sawtimber (Included

with PSQ) 

• 55 CCF Post, poles, biomass,

other woody materials 

The following permit types and estimated quantities would be anticipatedto be permitted per decade:

• 450 Permits: • 5,500 Christmas Trees• 1,000 Cords Firewood• 2,100 MBF Sawtimber (Included

with PSQ) 

• 77 CCF Post, poles, biomass,

other woody materials 

The following permit types and estimated quantities would be anticipatedto be permitted per decade:

• 150 Permits: • 4,500 Christmas Trees• 50 Cords Firewood• 500 MBF Sawtimber (Included

with PSQ) 

• 55 CCF Post, poles, biomass,

other woody materials 

The following permit types and estimated quantities would be anticipatedto be permitted per decade:

• 600 Permits: • 9,000 Christmas Trees• 1,500 Cords Firewood• 5,200 MBF Sawtimber (Included

with PSQ) 

• 105 CCF Post, poles, biomass,

other woody materials 

 104 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Forests and Woodlands (Forest Products) - Small Sales/Firewood Cutting 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Removal of dead, down, or green treesfor firewood could be allowed. 

Unless specifically designated, dead ordown wood may be taken as firewood.At times, BLM could designate specificareas for firewood cutting of live treesto meet other resource objectives. 

No dead trees or down wood would beallowed to be removed for firewoodunless authorized in designated areas.Live trees could be removed for firewood in designated locations, and thejoint firewood permit system used byBLM and the USDA Forest Servicecould not be used. 

Same as Alternative B. 

No diameter limits for firewood cuttingare prescribed. 

No dead trees > 24" DBH would beallowed to be taken as firewood. 

No live trees >20" DBH would beallowed to be taken as firewood. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Forests and Woodlands (Forest Products) - Timber Salvage

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Salvage may proceed without prescriptive restrictions for species dependanton dead and dying forests or speciesdependant on down woody materials,but will continue to be subject to otherrestrictions, resource protections orspecial management considerationsrequired for all forest managementactivities under Alternative A. 

When salvage is proposed in dead anddying forests, contiguous acres of undisturbed standing and down woodymaterial would be retained in adequateamounts for those wildlife species thatdepend on this type of habitat.Outside of the contiguous areas identified for retention, harvest treatmentsmay include: 1) forest openings appropriate for the site and retention patchesof uncut dead and dying trees; or 2)forest openings appropriate for the sitewith selective thinning between openings and retention patches of uncutdead and dying trees; or 3) selectivethinning and retention patches of uncutdead and dying trees. 

Where contiguous acres of dead anddying forest exceed 1,000 acres, 50percent of the area would be maintained as retention. Harvest treatmentswithin the remaining project area mayinclude: 1) creation of forest openings,2) selective thinning between openingsand 3) 50 percent total retention acrossthe harvest treatment area. 

Where contiguous acres of dead anddying forest exceed 1,000 acres, 30percent of the area would be maintained as retention. Harvest treatmentswithin the remaining project area mayinclude: 1) creation of forest openings,2) selective thinning between openings,and 3) no retention requirements withinharvest treatment area. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 105 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Forests and Woodlands (Forest Products) - Road Access Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Roads would be constructed to theminimum standards necessary to remove the timber, unless the roadswould be needed for other public purposes requiring a higher standard.If needed, up to 5.5 miles of new permanent roads could be constructed peryear to provide access for treatments. 

Some new permanent roads may bebuilt for long-term management ofareas where multiple entries would benecessary to meet objectives. New roadconstruction would be kept to a minimum. Temporary road constructionwould also be kept to a minimum, andtemporary roads would be decommissioned within one year of project completion. 

Forest treatments would occur in areasalready accessible by the current roadsystem. No new permanent roadswould be constructed. Temporary roadconstruction would be kept to a minimum. Temporary roads would be decommissioned within 1 year of projectcompletion. 

Some new permanent roads may bebuilt for long-term management ofareas where multiple entries would benecessary to meet objectives. New roadconstruction, however, would be keptto a minimum. Some new permanentroads could be left open to the public iftravel plan objectives for the area aremet. Temporary road constructionwould be kept to a minimum.

Riparian VegetationManagement Common to All Alternatives

• At the Field Office scale, management would restore and improve riparian areas and wetlands. Riparian areas that are functioning at risk would be a high priority for restoration.• Authorized activities within riparian areas would 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.

• Forested riparian habitats would be managed to accelerate the development of mature forest communities to promote shade, bank stability, and woody debris 

recruitment. Late-successional riparian vegetation would be promoted in amounts and distribution similar to historic conditions. 

• The Montana Streamside Management Zone law would be followed as a minimum to protect riparian resources. • Riparian communities, habitat, and associated uplands would be treated and restored through implementation of livestock grazing guidelines to meet Land 

Health Standards.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Riparian areas would 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 would be kept on sitewhen needed to meet woody debris objectives.

• BLM would 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 would be designed to minimize impacts. 

• Mechanical or hand cutting and/or prescribed burning would be used to remove competing conifers from riparian ecosystems, including aspen clones. Commodity removal of juniper would be encouraged. 

 106 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Riparian Vegetation – Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Managed per the Montana StreamsideManagement Zone Law. 

RMZs from the edge of the aquatichabitat would be established as follows:Forested AreasStreams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirscontaining fish: The RMZ would consist of the water body and a zone located on all sides of the water body.This zone would extend from the outeredges of the bankfull channel (averagehigh water mark), full pool, or adjacentwetland a distance equal to the heightof two site-potential trees. (Site potential tree height – within forested areaswould be the average maximum potential height of dominant trees, in theRMZ).Perennial non-fish bearing streams:The RMZ would consist of the streamand a zone located on both sides of thechannel. This zone would extend fromthe outer edges of the bankfull channel(or adjacent wetland) a distance equalto one site-potential tree height.Non-fish bearing ponds, lakes, reservoirs, or wetlands greater than 1 acre:The RMZ would extend from the outeredge of the full pool or wetland a distance equal to one site-potential treeheight or to the edge of seasonallysaturated soil or wetland vegetation,whichever is greater. 

RMZs from the edge of the aquatichabitat would be established as follows:Forested AreasStreams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirscontaining fish: The RMZ would consist of the water body and a zone located on all sides of the water body.This zone would extend from the outeredges of the bankfull channel, full pool,or adjacent wetland a distance equal tothe top of the inner gorge, or the outeredge of the 100-year floodplain, or 300feet slope distance, whichever is greatest.Perennial non-fish bearing streams:The RMZ would consist of the streamand a zone located on both sides of thechannel. This zone would extend fromthe outer edges of the bankfull channel(or adjacent wetland) a distance equalto the top of the inner gorge, the outeredge of the 100 year floodplain, or 150feet slope distance which ever is greatest.Non-fish bearing ponds, lakes, reservoirs, or wetlands greater than 1 acre:The RMZ would extend 150 feet slopedistance from the outer edge of the fullpool or wetland. This area would alsoinclude all moderately and highly unstable areas. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 107 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Riparian Vegetation – Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) – continued 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Intermittent streams and wetlands lessthan 1 acre: The RMZ would consistof the water body and a zone located onall sides of the water body. This zonewould extend at least 50 feet from theouter edges of the bankfull channel oradjacent wetland.Non-forested AreasFor fish-bearing and non-fish bearingstreams, lakes, ponds, and reservoirs: the RMZ would consist of the waterbody and a zone located on all sides ofthe water body. This zone would extend from the outer edges of the bankfull channel (average high-water mark), full pool, or adjacent wetland a distance that encompasses the activefloodplain. The RMZ would extend 50feet above the break in slope leadingdown from the lowest terrace to thefloodplain, or in segments where treesare present, to a distance equal to 1site-potential tree height from the edgeof the feature, whichever is greatest.Intermittent streams and wetlands lessthan 1 acre: RMZs would be 50 feetfrom the edge of wetland vegetation oractive stream channel as indicated byriparian vegetation, saturated soil, orwater. The criteria for selecting thewidth may be different for each side ofthe water body. 

Intermittent streams and wetlands lessthan 1 acre: The RMZ would consistof the water body and a zone located onall sides of the water body. This zonewould extend at least 50 feet slopedistance from the outer edges of thebankfull channel or wetland.Non-forested AreasPerennial fish-bearing and non fishbearing streams or wetlands larger than1 acre: The RMZ would consist of the 

water body and a zone located on allsides of the water body. This zonewould extend from the outer edges ofthe bankfull channel, full pool, or adjacent wetland a distance that encompasses the active floodplain. RMZswould extend 150 feet above the breakin slope leading down from the lowestterrace to the floodplain.Intermittent streams and wetlands lessthan 1 acre: The RMZ would consist

of the water body and a zone located onall sides of the water body. This zonewould extend at least 50 feet from theouter edges of the bankfull channel orwetland. 

 108 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Riparian Vegetation Objectives - Proposed Range of Riparian Vegetation Treatment Acres Per Decade by Major Watershed 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Big Hole - N/A Big Hole - 50 to 200 (of 3,139) Big Hole - 20 to 50 (of 3,139) Big Hole - 75 to 650 (of 3,139)

Blackfoot - N/A Blackfoot - 0 to 40 (of 92) Blackfoot – 0 (of 92) Blackfoot - 0 to 40 (of 92)

Gallatin - N/A Gallatin - 0 to 10 (of 22) Gallatin – 0 (of 22) Gallatin - 0 to 10 (of 22)

Jefferson - N/A Jefferson - 50 to 200 (of 2,846) Jefferson - 20 to 50 (of 2,846) Jefferson - 75 to 300 (of 2,846)

Missouri - N/A Missouri - 100 to 200 (of 4,651) Missouri - 35 to 100 (of 4,651) Missouri - 150 to 600 (of 4,651)

Yellowstone - N/A Yellowstone - 0 to 50 (of 350) Yellowstone – 0 (of 350) Yellowstone - 0 to 100 (of 350)

Total – 30 (of 11,100) Total - 200 to 700 (of 11,100) Total - 75 to 200 (of 11,100) Total - 300 to 1,700 (of 11,100)

Note: Treatment acres are by mechanical and prescribed burning methods. For Alternative A, this treatment figure is a continuation of what has occurred; however, the current plan allows treatment in all riparian areas subject to other management constraints.Riparian Vegetation – Aspen

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Where the primary project objective is

aspen restoration, treated aspen standswould be fenced from livestock andwildlife when recovery could be suppressed by grazing and browsing. Fencing could consist of using native, onsite materials as barriers. 

The structure and composition of aspenstands would be determined by naturalprocesses or treated opportunisticallythrough other projects. Treated aspenstands would be fenced from livestockgrazing and, if necessary, wildlifegrazing, and browsing. There would bean emphasis on using native, on-sitematerials for “natural” barriers. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Riparian Vegetation - Firewood Cutting

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Firewood cutting would not be allowed

within 100’ of live (year-long flow)streams. Firewood cutting would not beallowed within 50’ of intermittentstreams. 

Firewood cutting would not be allowedwithin 200’ of live (year-long flow)streams. Firewood cutting would not beallowed within 100’ of intermittentstreams. 

Firewood would not be allowed to becut within 100 feet of live (yearlongflow) streams or within 50 feet of intermittent streams or within theStreamside Management Zone, whichever width is greatest. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 109 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Livestock Grazing

Goals

• Manage for a sustainable level of livestock grazing while meeting or progressing toward Land Health Standards. • Maintain, restore, or enhance BLM rangelands to meet the Land Health Standards.• Manage livestock grazing to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic values. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Livestock grazing would be managed through Implementation of Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing. • Cooperatively managed allotments with the USFS and Dillon Field Office would continue under existing Memoranda of Understanding. • Applications for unleased allotments and vacant available lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis. • Adjustments to livestock management practices or livestock numbers would be made based on results of monitoring studies, rangeland health assessments, 

allotment evaluations, and interdisciplinary review.

• Functional wildlife escape ramps would be installed and maintained on all water tanks on BLM lands. • Grazing practices in riparian areas that retard or prevent attainment of riparian goals or proper functioning condition would be modified. • New fences would be built to standard BLM wildlife specifications to allow wildlife passage • Livestock grazing guidelines for residual cover in Allotment Management Plans and monitoring of forage utilization would be developed. • No new term grazing permits would be authorized on river islands.• Water developments for livestock generally would not be established in areas where significant conflicts with wildlife forage and habitat occur. • Sufficient forage and cover would be provided for wildlife on seasonal habitat.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• For allotments without specific management objectives, the utilization level as measured at the end of the grazing season would not exceed 55 percent on

non-native seedlings and 45 percent on native herbaceous forage plants.

• Grazing uses on acquired lands would be considered on a case-by-case basis based on the values identified for the acquisition. • No new kind of livestock conversions from sheep or cattle to horses would be allowed on existing allotments smaller than 160 acres. • BLM would develop and implement appropriate grazing strategies in grizzly bear distribution zones. 

 110 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Livestock Grazing – Allowable Use

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Livestock grazing would be allowed onabout 273,000 acres. The amount offorage available on these lands wouldbe 25,677 Animal Unit Months(AUMs). 

Livestock grazing would be allowed onabout 265,000 acres of public land. Theamount of forage available on theselands would be 24,710 AUMs activeuse and 1,312 AUMs forage reserve,temporary non-renewable AUMs. 

Livestock grazing would be allowed onabout 262,000 acres of public land. Theamount of forage available on theselands would be 24,710 AUMs activeuse and 936 AUMs forage reserve,temporary non-renewable AUMs. 

Same As Alternative A 

Livestock Grazing - McMasters/Spokane Hills Areas

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the McMaster Hills andSpokane Hills individual allotmentswould become vacant and available toqualified applicants per the grazingregulations. These allotments would beadministered like all other existingallotments. 

After the current permittee ceases livestock grazing, the McMaster Hills andSpokane Hills individual allotmentswould become forage reserve allotments. Use would be authorized on atemporary, nonrenewable basis. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Livestock Grazing - Indian Creek/Iron Mask Areas

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

The existing Indian Creek allotment(2,215 acres and 376 AUMS) would beexpanded up to an additional 5,566acres and 700 AUMS by the Iron Maskacquisition. The Indian Creek allotmentwould be available to qualified applicants per the grazing regulations. Thisallotment would be administered likeall other existing allotments. 

The existing Indian Creek allotmentwould be expanded up to 5,566 additional acres and 700 AUMS by the IronMask acquisition. The allotment would be managed as a forage reserve allotment. Use would be authorized on atemporary, nonrenewable basis. 

The existing Indian Creek allotment(2,215 acres and 376 AUMS) as well asany lands acquired from the Iron Maskacquisition would be unavailable forgrazing lease or permit. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Livestock Grazing – Centennial Gulch Area

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

The Medicine Rock riparian areaswould not be available for prescriptionlivestock grazing. The CentennialGulch (Ward Ranch) allotment would be available to qualified applicants perthe grazing regulations. 

The Centennial Gulch (Ward Ranch)allotment and Medicine Rock (Northeast Helena) riparian area would onlybe available for prescription livestockgrazing to meet specific resourceobjectives. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 111 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Livestock Grazing – Relinquished Allotments Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Allotments where grazing preference isrelinquished during the life of the planwould remain available for livestockgrazing leases or permits. 

Allotments where grazing preference isrelinquished during the life of this planwould be evaluated for suburban/urbaninterface issues, critical wildlife habitat, riparian values, or recreationalconsiderations before re-offering thegrazing preference on the allotment forpermit or lease. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Livestock Grazing – Rest from Grazing Before Prescribed Burning

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Rest from livestock grazing in areasidentified for prescribed burning wouldbe determined through site-specificinterdisciplinary planning and NEPAprocesses. 

Areas identified for prescribed burningwould be rested from livestock grazingup to one year prior to treatment ifnecessary to produce fine fuels to carrythe burn, and for a minimum of twogrowing seasons following treatment topromote recovery of vegetation. Livestock rest for more or less than twogrowing seasons could be justified on acase-by-case basis. 

Areas identified for prescribed burningwould be rested from livestock grazingup to one year prior to treatment ifnecessary to produce fine fuels to carrythe burn, and for a minimum of twogrowing seasons following treatment topromote recovery of vegetation. 

Areas identified for prescribed burningwould be rested from livestock grazingprior to treatment if necessary to produce fine fuels to carry the burn, andfor a minimum of one growing seasonfollowing treatment to promote recovery of vegetation. Livestock rest formore than one growing season could bejustified on a case-by-case basis.

Livestock Grazing – Adjustments

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Forage and cover requirements wouldbe incorporated into allotment management plans and would be specific toareas of primary wildlife use. 

Grazing practices would be adjusted toprotect or enhance fish and wildlifehabitat when livestock grazing is acontributing factor to not meeting landhealth standards. 

Guidelines for residual ground coverwould be developed in Allotment Management Plans. Forage utilizationwould be monitored. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Livestock Grazing - Exclosures

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Currently existing exclosures would be

maintained free of livestock grazing.Routine maintenance would be completed annually on all exclosures beforelivestock turnout. 

Currently existing exclosures would bemaintained free from livestock grazing.Exclosures would be maintained annually before livestock turnout and wouldbe monitored to compare differencesbetween grazed and ungrazed areas. 

Currently existing exclosures would bemaintained free from livestock grazing.Exclosures would be checked andmaintained every five years. 

 112 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Livestock Grazing - Bighorn Sheep

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Existing Instruction Memorandum 98­140 (1998) would be followed to protect wild sheep. 

No change in livestock conversionsfrom cattle to domestic sheep or goatswould be allowed in allotments withinoccupied wild sheep habitat.New sheep and goat allotments orconversions from cattle to sheep orgoats would be permitted a minimumof 5 miles from known bighorn sheephabitat. This distance would be greaterif deemed necessary through sitespecific analysis.Goats and sheep could be used forweed control on winter ranges whenwild sheep are absent.To minimize contact with bighornsheep, domestic sheep and goats usedfor weed control would only be allowed to graze for up to 1 month nearoccupied bighorn sheep habitat andthere would be a minimum buffer of 2miles between domestic and wildsheep. Bedding grounds would be atleast 4 miles from known bighornsheep habitat. The use of domesticsheep and goats would only be allowedfrom 5/1 to 7/31, unless coordinatedwith MFWP. A herder would be required to be on site at all times and beable to communicate with the BLM,the herd owner and MFWP. If bighornsheep and domestic sheep and goats come into contact, the herder would berequired to contact the BLM andMFWP immediately. 

No change in livestock conversionsfrom cattle to domestic sheep or goatswould be allowed in allotments withinoccupied wild sheep habitat.New sheep and goat allotments orconversions from cattle to sheep orgoats would be permitted a minimumof 9 miles from known bighorn sheephabitat. This distance would be greaterif deemed necessary through site specific analysis.Goats and sheep could be used forweed control on winter ranges whenwild sheep are absent.To minimize contact with bighornsheep, domestic sheep and goats usedfor weed control would only be allowed to graze for up to two weeksnear occupied bighorn sheep habitatand there would be a minimum buffer of 4 miles between domestic and wildsheep. Bedding grounds would be atleast 6 miles from known bighornsheep habitat. The use of domesticsheep and goats would only be allowedfrom 5/15 to 7/15 unless coordinatedwith MFWP. A herder would be required to be on site at all times and beable to communicate with the BLM,the herd owner and MFWP. If bighornsheep and domestic sheep and goats come into contact, the herder would berequired to contact the BLM andMFWP immediately. 

The existing Instruction Memorandum98-140 (1998) would be followed toprotect wild sheep. Goats and sheepcould be used for weed control onwinter ranges when wild sheep areabsent.To minimize contact with bighornsheep, domestic sheep and goats usedfor weed control would only be allowed to graze for up to 1 month nearoccupied bighorn sheep habitat andthere would be a minimum buffer of 2miles between domestic and wildsheep. Bedding grounds would be atleast 4 miles from known bighornsheep habitat. The use of domesticsheep and goats would only be allowedfrom 5/1 to 7/31 unless coordinatedwith MFWP. A herder would be required to be on site at all times and beable to communicate with the BLM,the herd owner and MFWP. If bighornsheep and domestic sheep and goats come into contact, the herder would berequired to contact the BLM andMFWP immediately. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 113 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Wildland Fire Management

Goals

• Provide an appropriate management response to all wildland fires, emphasizing firefighter and public safety.• Move toward restoring and maintaining desired ecological conditions consistent with appropriate fire regimes. • Minimize the adverse effects of fire on resources, resource uses, and wildland-urban interface.• Promote seamless fire management planning across jurisdictions within the boundaries of the BFO.• Protect life and property by treating hazardous fuels on BLM lands near Wildland Urban Interface. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Helena National Forest, Gallatin National Forest, and the State of Montana DNRC would implement fire preparedness, prevention, and suppression on BLM administered lands through the interagency offset and six party fire protection agreements. • Use of retardant in Wilderness Areas or WSAs would be avoided and would require line officer approval. • Use of heavy equipment would be restricted to areas outside of Wilderness or WSAs. • Minimum Impact Suppression Tactics would be used when working in a Wilderness Area or WSAs, following the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review (BLM Handbook H-8550-1). BLM would manage naturally ignited wildland fires in the Elkhorn Mountain units 

under the prescription guidelines established in the Elkhorn Mountains Fire Management Plan 

• Fire Management activities (wildland fire, fuels, and fire mitigation, education and prevention) would be prioritized by their risk of life and property across 

the Planning Area. Fires that are adjacent to or near WUI would have highest priority for fire suppression. 

• Fire management activities would be designed and implemented in a manner that meets, or moves toward meeting Land Health Standards. Wildland fire 

management activities would be conducted to meet or move toward meeting Land Health Standards when compliant with the standards for fire operations. 

• Emergency fire rehabilitation funds may be used to:

a. Protect life, property, and soil, water and vegetation resources.b. Prevent unacceptable onsite or offsite damage.c. Facilitate meeting land use plan goals and other federal laws.

d. Reduce the invasion and establishment of undesirable or invasive vegetation. 

• Incident bases, camps, helibases, staging areas, and other incident management activities would be located outside of riparian areas. If unavoidable, an exemption could be made by a resource advisor.• BLM would 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 would be determined based on current management.

• BLM would provide assistance to communities in developing and maintaining community wildland fire protection plans. 

 114 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Wildland Fire Management – continuedManagement Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Priority of fire management activities would be placed on fuels reduction in WUI areas in conjunction with completed Community Wildfire Protection Plans.• Fire management activities outside of the WUI areas would use Fire Regime, Condition Class (FRCC) to determine level of fuels treatments. • Fire management would focus on maintaining fire dependent ecosystems and restoring or maintaining those areas outside their natural balance through mechanical, chemical, and/or prescribed fire treatments.

Fire Management Response

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

The BLM administered ground is currently is managed under A, B, and CFMU designations (for description ofFMU designations see Chapter 2).Approximately 7,300 acres would bedesignated in an A FMU, 29,590 acreswould be designated in a B FMU, and258,200 acres would be designated in aC FMU. 

BLM administered ground would bemanaged under B and C FMU designations (for description of FMU designations see Chapter 2) based on watersheds. No acres would be designated inan A FMU, 42,000 acres would bedesignated in a B FMU, and 262,000acres would be designated in a C FMU. 

BLM administered ground would bemanaged under A, B and C FMU designations (for description of FMUdesignations see Chapter 2) based onwatersheds. Approximately 41,000acres would be designated in an AFMU, 23,000 acres would be designated in a B FMU, and 240,000 acreswould be designated in a C FMU. 

BLM administered ground would bemanaged under B, C, and D FMUdesignations (for description of FMUdesignations see Chapter 2) based onwatersheds. No acres would be designated in an A FMU, 42,000acres wouldbe designated in a B FMU, 82,000acres would be designated in a C FMU,and 180,000 acres would be designatedin a D FMU. 

Fire - Timing Periods

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Management-ignited prescribed fire

would not be conducted between May1 and August 30 to protect nestingmigratory birds, unless breeding birdsurveys document low potential impacts to breeding birds. 

Vegetation treatments, including management-ignited prescribed fire andmechanical treatments would not beconducted between May 1 and August30 to protect nesting migratory birds,unless breeding bird surveys document low potential impacts to breeding birds. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Fire - Habitat w/in Burn Patches

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. In grassland/shrubland habitats, BLM

would plan for prescribed burns that donot consume above-ground vegetationon more than 80 percent (on average)of each unit by surface area. 

In grassland/shrubland habitats, BLMwould plan for prescribed burns that donot consume above-ground vegetationon more than 60 percent (on average)of each unit by surface area. 

In grassland/shrubland habitats, BLMwould plan for prescribed burns that donot consume above-ground vegetationon more than 90 percent (on average)of each unit by surface area. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 115 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Fire - Fire Retardant

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Delivery of chemical retardant, foam or

additives to live streams would beavoided. Maps of fish bearing streamswould be developed for use in initialattack of wildland fires. 

Use of chemical retardant foam, oradditives over live streams would onlyoccur if there a risk to human life andsafety. 

Delivery of chemical retardant, foam oradditives to live streams would beavoided. 

Fire - Fish Screens

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Fish screens (1/8 inch diameter holes)

on hoses would be required when removing water from fish bearingstreams during fire management activities. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Noxious WeedsGoal

• Minimize infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Weed management would utilize Integrated Weed Management and work within federal, state, and county guidelines, laws, statutes, and regulations to minimize infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds.• Management would continue to work cooperatively and coordinate with county, state, and federal agencies, weed management areas, and private landowners 

and organizations.

• Weed management prescriptions would be included in all new treatment projects and incorporated, where possible, into existing contracts, agreements and 

land use authorizations which would result in ground disturbing activities.

• Weed seed free forage (hay, grains, cubes, pelletized feeds, straw, and mulch) would be used on BLM lands. • Monitoring would evaluate weed management activities at project and field office levels. • All weed treatment ranges represent only 10 to 15 percent treatment of new acres. The remainder would be repeat treatments on the same infestations. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• All contractor and BLM equipment would be power washed to remove weed seeds before entering ground disturbing project areas. • Weed control using domestic sheep and/or goats in occupied bighorn sheep habitat or using biological controls which have been documented to damage existing desired species would be prohibited. 

 116 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

• BLM would conduct outreach and education for BLM personnel, public land users, and the general public. • BLM would encourage development of weed management areas. • Plant communities would be restored, where applicable, to promote resistance to weed invasion.

Noxious Weeds Objectives - Proposed Range of Weed Treatment Acres Per Decade 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

20,000 21,000 to 50,000 16,000 to 38,000 25,000 to 61,000

Noxious Weeds - Treatment Focus/Priorities 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Management on roads and trails, urbaninterface and recreation areas, andareas currently under a multi-yeartreatment plan. All grazing allotmentagreements for the Planning Areawould continue to address weed controlby chemical treatment and adjustinglivestock use. 

Prevention on roads, trails, waterways,recreation sites, and disturbed sites dueto project implementation. Preventionand control in special designation areasand weed management areas are alsohigh priority. 

Prevention on roads, trails, waterways,recreation sites, disturbed sites due toproject implementation, and specialdesignation areas. Prevention and control in special designation areas wouldbe a moderate priority. 

Prevention on roads, trails, waterways,recreation sites, and disturbed sites dueto project implementation. Preventionand control in special designation areas, weed management areas, areasunder a multi-year treatment planwould be a moderate priority. 

Noxious Weeds - Aerial Spraying

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Aerial spraying of herbicides would

not take place within 200 feet ofstreams or wetlands. 

Aerial spraying of herbicides would nottake place when eye- level winds aregreater than 6 miles per hour or withinthe RMZ or 300 feet, whichever widthis greatest, of streams or wetlands or inoccupied or high value habitat for sensitive species of plants or animals. Noaerial application of herbicides or pesticides which may negatively affectsagebrush would be used aerially insensitive sagebrush habitats. 

Aerial application of herbicides andpesticides would not occur. 

Aerial spraying of herbicides would nottake place when eye- level winds aregreater than 6 miles per hour or within100 feet of streams or wetlands. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 117 
Table 223 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Noxious Weeds - Special Status Plants

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. BLM, county, and contractor personnel

participating in weed treatment activities would be provided with training toidentify special status plants and mapsof special status plant populationsassociated with weed treatment areas. 

BLM weed personnel would be provided with maps of special status plantpopulations associated with weed treatment areas. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Noxious Weeds - Public Outreach

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Outreach/education on noxious weeds

would be provided to the public atcampgrounds and trailheads. 

Same as Alternative B. Outreach/education on noxious weeds

would be provided to the public atcampgrounds, trailheads, to specificuser groups, at schools, fairs, and community events. 

ISSUE 2: WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE HAGoals

• Conserve, enhance, restore, mitigate, or contribute to the recovery of threatened, endangered, or candidate plant or animal species. • Conserve or enhance habitat or mitigate negative effects to habitat of BLM sensitive plant and animal species to prevent the federal listing of these species. • Conserve special-status species and habitats across the landscape through collaboration and cooperation. • Provide a variety of well-distributed diverse plant communities to support a diversity of habitats. • Conserve, enhance, restore, or mitigate 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, foraging areas, and riparian areas.• Conserve, enhance or restore special habitat features or mitigate/minimize impacts to special habitat features including, but not limited to caves, cliffs, riparian areas, wetlands, snags, and down woody material.

Management Common to All Alternatives

• All alternatives would emphasize actions that would promote conservation of special status and priority wildlife species and the ecosystems on which they 

depend. All alternatives would 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.

• Habitat improvement projects would be implemented where necessary to restore wildlife habitat and/or to improve unsatisfactory or declining wildlife habitat. • Important blocks of hiding, security, and thermal cover for big game would be considered during project planning. 

 118 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

• All new fences would be built to standard BLM wildlife specifications to allow wildlife passage with the exception of fences built specifically to keep native 

ungulates out of an area.

• Consistent with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (1973) and BLM policy, all alternatives would ensure that actions are consistent with the 

conservation needs of special status species. The BLM would 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 would cooperate and collaborate with federal, tribal, and state wildlife management agencies as well as private landowners to improve habitat for wildlife and special status plants.• Timing restrictions 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 would be avoided or minimized. • BLM would manage in a manner consistent with current and future restoration/conservation and recovery plans/conservation agreements (westslope and 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout, Arctic grayling, and prairie dog) for sensitive terrestrial and aquatic species. 

• Sage grouse management activities would be designed and implemented to be consistent with adopted conservation strategies such as The National and 

Montana Management Plan and Conservation Strategies for Sage Grouse in Montana (USDI-BLM 2004) and current, accepted science. 

• Vegetation altering activities could occur in sage grouse habitat where it does not result in long-term loss of habitats or contribute to the need to list. Sufficient sagebrush densities and cover would be retained in sage grouse habitat. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• All federally listed and BLM sensitive species and their habitats would be considered priority species and habitats. Additional priority wildlife species would 

be 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 2005b) would also be considered priority species and habitats. Priority habitats would include habitat for all special status species as well as riparian areas, dry savannah forest, special habitats including caves, cliffs, snags and down woody material, sagebrush, bitterbrush communities and mountain 

mahogany communities.

• 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 would be used to restore, maintain or improve the desired 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. 

• BLM would maintain suitable habitat conditions and minimize fragmentation in linkage corridors among habitats occupied by special status species. • BLM would coordinate with MFWP to determine whether habitat conditions exist that would allow successful reintroduction of locally or regionally absent 

species, such as westslope cutthroat trout, sage grouse, beaver, bighorn sheep, and prairie dogs.

• To the extent possible, BLM would: 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. 

• BLM would close rock climbing in areas with active raptor nests and would educate the public about the importance of avoiding such locations. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 119 
Table 223 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives ISSUE 2: WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE HABITA

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D) – continued 

• Seasonal timing restrictions on projects that cause disturbance would be applied where they are needed to minimize the impacts of human activities on important seasonal wildlife habitat. The major types of seasonal wildlife habitat and the time periods 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), grizzly bear spring and summer range (4/1 to 9/1), and grizzly bear denning habitat (10/1 to 4/30).

• At the project level, dead and down woody material would 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. 

• 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 would be left standing to the extent practicable. • All action alternatives would emphasize protecting and restoring special habitat components or features that contribute to the productivity of bat species. • Caves and abandoned mines would be surveyed and assessed for bat use. BLM would determine the need for closures or seasonal closures for activities affecting caves and abandoned mines. Hibernacula closure dates would be approximately 10/15 to 5/1 and maternity closure dates would be approximately 

4/15 to 9/30. 

• Bat gates or other suitable measures would be used to protect bat habitat when bat use of caves or abandoned mines is determined. Public health and safety

would take precedence over protection of bat habitat if hazardous mine openings cannot be remediated with installation of bat gates. 

• BLM would comply with the standards and guidelines in the Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Appendix F). • BLM would develop and implement human food storage regulations and guidelines in grizzly bear distribution zones in coordination with MFWP and other 

agencies. 

• All action alternatives would emphasize maintaining diverse, healthy, productive, well-distributed aquatic habitats and communities to increase populations 

of native fish and other aquatic species.

• BLM would opportunistically enhance or restore populations of and habitat for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Arctic grayling. • In select areas identified for native fish restoration, BLM would collaborate with MFWP to remove non-native fish species that out-compete or hybridize 

with native cutthroat trout.

• Transportation system effects on fisheries resources would be reduced. To the extent possible, roads would 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. 

Wildlife - Livestock Grazing Fences as Barriers

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Fences identified as barriers to wildlife

movement would be considered forremoval or reconstruction on a case bycase basis, to follow BLM fence specifications for wildlife. 

Fences identified as barriers to wildlifemovement would be removed or reconstructed to follow BLM fence specifications for wildlife. 

Same as Alternative B. 

 120 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Wildlife - Restoration/Fire Rehabilitation

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. For habitat enhancement, fire rehabilitation and other restoration projects, a

variety of techniques would be considered to protect plantings, and seedlingsfrom the effects of wildlife and domestic grazing including rest, fencing,netting, and wildlife repellants. 

For habitat enhancement, fire rehabilitation and other restoration projects,plantings and seedlings would be protected from the effects of wildlife anddomestic grazing including rest, fencing, netting and wildlife repellants. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Wildlife Objectives - Big Game and Roads

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Where applicable, the elk managementguidelines contained in the MontanaCooperative Elk-logging Study(USDA-FS 1982) will be followed. Theexisting road network generally willremain open for public use. 

There would be no net increase inpermanent roads built in areas whereopen road densities are 1 mi/mi2 or less

in big game winter and calving ranges.BLM would manage to reduce openroad densities in big game winter andcalving ranges where they exceed 1mi/mi2 . 

There would be no net increase inpermanent roads built in areas whereopen road densities are 1.5 mi/mi2 or

less in big game winter and calvingranges. BLM would manage to reduceopen road densities in big game winterand calving ranges where they exceed0.5 mi/mi2 . 

No new permanent roads would beallowed in areas where open road densities are 0.5 mi/mi2 or less in big game

winter and calving ranges. BLM wouldmanage to reduce open road densitiesin big game winter and calving rangeswhere they exceed 1.5 mi/mi2 . 

Wildlife Objectives - Grizzly Bears (Special Status Species) and Roads 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. There would be no net increase in

permanent roads built in areas whereopen road densities are 1 mi/mi2 or less

within the current distribution of grizzly bear. BLM would manage to reduceopen road densities within the currentdistribution of grizzly bear where theyexceed 1 mi/mi2 . 

There would be no net increase inpermanent roads built in areas whereopen road densities are 1.5 mi/mi2 or

less within the current distribution ofgrizzly bear. BLM would manage toreduce open road densities within thecurrent distribution of grizzly bearwhere they exceed 0.5 mi/mi2 . 

Same as Alternative B. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 121 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Wildlife Objectives – Big Game Security Cover

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Elk management guidelines in theMontana Cooperative Elk-LoggingStudy (Lyon et al. 1982) would befollowed including: managing publicvehicle access to maintain habitat effectiveness of security cover and keyseasonal habitat for deer and elk; maintaining adequate untreated peripheralzones around important moist sites;maintaining adequate thermal andsecurity cover on deer and elk habitat,particularly in timber stands adjacent toprimary winter foraging areas; ensuringslash depth in clear cuts does not exceed 1.5 feet and generally discouraging thinning immediately adjacent toclear cuts. 

BLM would provide security cover forbig game within forested habitat typesby maintaining core blocks of at least250 acres that are un-roaded or haveclosed roads during the hunting seasonand are not substantially altered bytimber harvest. 

BLM would provide security cover forbig game within forested habitat typesby maintaining core blocks of at least500 acres that are unroaded or haveclosed roads during the hunting seasonand are not substantially altered bytimber harvest. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Wildlife - Mountain Mahogany and Bitterbrush Management

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. BLM would enhance and improve big

game winter range through protectionand restoration of mountain mahoganystands where conifers have becomeestablished. Detrimental effects tomountain mahogany stands would beavoided with projects in big gamewinter range whenever possible. Whendetrimental effects are unavoidable,loss of mountain mahogany would beminimized. BLM would also proactively restore the distribution and vigorof bitterbrush stands through vegetativetreatments designed to reduce competing plants; and create a variety ofbitterbrush age classes and conditionsconducive to bitterbrush regeneration. 

BLM would allow natural processesand continued fire suppression to determine the structure and compositionof mountain mahogany stands where conifers have become established.Mountain mahogany stands would berestored or enhanced opportunisticallythrough other higher priority projects.Bitterbrush would be protected or restored opportunistically through otherhigher priority projects. 

Same as Alternative B. 

 122 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Wildlife - Snag Management

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

In concert with the timber managementprogram, a snag management programwould be implemented to enhancehabitat for cavity-nesting birds. 

To determine the "range of naturalconditions" for snag densities, BLMwould follow the "Northern RegionSnag Management Protocol", Jan.2000, USDA FS Northern Region, until more current information is available. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

No related Action Prescribed fire, mechanical treatments,

inoculation, or other appropriate methods would be used to create snags anddown woody material where deficientin appropriate vegetation types acrossthe landscape. 

Snags and down woody material wouldbe created opportunistically throughother project work such as fuels reduction or ecosystem restoration. Thefocus would be on snag and downwood protection rather than on activelycreating these features. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Wildlife - Raptors/Special Status Species

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Noise disturbance/management activities would be avoided or minimized

within 0.5 mile of occupied raptor nestsduring the nesting and brood rearingperiod. 

Noise disturbance/management activities would be avoided or minimizedwithin 1 mile of raptor nests during thenesting and brood rearing period. 

Noise disturbance/management activities would be avoided or minimizedwithin 0.25 mile of raptor nests duringthe nesting and brood rearing period.

No related action Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs,

rocky outcrops or in trees) would beprotected from removal or destructionfor 5 years, or the period a knownpreferred prey species fluctuates frompopulation highs to lows. The nestwould not have to be retained if it isphysically damaged past the point of repair by raptors. In forested habitattypes, a 0.25 mile buffer of suitablehabitat would be maintained aroundunoccupied nests for 5 years. 

Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs,rocky outcrops or in trees) would beprotected from removal or destructionfor 7 years, or the period a knownpreferred prey species fluctuates frompopulation highs to lows. The nestwould not have to be retained if it isphysically damaged past the point of repair by raptors. In forested habitattypes, a 0.5 mile buffer of suitablehabitat would be maintained aroundunoccupied nests for 7 years. 

Unoccupied raptor nests (on cliffs,rocky outcrops or in trees) would beprotected from removal or destructionfor 3 years, or the period a knownpreferred prey species fluctuates frompopulation highs to lows. The nestwould not have to be retained if it isphysically damaged past the point of repair by raptors. In forested habitattypes, a 0.25 mile buffer of suitablehabitat would be maintained aroundunoccupied nests for 3 years. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 123 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Wildlife - Bald Eagle (Special Status Species) Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Vegetative competition, encroachment,

and risk of fire to bald eagle roost andnest trees would be reduced and conditions for future perches/large treeswould be enhanced. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Wildlife – Bats (Special Status Species)

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Clearing of vegetation, except noxious

weeds, would not be allowed within250 feet of the entrance of caves andabandoned mines with populations ofbats except for public safety. Vegetation could be removed if necessarywhen installing bat gates, or when itbecomes an obstruction to bat movement. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Wildlife –Westslope Cutthroat Trout (Special Status Species) 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related specific action. Genetically pure and slightly hybridized (less than 20 percent hybridization) westslope cutthroat trout populations would be managed by maintaining or restoring high-quality habitats

and by expanding populations. 

All westslope cutthroat trout populations, regardless of hybridization,would be protected by maintaininghigh-quality habitats and by expandingpopulations. 

Genetically pure and slightly hybridized (less than 10 percent hybridization) westslope cutthroat trout populations would be protected by maintaining or restoring high-quality habitatsand by expanding populations.

Wildlife –Non-Native Aquatic Species

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. BLM would work with MFWP to remove brook trout and other non-native

aquatic species that out-compete orbreed with westslope cutthroat troutthrough the use of electroshocking orother physical or chemical means. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

 124 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Wildlife –Non-Native Invasive Species

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D

No related action. To prevent spread of non-native,

invasive aquatic species, BLM wouldpost educational signs aboutwaterborne invasive species at all BLMboat ramps. 

Same as Alternative B. To prevent spread of non-native,

invasive aquatic species, BLM wouldinstall boat wash stations at all majorBLM boating access sites.

ISSUE 3: TRAVEL MANAGEMENTField Office-wideGoals

• Provide a balanced approach to travel management that provides a sustained flow of local economic benefits, minimizes or mitigates user conflict, safety 

concerns, and resource impacts while taking into consideration the unique attributes and values of the various travel management Planning Areas. 

• Maintain facilities, roads, and trails to provide for public and/or administrative use and safety while mitigating impacts to resources. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Travel management would be conducted in a manner that would meet, or move toward meeting, Land Health Standards. • The 2003 Statewide OHV ROD and Plan Amendment would be followed. • Previous travel planning decisions made for areas with existing travel plans (Elkhorn Mountains, Clancy-Unionville, Whitetail-Pipestone, and Sleeping Giant and several small “sub-planning” areas) would be brought forward in this RMP revision with no proposed changes. • BLM would provide for interagency travel management consistency and route connectivity with adjoining public lands. • Designated routes would be mapped and signed as open or open with restrictions.• BLM would continue to participate with the Southwest Montana Interagency Travel Management Committee, maintaining map and sign consistency, and 

seasonal restrictions.

• BLM would continue to partner with the State Trails Program, seeking opportunities to improve existing as well as future trails and facilities. • 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.

• Wheeled motorized vehicle travel would be allowed for any military, fire, search and rescue, or law enforcement vehicle for emergency operations. Temporary routes could be constructed where needed and where other routes are not available under approved travel management plans. Construction of such

routes would be to minimal standards, adhering to BMPs.

• BLM would minimize establishing travel routes in areas identified at risk for noxious weed infestations. • In areas with sensitive soils, BLM would minimize establishing new routes and would consider closure, restriction, mitigation, or administrative management of existing travel routes.• Travel planning analysis would be conducted on those routes documented during the inventory period (up to May 2005). 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 125 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Travel Management – Field Office-wide – continued

• Short, site-specific sections of route/trail re-alignment, or reconstruction would continue to be implemented as needed to minimize resource damage and/or 

provide minor reroutes around private property.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• BLM objective in route-specific travel planning within individual TPAs would be to use a systematic process that considers the unique resource issues and 

social environments of each TPA.

• Travel Plan Areas not analyzed for route-specific management during this RMP revision would be initiated within five years of the completed RMP revision.• BLM would cooperate with MFWP, adjusting seasonal travel restrictions in accordance with big game hunting season extensions. • Gates or other barriers would be used as necessary to prevent access on roads and trails closed yearlong to the public. • Travel route densities would conform with the management prescriptions in the wildlife section of this RMP. • Loop-road connections would be established, where appropriate, to enhance public access and enjoyment. 

Travel Management - Field Office-wide Area Designations

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Areas Designations of “Open”,“Closed”, and “Limited” would be:Wheeled VehiclesOpen – 4,367 acresClosed – 31,500 acresLimited – 266,018 acresSnowmobilesOpen – 143,206 acresClosed – 27,065 acresLimited – 131,614 acres 

Areas Designations of “Open”,“Closed”, and “Limited” would be:Wheeled VehiclesOpen – 283 acresClosed – 31,500 acresLimited – 270,102 acresSnowmobilesOpen – 112,682 acresClosed – 54,706 acresLimited – 134,497 acres 

Same as Alternative B for wheeledvehicles.SnowmobilesOpen – 26,148 acresClosed – 65,270 acresLimited – 210,467 acres 

Same as Alternative B for wheeledvehicles.SnowmobilesOpen – 139,138 acresClosed – 31,282 acresLimited - 131,465 acres 

Travel Management - Competitive Motorized Events

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Applications for competitive and noncompetitive organized motorizedevents would continue to be evaluatedon a case by case basis. 

Non-competitive motorized organizedevents would be considered and evaluated on a case-by-case basis for thePipestone area only (existing TPA).Competitive motorized events wouldnot be allowed. 

Competitive and organized motorizedevents would not be allowed. Unlessotherwise managed, snowmobile use would be restricted to designated routesonly (open or open/restricted), betweenDecember 1st and May 15th, snowconditions permitting. 

Competitive and non-competitive motorized events would be considered andevaluated on a case by case basis forthe Pipestone area (existing TPA). 

 126 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Travel Management - Field Office-wide Snowmobile Use

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Existing management varies, and includes: unrestricted area cross-countrytravel (conditions permitting), seasonally restricted area cross-country travel,travel on all wheeled designated routes(12/1-5/15), and snowmobile use onlyroutes. 

With some exceptions (see site specifictravel plan alternatives), cross-countrysnowmobile use would be allowed, aswell as travel on all existing routes(conditions permitting). 

Unless otherwise managed, snowmobile use would be restricted to designated routes only (open oropen/restricted), during the season ofuse, 12/1-5/15, snow conditions permitting. 

Same as Alternative B. 

Travel Management - Travel Route Easements

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Easements would be pursued as neededfor new route construction. 

BLM would actively seek easements inorder to maintain current access forpopularly traveled routes, as well asseek additional site-specific opportunities as needed. 

BLM would seek public access easements as needed for new road or trailconstruction. 

BLM would seek public access easements for all locations where BLMroutes are accessed either from, orcross private property. 

Travel Management - Cattle Guards/Gates

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Cattle guards and gates needed to facilitate public travel would be installedon an as needed basis for newly constructed roads/trails. 

BLM would replace barbed wire gates(and similar closures) with cattleguards and/or easily operated metalgates wherever problems are known tooccur. 

Same as Alternative A. BLM would replace barbed wire gates

(and similar closures) with cattleguards and/or easily operated metalgates wherever they currently exist.

Transportation/FacilitiesManagement Common to All Alternatives

• Transportation and road management activity would meet, or move toward meeting Land Health Standards.• Comprehensive assessments would be conducted for all maintained roads and facilities and maintenance actions would be implemented as needed. • New permanent roads and trails would be constructed subject to NEPA and approved engineering standards. Consideration would be given to use demands, 

location, safety, and resource constraints when determining the level of road necessary, in accordance with Handbook 9113. 

• Roads and trails would be maintained in accordance with Travel Management Plan guidance and BLM policy. Roads would be assigned maintenance levels 

and managed in accordance with these levels and in consideration of resource issues. All roads and trails would be maintained in accordance with standards 

and guidelines in BLM Handbook 9113 and 9114. Roads and trails would be inspected on an established schedule in accordance with BLM’s Condition Assessment guidance. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 127 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Transportation/Facilities – continued

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Roads would be built to the minimum standard necessary that allows reasonable access and has the least impact on resource values. • If an existing road is substantially contributing to Land Health Standards not being met, the road would be considered for redesign, closure, or decommissioning to minimize the adverse impacts.

Transportation/Facilities - Road Design

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related management. Road designs would 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 caseswhere outsloping would increasesediment delivery to streams orwhere outsloping is infeasible orunsafe; 

• Routing road drainage away

from potentially unstable streamchannels, fills and hillslopes;

• Minimizing disruption of natural

hydrologic flow paths;

• Minimizing sidecasting of soil or

snow. 

Same as Alternative B with the additional condition that stream crossingswould be designed to accommodate100-year storm events with associatedsediment and debris. 

Road designs would include at a minimum:

• Minimizing road and landing locations in Streamside Management Zones; • Minimizing sediment delivery to

streams from road surfaces;

• Outsloping roadway surfaces

where possible, except in caseswhere outsloping would increasesediment delivery to streams orwhere outsloping is infeasible orunsafe; 

• Routing road drainage away

from potentially unstable streamchannels, fills, and hillslopes. 

Transportation/Facilities - Road Design and Maintenance

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

BLM would use Water Quality BestManagement Practices for MontanaForests during road construction andmaintenance. 

Roads would be designed and maintained in a manner that provides forwater quality protection by controllingplacement of fill material, keepingdrainage facilities open, installing and 

Roads would be designed and maintained in a manner that provides forwater quality protection by controllingplacement of fill material, keepingdrainage facilities open, installing and 

Roads would be designed and maintained in a manner that provides forwater quality protection by controllingplacement of fill material, keepingdrainage facilities open, installing and 

 128 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

maintaining appropriately-sized culverts at stream crossings, and by repairing ruts and failures to reduce erosionand sedimentation of aquatic habitats. 

maintaining stream crossings capableof accommodating 100-year stormevents including associated sedimentand debris, and by repairing ruts andfailures to reduce erosion and sedimentation of aquatic habitats. 

maintaining appropriately-sized culverts at stream crossings, and by repairing ruts and failures to reduce erosionand sedimentation of aquatic habitats. 

ISSUE 4: RECREATIONGoals

• Provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities while maintaining healthy public land resources.• Establish, manage, and maintain quality recreation sites and facilities to meet a broad range of public needs subject to resource constraints. • Manage commercial, competitive, or special events with special recreation permits that eliminate or mitigate impacts to resources and conflicts with other 

users. 

• Manage recreation opportunities to provide a sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic values. • “Leave No Trace” and “Tread Lightly” practices would be promoted.• BLM would support events that emphasize collaborative outreach and public awareness. • BLM would support and utilize volunteers.

Management Common to All Alternatives

• BLM would continue to provide a diverse range of quality recreation opportunities and experiences commensurate with public demands, resource considerations, management capabilities, and existing program guidance.• Comparable, cost effective and value based fee systems would be established for services and facilities provided to public users in accordance with BLM directives and the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.• There are no known significant caves or karsts in the Decision Area. Should these resources be discovered, BLM would develop management plans appropriate for the specific resource.• Personal property of recreational users could not be unattended for more than 24 hours at recreation sites or for more than 72 hours on other BLM lands. • BLM would establish and maintain information kiosks with site maps, brochures, interpretive and educational information, important contacts, and site regulations. • BLM would continue to conduct periodic accessibility, safety, and condition assessments in accordance with Bureau policy at developed recreation sites. 

Prioritize available funds to resolve deferred and corrective maintenance needs.

• BLM would 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. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 129 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives ISSUE 4: RECREATION – continued

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Working relationships with tourism organizations, recreation interest groups, and local/state/other federal governments would be maintained and expanded to

enhance visitor services, management efficiencies, and recreation opportunities.

• Partnership agreements that are mutually beneficial to BLM and the public would be established and maintained to enhance comprehensive planning, collaborative management, and collective funding.• BLM would develop and maintain an agreement with MFWP that would establish partnership efforts and responsibilities to collectively manage the Black 

and White Sandy sites on Hauser Lake.

• SRMAs would be given management priority to provide quality recreation opportunities and visitor experiences. All remaining lands would be managed as 

an Extensive Recreation Management Area (ERMA). This area would generally be given less priority in terms of on-the-ground management, improvements, and facility maintenance.

• BLM would pursue opportunities to expand day-use parking capacities on Holter Lake in cooperation with the Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation

Plan. 

• BLM would continue to issue special recreation use permits as appropriate for commercial, competitive, and special events on a first come basis subject to 

guidelines in the 2930 Handbook, resource capabilities, social conflict concerns, professional qualifications, public safety, and public needs. New permits 

would not be authorized that directly conflict with permitted uses. Existing permittees would be given preference. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• BLM would develop a management plan to establish specific guidance for managing designated boat-in camp sites along the shoreline of Holter Lake and 

consider a similar planning effort for the Hauser Lake shoreline should resource concerns warrant.

• Commercial permits would be extended from 5 to 10 years for permittees demonstrating satisfactory performance standards in order to improve customer 

service and reduce management workloads.

• New special recreation use permits would be analyzed and mitigated to meet management objectives. • BLM would coordinate with MFWP to manage appropriate uses at BLM launch sites as necessary to ensure quality recreation opportunities on state streams 

and lakes in the Planning Area.

• New sites would be developed commensurate with public demand, resource constraints, and management capabilities. Priority would be given to new sites 

that have partnership funding strategies and are consistent with established ROS and SRMA management guidelines. 

• If an existing developed recreation site significantly contributes to Land Health Standards not being met, the impacts from the site would be minimized to the 

extent possible. 

• All new recreation sites would be designed, constructed, and managed to meet, or move toward meeting, Land Health Standards. 

 130 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Recreation – Permits

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No fees would be charged for commercial fishing and floating outfitters usingdeveloped BLM river access sites. 

BLM would charge a flat annual feeper commercial guided boat for dayuse of all BLM river access sites withinthe BFO under RUP authorizations.Fees would be determined in accordance with Federal Lands RecreationEnhancement Act and BLM policy. 

Day-use Special Recreation Permitswould be issued for commercial fishingand floating outfitters using developedBLM river access sites. Fees would bebased on actual use reports and established BLM policies. 

Fees would be postponed for commercial fishing and floating outfitters usingdeveloped BLM river access sites untila multi-agency statewide fee system isestablished. Under this system, BLMwould receive a portion of collectionsbased on a percentage of total sitesunder the statewide system.

Recreation – 14-Day Camping Variances

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Variances (extensions) to the 14-daycamping limit would be issued on acase-by-case basis subject to the following considerations: resource impacts, social conflicts, sanitation concerns, no livestock or commercial activities would be involved. 

Variances to 14-day camping regulation would be limited to developedrecreation camp sites after the high usefee season only. 

No variances to 14-day camping limits would be allowed. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Recreation – Scratchgravel Hills Motorized Recreation

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

BLM would continue to allow recreational activities including motorized vehicle uses within the ScratchgravelHills 24 hours/day. 

The entire Scratchgravel Hills areawould be closed to motorized vehicleuses after dark (dusk to dawn) yearlong. 

The entire Scratchgravel Hills areawould be closed to both motorized andnon-motorized recreational uses after dark (dusk to dawn) yearlong. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Recreation – Permits

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Authorization of commercial campingactivity would be considered throughout the Field Office on a case-by-casebasis subject to resource constraints,management capabilities, social conflicts, and public health and safetyconcerns. 

Commercial camping permits withindeveloped fee sites would not be allowed during the fee season to reduceuser conflicts and resource impacts(Memorial Day to Labor Day). 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 131 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Recreation – Permits

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Permit requests by outfitter and guidehunters would be considered on a caseby-case basis throughout the FieldOffice, subject to environmental, social, and public health and safety concerns. 

Special recreation permits would belimited to day-use activities during thehunting season with the exception thatcamping uses would only be considered within developed recreation sitesduring the non-fee season. 

Special recreation use permits duringthe hunting season would be limited today-use activities only. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Recreation – Hauser Lake Boat-in Camping 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Boat-in camping would be allowedalong the entire BLM shoreline ofHauser and Holter Lakes subject tocurrent regulations. 

Boat-in camping along the BLM shoreline on Hauser and Holter Lakes wouldbe limited to developed sites and designated undeveloped sites that pose theleast impacts to other resource values.Site availability would be determinedthrough a field evaluation process byan Interdisciplinary Team. 

The entire BLM shoreline on Hauserand Holter Lakes excluding developedsites would be closed to camping. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Recreation – Bear/Human Interactions

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Human food storage regulations would

be developed and implemented for allrecreation sites with high potentialand/or known encounters betweenpeople and bears. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative A. 

Recreation – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No ROS classifications would be established to guide the management ofappropriate settings and visitor opportunity experiences. 

ROS classifications would be:

• Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized –

36,800 acres 

• Semi-Primitive Motorized –

66,500 acres 

• Roaded Natural – 171,000 acres 

ROS classifications would be:

• Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized –

63,700 acres 

• Semi-Primitive Motorized –

61,600 acres 

• Roaded Natural – 158,100 acres 

ROS classifications would be:

• Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized –

30,000 acres 

• Semi-Primitive Motorized –

32,300 acres 

• Roaded Natural – 186,100 acres 

 132 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

• Roaded Modified – 16,600 acres• Rural – 11,000 acres 

• Roaded Modified – 15,900 acres• Rural – 2,700 acres 

• Roaded Modified – 19,600 acres• Rural – 34,000 acres

Recreation – Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAs) 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Recreation management would continue to be prioritized in the followingfive areas: Holter Lake/Sleeping Giant,Lewis & Clark National Trail, UpperBig Hole River, Humbug Spires, andScratchgravel Hills. 

Recreation management would beprioritized in the following nine areas:Holter Lake/Missouri River, SleepingGiant, Hauser Lake/Missouri River,Toston Reservoir/ Missouri River,Scratchgravel Hills, Sheep Mountain,Pipestone, Upper Big Hole River,Humbug Spires. 

Same as Alternative B. Recreation management would be

prioritized in the following five areas:Holter Lake/Missouri River, HauserLake/Missouri River, Toston Reservoir/Missouri River, Pipestone, andUpper Big Hole River. 

ISSUE 5: SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS INCLUDING ACEC, NAGoals

• Designate ACECs where special management attention is required to protect important and relevant values. • Manage National Trails to promote public enjoyment and protect their designated values. • Manage preliminarily eligible river segments so that their suitability for potential National Wild and Scenic Rivers System designation is not impaired.• Manage Wilderness Study Areas so that their suitability for potential wilderness designation is not impaired. 

Special Designations – ACEC

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Sleeping Giant ACEC (11,679 acres)would continue to be managed as anACEC under the existing managementplan. 

Approximately 73,666 acres would bemanaged in the following five potentialACECs to protect relevant and important values:

• Sleeping Giant (11,679 acres)• Elkhorns (53,439 acres)• Humbug Spires (8,374 acres)• Spokane Creek (14 acres)• Ringing Rocks (160 acres within

existing withdrawal) 

Approximately 87,893 acres would bemanaged in the following five potentialACECs to protect relevant and important values:

• Sleeping Giant (11,679 acres)• Elkhorns (67,665 acres)• Humbug Spires (8,374 acres)• Spokane Creek (14 acres)• Ringing Rocks (160 acres within

existing withdrawal) 

Approximately 23,695 acres would bemanaged in the following three potential ACECs to protect relevant andimportant values:

• Sleeping Giant (11,679 acres)• Elkhorns (3,575 acres)• Humbug Spires (8,374 acres) 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 133 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Special Designations - National Trails

Management Common to All Alternatives

• The Continental Divide Trail would be managed cooperatively with the USFS in accordance with national policy guidelines. The Lewis and Clark Historic 

Trail would be managed cooperatively with the National Park Service (NPS) in accordance with national policy guidelines. 

• BLM would seek opportunities to cooperatively manage National Trails through partnerships. • BLM would continue cooperative efforts with PPL Montana and other partners to collectively manage the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail under the 

Missouri/Madison Comprehensive Recreation Plan. All historical recreation sites within the trail corridor would continue to be managed in a manner that promotes public accessibility, resource protection, visitor safety, and interpretive education.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• The two National Trails (Continental Divide National Scenic Trail and Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail) would be managed in accordance with the 

ROS classes, VRM classes, travel plan direction, and oil and gas stipulations established under the action alternatives. 

• BLM would evaluate opportunities to re-route the Continental Divide Trail segment 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. 

Special Designations - Wild and Scenic RiversManagement Common to All Alternatives

• In cooperation with other agencies, local governments, and special interest groups, management would be conducted in a manner to protect and enhance the 

outstandingly remarkable values for each suitable river segment.

Special Designations - Wild and Scenic Rivers

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

The suitability study of the four riversegements (Upper Big Hole River - 2.3miles, Missouri River - 3.1 miles,Moose Creek - 4.0 miles, and MuskratCreek - 2.6 miles) determined to beeligible for designation in the NationalWild and Scenic River System wouldnot be completed and protectivemanagement would continueindefinitely for all four river segments. 

Muskrat Creek (2.6 miles) would berecommended as suitable for inclusionin the National Wild and Scenic RiversSystem (NWSRS).Missouri River (3.1 miles) would befound preliminarily suitable, but wouldonly be recommended for inclusion inthe NWSRS pending USFS (HelenaNational Forest) concurrence and coordination.The Upper Big Hole River and MooseCreek segments would not be recommended as suitable. 

Under Alternative C all four eligibleriver segments (totaling 12 miles)would be recommended as suitable forinclusion in the National Wild andScenic Rivers System. 

None of the four eligible river segments would be recommended as suitable for inclusion in the National Wildand Scenic River System. 

 134 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Special Designations - Wilderness Study AreasManagement Common to All Alternatives

• All six WSAs (Humbug Spires, Sleeping giant, Sheep Creek, Black Sage, Elkhorns Tack-on, and Yellowstone River Island) would continue to be managed 

under the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review until such time as Congress either designates them as wilderness or releases them from further consideration as wilderness.

• WSAs would continue to be managed in accordance with the established monitoring and sign plans for each WSA. • Sleeping Giant and Sheep Creek WSAs would continue to be managed as part of the Sleeping Giant ACEC and management plan. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Sleeping Giant, Sheep Creek, Humbug Spires, and Elkhorns Tack-on WSAs would be managed as ACECs as per management direction described in the 

ACEC section regardless of whether Congress designates them as wilderness or releases them from wilderness consideration. 

• In the event that Congress releases Black Sage and Yellowstone Island WSAs from wilderness consideration, they would be managed as per management 

direction described by alternative as described above in Chapter 2.

Management Concern: Air Resources Goals

• 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 Common to All Alternatives

• BLM would continue to participate in local, state, and federal ambient air quality monitoring programs, as required. • BLM would comply with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements.• All resource uses would meet the Land Health Standards for air quality.• Management would minimize or prevent air quality degradation throughout the Planning Area by applying mitigation measures to projects. • Mitigation measures would be developed as appropriate to ensure compatibility of projects with air resource management. 

Management Concern: Soils Goals

• Manage uses to minimize accelerated soil erosion and compaction and maintain surface soil water infiltration based on site-specific conditions.• Maintain or improve soil health and fertility, prevent or minimize erosion and compaction while supporting multiple use management. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 135 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Soils – continued

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Soil management objectives would include: reducing soil erosion associated with steeper slopes, granitic soils, and high recreational use areas; reducing 

sediment delivery to streams; reducing soil movement resulting from burned areas, aboveground disturbances, and accelerated streambank erosion. 

• BMPs would be implemented at the site-specific project level to maintain or improve the soil resources. • Soil compaction and erosion problems would be diagnosed using Land Health Standards. • Mitigation or seasonal activity restrictions would be applied to activities in areas with significant soil compaction or accelerated erosion. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• BLM would reseed disturbed areas where needed.

Management Concern: Water Quality Goals

• Maintain or improve the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of water resources to protect designated beneficial uses and achieve water quality standards. • Maintain existing or acquire new water rights on BLM land to ensure water availability for multiple-use management. • Minimize erosion and accelerated runoff to streams to improve watershed function.• Maintain or improve morphological conditions to a stable state that can fully support beneficial uses. • Protect water quality for municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreation, and residential purposes by adopting protective measures to meet tribal, state, and local water quality requirements.

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Land Health Standards would be implemented to protect beneficial uses of water are protected and ensure that water quality meets State standards. • BLM would continue to cooperate with Montana Department of Environmental Quality and communities in the development of Water Quality Restoration 

Plans and Source Water Protection Plans.

• BLM would comply with non-degradation provisions of the Montana Water Quality Act. • Projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to minimize impacts to water quality. • Water rights and instream flow reservations would be maintained subject to Montana water law. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Existing water rights would be maintained to ensure water availability for multiple-use management and proper functioning riparian and upland areas. • Water quality would be monitored to establish baseline conditions, identify areas of concern, and document progress from mitigation measures. • BLM would participate in the development, implementation, and monitoring of water quality restoration plans/TMDL plans. 

 136 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Concern: Water Quality - Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Present levels of stream restorationactivities would continue. Progress ofpast actions to improve water qualitywould be monitored. 

BLM would examine "Water QualityRestoration Plans" (Plans) to determineif reduction targets of pollutants(TMDL'S) are reasonable and attainable. Plans would be implemented asfunding becomes available. 

BLM would reduce pollutants instreams to levels indicated in "WaterQuality Restoration Plans.” Plans would be implemented as fundingbecomes available. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Management Concern: Water Quality - Water Rights

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. BLM would consider acquiring water

rights from willing sellers. 

Same as Alternative B. No related action. 

Management Concern: Water Quality - Fire Rehabilitation

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

No related action. Burned areas would be monitored for

weed infestations and accelerated soilerosion. Where sedimentation impactsadjacent streams, erosion would bemitigated. 

Accelerated soil erosion andsedimentation in burned areas would bemitigated. 

No related action. 

Management Concern: Visual ResourcesManagement Common to All Alternatives

• Visual resources would be managed according to VRM classes as described in Appendix B.• Visual resource design techniques and best management practices would be use to minimize short and long-term visual impacts of projects. • Visual contrast ratings for major projects within VRM Class I, II, and III areas would be completed according to BLM Handbook H-8341-1. • VRM Class I objectives would be maintained for all WSAs.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• VRM classifications would be established for all BLM lands based on visual resource characteristics. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 137 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Visual Resources

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Approximately 31,500 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class I.Approximately 25,400 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class II.Approximately 245,000 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class III and IV.These areas would continue to beevaluated and protected on a case-bycase basis through project/activityplans. 

Approximately 31,500 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class I.Approximately 43,600 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class II.Approximately 125,200 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class III.Approximately 101,700 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class IV. 

Approximately 31,500 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class I.Approximately 62,300 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class II.Approximately 151,700 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class III.Approximately 56,500 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class IV. 

Approximately 31,500 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class I.Approximately 1,300 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class II.Approximately 142,900 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class III.Approximately 126,300 acres would bemanaged as VRM Class IV. 

Management Concerns: Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties and Paleontological Resources Goals

• Preserve and protect eligible cultural resources, and traditional cultural properties within the BFO. • Identify cultural resource sites and traditional cultural properties and mitigate impacts when necessary, from natural or human-caused deterioration. • Preserve and protect eligible cultural resources to ensure that they are available for appropriate uses by present and future generations. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• BLM would conduct inventories as per Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to avoid disturbance to cultural resources. • To minimize impacts to significant cultural resources, projects would be designed to avoid disturbance or mitigated through data recovery as a last resort. • BLM would continue to consult with tribal governments to meet requirements under federal law and insure protection of sites important to Indian Tribes. • BLM’s consultation process for historic mining sites would continue in accordance with the Historic Placer and Lode Mining Properties Programmatic 

Agreement that specifies creation of a historic preservation plan to organize and compile what is known about various historic mining districts. 

• Fossil localities would be afforded the same consideration as historic sites during project planning.• Projects would be redesigned to avoid or minimize effects to fossil localities. If this is not feasible then specimens would be excavated by permitted paleontologists. 

 138 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Concerns: Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

BLM would inventory 100 acres peryear in compliance with Section 110,National Historic Preservation Act. 

BLM would identify areas with a highpotential for various archaeological/historical site types, and conduct 200acres of proactive inventory in thoseareas each year. One hundred acres oflow potential areas would be inventoried each year for comparison. 

BLM would identify areas with a highpotential for various archaeological/historical site types, and conduct 1,000acres of proactive inventory in thoseareas. Three hundred acres of lowpotential areas would be inventoriedeach year for comparison. 

BLM would conduct proactive inventories as time permits. 

Educational and public outreach programs would be provided as requestedand volunteer assistance relationshipswould be developed as time permits. 

Educational and public outreach programs would be provided as requested. Educational and public outreach pro­ grams would be provided as requested. Educational and public outreach pro­ grams would be provided as requested. 

No related action. Eligible historic buildings would be 

maintained consistent with NationalPark Service standards by includingthem on the deferred maintenanceschedule. 

Same as Alternative B. No related action. 

Management Concern: Paleontological Resources

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

At the project level, BLM would continue to map fossil localities so as toavoid them during project implementation. If the locality cannot be avoided,then permitted paleontologists wouldbe contacted to assist in removal offossil resources. 

Same as Alternative A. At the project level, BLM would continue to map fossil localities so as to

avoid them during project implementation. If the locality cannot be avoided,permitted paleontologists would becontacted to assist in removal of fossilresources. BLM would cooperate withpermitted institutions/parties to mapand record fossil localities. 

Same as Alternative A. 

Management Concern: Lands and Realty – Land Use Authorizations Goals

• Look for opportunities to acquire non-federal land or interest in non-federal land with important resources and resource uses. • Provide for land-use opportunities to provide a sustained flow of economic benefits and meet local infrastructure needs while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts to resources and resource uses. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 139 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Lands and Realty – Land Use Authorizations – continued 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Land use authorization requests would be analyzed and mitigation measures would be applied on a case-by-case basis. • New right-of-way facilities would be located within or adjacent to existing rights-of-way to the extent practical. • New communication site users would be grouped into existing facilities to minimize impacts to other resources and expedite permitting process. • Site plans would be completed prior to authorizing communication site uses in new areas.• Proposals for renewable energy development would be considered on a case-by-case basis. Guidelines from the Wind Energy Development Programmatic 

EIS would be used when considering wind energy projects on BLM land. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Interim Guidance to Avoid and Minimize Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines (USDI-FWS 2003) would be utilized in the 

authorization of new wind facilities.

• Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines (APLIC 1996) would be implemented in the construction and operation of right-of-way facilities.• Owners of non-Federal land surrounded by public land managed under FLPMA would be allowed a degree of access across public land to provide for reasonable use and enjoyment of non-Federal lands.• Pre-FLPMA rights-of-way constructed on public lands prior to FLPMA would be recognized as valid uses even though laws under which they were authorized were repealed by FLPMA (i.e. 1866 ditches and canals; highways, roads, and trails under R.S. 2477, etc.). When these rights-of-way expire, holders 

would be required to apply for new FLPMA rights-of-way.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Existing Communication Sites at Boulder, Bull Mountain, Limestone Hills, Montana City, Mt. Belmont, Toston, and Wickes would be formally designated 

as communication sites for the BFO. New facilities within designated sites would conform to existing site plans. Once designated communications sites are filled to near capacity, new site locations may be authorized after site management plans and site-specific NEPA analyses are completed. 

• No new rights-of-way would be authorized in identified exclusion areas (approximately 27,361 acres) • New rights-of-way in identified avoidance areas (approximately 75,626 acres) would be allowed only if no other routing options exist. Valid existing rightsof-way in avoidance areas would be recognized and holders would be allowed to maintain their facilities. • Two utility corridors, originally considered in the 1992 Western Regional Corridor Study would be designated where they cross BFO lands. • New leases, permits, rights-of-way, and easements would be authorized in a manner consistent with meeting Land Health Standards and applicable Best 

Management Practices.

• Attempts would be made to negotiate changes in existing authorizations which would meet or move toward meeting Land Health Standards. 

 140 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Concern: Lands and Realty - WithdrawalsManagement Common to All Alternatives

• Existing withdrawals would be reviewed prior to the end of the withdrawal period to determine if they should be extended, revoked, or modified. Withdrawals no longer needed for their original intended purpose would be recommended for revocation or modification. • New withdrawal proposals would be considered where land would transfer from one federal agency to another or where resource values or agency investments are best protected by withdrawal if strongly justified and in conformance with current withdrawal and mineral policy. • Results of an ongoing Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for a military withdrawal in the Limestone Hills west of Townsend would be adopted in 

this RMP revision. 

• Remaining existing Classification and Multiple Use Act classifications would be reviewed to determine whether they should be continued or terminated. • The Recreation and Public Purpose classification on 200 acres at the Deep Creek Ski Area would be terminated. • The parcel used by Last Chance Handgunners under an R&PP lease in Boulder would be reclassified for disposal. 

Alternatives A and D

• Withdrawals would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Alternatives B and C

• Priority for new withdrawals would be for all developed and undeveloped recreation sites followed by new acquisitions through exchange or purchase, and 

in ACECs to protect resources and values as needed.

Management Concern: Lands and Realty - Withdrawals

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Withdrawals from mineral entry wouldbe considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Priority for new withdrawals would befor all developed recreation sites, followed by new acquisitions and ACECsto protect resources as needed. 

Same as Alternative B. Withdrawals from mineral entry would

be considered on a case-by-case basis. 

Management Concern: Lands and Realty – Land Ownership Adjustment Goals

• Look for opportunities to acquire non-federal land or interest in non-federal land with important resources and resource uses. • Provide for land-use opportunities to provide a sustained flow of economic benefits and meet local infrastructure needs while protecting or minimizing adverse impacts to resources and resource uses. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 141 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Lands and Realty – Land Ownership Adjustment 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Methods of land ownership adjustment would include exchanges, sales, transfers, fee acquisition, and donation. • Public access would be maintained or improved through all land ownership adjustment transactions.• BLM land within disposal areas would be made available for sales, exchanges, or both. Some lands identified for disposal would be retained in public ownership based on site-specific application of the land ownership adjustment criteria (Appendix K). • Lands to be sold would meet the following disposal criteria from FLPMA:

 Such land must be 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 must have been acquired for a specific purpose and must no longer be required for that or any other federal purpose.  Disposal of such land will serve important public objectives that can only be achieved prudently or feasibly if the land is removed from public 

ownership and if these objectives outweigh other public objectives and values that would be served by maintaining such land in federal ownership. 

• No BLM lands in the BFO are suitable for Desert Land Entry.

Alternative A

• Land ownership adjustment guidance would be provided by the 1984 Headwaters RMP, 1979 Dillon Management Framework Plan, and “Land Pattern and 

Land Adjustment, Supplement to the State Director Guidance for Resource Management Planning in Montana and the Dakotas, 1984” as amended by the 1989 State Director’s guidance pertaining to access.

• Non-federal land to be acquired by the BFO through exchanges would generally be located in retention areas. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Approximately 294,600 acres of BLM land would be identified in the retention category. • High priority lands for retention and potential future acquisition would include those in and immediately adjacent to special designation areas (ACECs, Wild 

and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Study Areas, National Trail Corridors, Special Recreation Management Areas, and recreation sites) as well as habitat for priority and special status species.

• Approximately 7,472 acres of land would be identified as available for disposal. • Lands leased or conveyed under the R&PP Act would be classified for such disposal under Section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act (42 USC 315f) and 43 CFR 

2400. 

• Right-of-way holders would be issued perpetual easements for their facilities prior to the disposal of any BLM parcels. 

 142 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Concern: Lands and Realty – Access and Unauthorized Land Use Management Common to All Alternatives - Access

• BLM would acquire legal public access and administrative access to BLM land from willing landowners through easements, fee purchase, exchange, donation, and/or long term land use agreements.

Alternative A

• Access acquisition efforts would be focused on larger blocks of BLM land which are designated for retention, areas with important resource values, areas 

where public demand for access is high, and areas with substantial BLM investments.

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Acquisition of access would be focused on routes designated as “open” in travel plans that lack legal public access. Criteria described in Appendix K would 

be used for identifying new access opportunities and managing existing access to BLM lands.

Management Common to All Alternatives – Unauthorized Land Use

• BLM would abate realty-related unauthorized use through prevention, detection, and resolution. Unauthorized use of BLM administered land would be resolved through termination, short or long term authorization, sale, or exchange as appropriate. Resolution of trespasses would require settlement of trespass 

liabilities and reclamation of any resource damage.

Management Concern: Minerals Goals

• Ensure that federal minerals are available for energy and mineral exploration and development.• Manage exploration and development of mineral resources and ensure they are conducted in an environmentally sound manner. • Where possible, conserve significant or unique geological features.

Management Common to All Alternatives

• 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. All Energy and Minerals exploration, development, and production activities would be managed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation. Management Common to 

Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• For all exploration and mining proposals, BLM would ensure operations take all practical measures to maintain, protect, or minimize disturbances to resources. • Mineral activity would be managed to meet, or move toward meeting Land Health Standards.• Future changes to ESA listings of species or occupied habitats may require changes or modifications of proposed activities to comply with the requirements 

of the act. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 143 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Minerals – Roads

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Mineral operations permits wouldidentify requirements and BMPs necessary to avoid or minimize adverseeffects on natural resources. 

Where no alternative to road construction exists, roads (including in riparianareas) would be kept to the minimum necessary for the approved mineralactivity. Roads and facilities would beclosed and the landscape rehabilitatedwhen no longer required for mineral orland management activities. 

No new or existing mineral operations(salable, leasable, and locatable) wouldbe allowed to construct new structures,support facilities, or roads inside Riparian Management Zones. 

New and existing mineral operations(salable, leasable, and locatable) wouldbe allowed to construct structures,support facilities, and roads in riparianareas using stipulations and BMPswhen necessary. Roads and facilities nolonger needed for mineral or land management would be reclaimed to the bestextent possible. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Leasable Solid Minerals Management Common to All Alternatives

• BLM would consider proposals for developing leasable solid 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 case-by-case basis. Site-specific environmental analysis would be required to lease these minerals.

Management Concern: Minerals - Leasable Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas) Management Common to All Alternatives

• Public lands available for oil and gas leasing would be offered first by competitive bid at an oral auction. • Appropriate stipulations, terms, and conditions would be applied at the time of leasing. • Interim management policy and guidelines for mineral leasing in WSAs would be applied as appropriate. All WSAs would be closed to new oil and gas 

leases where BLM owns both the surface and sub-surface. This acreage totals about 28,774 acres. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Leasable Fluid Minerals (Oil and Gas)

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Approximately 38,629 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to standardlease terms.Approximately 325,164 acres would beopen to leasing under Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitation stipulations. 

Approximately 19,807 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to standardlease terms.Approximately 337,389 acres would beopen to leasing under Controlled Surface Use/Timing Limitation stipulations. 

Approximately 18,877 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to standardlease terms.Approximately 32,504 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to ControlledSurface Use stipulations. 

Approximately 76,708 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to standardlease terms.Approximately 468,547 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to ControlledSurface Use/Timing Limitation stipulations. 

 144 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Approximately 265,296 acres would beopen to leasing subject to No SurfaceOccupancy stipulations.Approximately 49,099 acres would beunavailable for leasing: 28,774 acreswould be in WSAs; 20,325 acres wouldbe within core areas of state wildlifemanagement areas. 

Approximately 292,171 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to No SurfaceOccupancy stipulations.Approximately 28,774 acres would beunavailable for leasing in WSAs. 

Approximately 26,109 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to No SurfaceOccupancy stipulations.Approximately 600,650 acres would beunavailable for leasing within the following areas:

• prairie dog towns• sage grouse winter/spring range• 0.5 mile of sage grouse strutting

grounds 

• state wildlife management areas• big game winter/spring range• elk calving/big game birthing

areas 

• bighorn sheep yearlong range• 1 mile of bald eagle nest

site/breeding habitat

• 0.5 mile of raptor breeding territories • 1 mile of peregrine falcon nest

sites/breeding habitat

• 0.5 mile of ferruginous haw

breeding territories

• 0.5 mile of westslope cutthroat

trout habitat (90-99 percent genetically pure) 

• 0.5 mile of Yellowstone cutthroat trout habitat• municipal watersheds• WSAs 

Approximately 104,069 acres would beopen to leasing, subject to No SurfaceOccupancy stipulations.Approximately 28,774 acres would beunavailable for leasing in WSAs. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 145 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Minerals - Geothermal

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Lands in the Decision Area would be available for geothermal leasing, unless located within WSAs or in instance where it is determined that issuing leases 

would cause unnecessary or undue degradation to public lands or resources.

• Stipulations developed for oil and gas leases would be applied to geothermal leases if appropriate. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Geophysical Exploration Management Common to All Alternatives

• BLM would review Notices of Intent to Conduct Geophysical Exploration and develop appropriate mitigation measures so as not to create undue and unnecessary degradation. A site-specific environmental analysis would be prepared for each NOI filed. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Locatable MineralsManagement Common to All Alternatives

• At a minimum, an annual compliance inspection of each active notice would be conducted. • Opportunities and accessibility to mineralized areas for exploration and development would be provided. • Special project design measures would be incorporated into exploration and development projects as needed to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation to 

other resources such as special status or priority species, visual corridors, cultural resource sites, and fossil localities. 

• Reclamation and restoration activities would be monitored to determine effectiveness of management practices. • For placer mining operations, reclamation activities would be required to restore stream channels and riparian habitats to functioning condition as close to 

pre-mining conditions as possible.

• As information becomes available, known areas of geological hazards (e.g. landslide prone areas, avalanche areas, etc.) would be mapped. • The Elkhorn Mountains ACEC would not be proposed as a withdrawal under any alternative. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Locatable Minerals - Withdrawals 

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

Approximately 8,883 acres of landwould remain withdrawn from locatable mineral entry. Many of these acresare included in Power Site Reserve andPower Project withdrawals. An additional 160 acres are withdrawn to protect the unique geological feature of theRinging Rocks area. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

 146 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Concern: Minerals - Locatable Minerals – Withdrawals – continued No related action. An additional approximately 407 acres

would be recommended for withdrawalfrom mineral entry if justified and inconformance with current withdrawal and mineral policy.Approximately 227 of these acres arelocated in nine different recreationsites. The remaining approximately 180acres are in riparian areas of MuskratCreek and Nursery Creek to protect animportant genetically pure westslopecutthroat trout population. 

Same as Alternative B. No related action. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Salable Minerals Management Common to All Alternatives

• Salable mineral sites would have approved mining and reclamations plans and environmental analyses prior to be opened. • Mineral material would be sold at fair market value to the public but would be free to state, county, or other local government when used for public projects. 

Management Concern: Minerals - Salable Minerals

Alternative A - No Action Alternative B - Preferred Alternative C Alternative D 

The BLM would authorize the purchase of salable minerals (commonvarieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice,cinders, clay, and petrified wood) fromthe federal government through a contract of sale (by the ton or cubic yard)or a free-use permit unless specificcircumstances dictate otherwise. Extraction of materials from previouslydisturbed sites would be encouragedand all impacts to natural resources aremitigated. 

The BLM would continue to authorizethe purchase of salable minerals (common varieties of sand, stone, gravel,pumice, cinders, clay, and petrifiedwood) from the federal governmentthrough a contract of sale (by the ton orcubic yard) or a free-use permit unlessspecific circumstances dictate otherwise. Extraction of materials frompreviously disturbed sites would beencouraged. All development and operating impacts to natural resources andlocal residence will be mitigated. 

The BLM would not allow the purchase of salable minerals (commonvarieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice,cinders, clay and petrified wood),unless desired by the state or counties,or within existing community pits. 

The BLM would authorize the purchase of salable minerals (commonvarieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumice,cinders, clay, and petrified wood) fromthe federal government through a contract of sale (by the ton or cubic yard)or a free-use permit unless specificcircumstances dictate otherwise. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 147 
Table 2

23 Table 2-23 Comparison of Alternatives Management Concern: Abandoned Mine Lands

Goals

• Reclaim AML sites on public land to improve water quality, plant communities, and diverse fish and wildlife habitat. • Reduce and/or eliminate risks to human health from hazardous mine openings.• Protect historic resources and wildlife habitat commonly associated with AML sites. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• To the extent possible on BLM lands, BLM would strive to meet state and federal water quality standards in watersheds impacted by historic mining. • BLM would assess level of risks at AML sites and prioritize for reclamation based on standardized risk assessment. Reclamation would be implemented at 

the highest risk sites first.

• Where deemed appropriate by BLM personnel, BLM would restore severely impacted soils and watersheds as close as possible to pre-disturbed conditions 

that support productive plant communities and ensure properly functioning watersheds.

• Closures of dangerous inactive and abandoned mine sites would be designed to reduce the risks to human health and safety, restore the environment, and 

protect geological and cultural resources and meet or move toward meeting Land Health Standards.

• Restoration and reclamation activities and repositories would be monitored to determine effectiveness of reclamation practices.• To the extent possible on BLM lands, BLM would strive to meet state and federal air quality standards in the interest of protecting human health potentially 

impacted by fugitive dust emissions.

Management Concern: Hazardous Materials ManagementGoals

• Mitigate threats and reduce risks to the public and environment from hazardous materials.

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Disposal of hazardous materials on public lands would generally 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 would be applied to comply with appropriate laws, regulations, and policies. In the 

event of hazardous materials incidents on public land, standard operating procedures would be used to respond. Cleanups and reclamation would be conducted in accordance with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan and the NEPA decision. 

• BLM would 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.

• Environmental Site Assessments would be conducted for land acquisitions, land disposals, and for right-of-ways if applicable. Land uses would be authorized and managed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials incidences on public land. • BLM would assess level of risk at hazard sites and conduct remediation at highest priority sites that are the greatest risks to the public and environment. • Pollutants, such as flammable liquids and lubricants, would 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). 

 148 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 2-23

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Concern: Social and Economic EnvironmentGoals

• Provide opportunities for economic benefits while minimizing adverse impacts to resources and resource uses. • 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.

• 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.

• Protect visual quality, wildlife habitats, and recreation opportunities on BLM lands to sustain non-market economic values; and, make resource commodities 

available to provide a sustainable flow of economic benefits within the capability of the ecosystem. 

Management Common to Action Alternatives (B, C, and D)

• Identified Special Recreation Management Areas and the remaining Extensive Recreation Management Areas would be managed for identified user markets, 

activities, and experience levels.

• Collaborative and/or stewardship processes would be used in the analysis and treatment of all resources and uses, as possible. • BLM would 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.

• Use of new and developing technologies and industries would be encouraged in achieving healthy forest, stewardship, biomass utilization, and fuel management goals.

Management Concern: Environmental JusticeGoals

• Identify and remediate to the extent possible disproportionate negative effects to minority or low income populations per Executive Order 12898. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• Under all alternatives, BLM would 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.

Management Concern: Tribal Treaty RightsGoals

• Accommodate treaty and legal rights of appropriate Native American groups in management of public lands. 

Management Common to All Alternatives

• BLM would notify and consult with tribes on BLM actions. Consultation and coordination would be conducted on a government to government basis with 

federally recognized tribes. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 149 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

AIR QUALITY 

Air quality would continue to beprotected although short termimpacts could occur from ongoing fire events, prescribed fireactivities, slash burning, or dustfrom travel on unpaved roads,and dust and exhaust from construction or development activities. 

Air quality would continue to beprotected similar to AlternativeA although short-term impactsfrom prescribed burning couldbe greater due to increase inpotential acreage burned. 

Air quality would continue to beprotected similar to Alt. A although short-term impacts fromprescribed burning would be lessthan in all other alternatives dueto decrease in potential acreageburned. 

Air quality would continue to beprotected similar to Alt. A.Smoke from prescribed burningwould be greater than any otheralternative, and where fires areallowed to burn for resourcebenefits there could be a longerterm negative impact on air quality. 

SOIL RESOURCES 

Alt. A would provide no changefrom current conditions. 

Alt. B would cause more impacts

on soil resources than Alt. C, butless than Alts. A or D. 

Alt. C would be most protectiveof soil resources and would create the least impacts of all alternatives. 

Alt. D would create the greatestamount of impact to soil resources of the action alternatives.

Restoration of vegetative

communities 

Short- to mid-term impacts tosoils from restoration of vegetative communities, and long-termbenefits of restored communitieswould be greater than Alt. C butless than Alts. B or D. 

Short to mid-term adverse effects from restoration of vegetative communities would begreater than Alts. A and C, butless than Alt. D, as would longterm benefits associated withrestoration. 

Short to mid-term adverse effects from restoration of vegetative communities would be theleast of all alternatives, but longterm benefits would also be less. 

Short to mid-term adverse effects from restoration of vegetative communities would begreatest of all alternatives, butlong-term benefits would begreatest. 

Livestock grazing Greater impacts associated with

livestock grazing than Alts. B orC due to availability of additional allotments. 

Reduced soil impacts from grazing than Alts. A and D due tomanagement of McMasters and,Spokane Hills as forage reserveallotments. 

Least impacts from livestockgrazing of all alternatives because several allotments wouldnot be available for grazing. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Travel management Greatest soil erosion potential

resulting from the most miles ofopen motorized road. 

Less ground disturbance anderosion due to road closures thanAlts. A and D, but less than Alt.C. 

Reduced ground disturbanceassociated with most motorizedroute closures would benefit soilmore than other alternatives. 

Reduction in ground disturbancefrom closing roads to motorizeduse would be greater than Alt.A, but less than Alts. B and C. 

150 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Timber harvest/

mine development 

No additional protection for soilsby allowing timber harvest inSMZs. 

More protection than Alts. A andD by not allowing new miningrelated roads and facilities insideRMZ, unless there is no otheroption. Ground disturbance fromtimber harvest in RMZs hasgreater impacts than Alt. C but less than Alts. A and D. 

Greater soil protection in riparian areas than other alternativessince timber harvest and miningroads/ facilities would not beallowed in RMZs. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Firewood management Least long-term benefit to soils

in riparian areas due to SMZ lawguidance. 

More beneficial than Alt. A, butless than Alt. C due to restrictions for firewood cutting within100 feet of live streams and 50feet of intermittent streams. 

Most long-term benefit to soilsin riparian areas due to restriction that firewood cannot be cutwithin 200 feet of live streams or100 feet of intermittent streams. 

Same as Alt. B. 

WATER RESOURCES

Vegetation treatments Short to mid-term erosion/ sedimentation impacts from ground

disturbance and long-term benefits to water quality greater thanAlt. C but less than Alts. B andD. 

Greater effects (short-term adverse and long-term benefits)than Alts. A and C, but less thanAlt. D. 

Most protective from adverseeffects due to least ground disturbance proposed with vegetative treatments, but least longterm benefits of all alternatives. 

Greatest impacts (short-termadverse and long-term benefits)of all alternatives because highest level of vegetation treatments. 

Riparian Vegetation 

Treatments 

Negligible effects since only 30acres riparian vegetation treatedper decade. 

Short-term localized erosion andsedimentation to streams fromtreating up to 700 acres/decadein riparian areas but long-termbenefits to water quality fromimproved conditions. 

Effects less than Alts. B and D,but more than Alternative Asince 200 acres riparian vegetation treated per decade. 

Most short-term adverse effectsand long-term benefits of allalternatives since 1,700 acresriparian vegetation treated perdecade. 

Fire Rehabilitation Weed and erosion control conducted in burned areas as outlined

in BLM’s Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook would serveto reduce erosion and subsequentstream sedimentation, thoughshort-term impacts could occuruntil appropriate measures could be implemented. 

More surface water protectionthan Alts. A and D but less thanAlt. C because weed and erosioncontrol in burned areas wouldonly occur when stream sedimentation taking place. 

Greatest benefit to surface waterbecause weed and erosion control required anywhere accelerated erosion taking place inburned areas. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 151 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

WATER RESOURCES – continued

Livestock Grazing Slightly greater erosion/ sedimentation and streambank stability impacts than Alts. B or C

since more allotments availablefor grazing. 

Fewer impacts than Alts. A andD since various allotments managed as forage reserves ratherthan general grazing. 

Less impacts than Alt. B becauseseveral allotments unavailable for grazing. Least impacts of allalternatives. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Noxious weeds No effects to water quality expected since herbicides applied

according to label directions, inaccordance with National Vegetation EIS and BFO Weed Management Plan. Increase in weedinfestations (more than Alt. C, but less than Alts. B and D)could increase potential for erosion and sedimentation, and thuswater quality issues. 

No effects to water quality expected since herbicides appliedaccording to label directions, inaccordance with National Vegetation EIS, and BFO Weed Management Plan, and aerial applications would require 300’ orgreater buffer. Increase in weedinfestations under this alternative(more than Alts. A and C, butless than Alt. D) could increasepotential for erosion, sedimentation, and thus water quality issues. 

No effects to water quality expected since herbicides appliedaccording to label directions, inaccordance with National Vegetation EIS, and BFO Weed Management Plan, and aerial applications would not be allowed. Increase in weed infestations (leastof any alternative) could stillincrease potential for erosion andsedimentation, and thus waterquality issues. 

No effects to water quality expected since herbicides appliedaccording to label directions, inaccordance with National Vegetation EIS, and BFO Weed Management Plan. Increase in weedinfestations (greatest of any alternative) could increase potential for erosion and sedimentation, and thus water quality issues. 

Riparian management No additional protection than

afforded by SMZ law. 

Alt. B more protective of waterquality than Alternatives A andD due to RMZs. 

Most protective because widerRMZs and no commercial timber 

harvest allowed. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Water rights No consideration given to acquiring water rights. Increasing or maintaining in- stream flows through water

rights acquisitions could benefitwater quality more than Alts. Aand D. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. 

Travel management Greatest degree of water quality

impacts due to most open roadsoverall (629.2 miles), as well aswithin 300 feet of streams (87.7miles), of all alternatives. 

Fewer impacts to water qualitythan Alts. A and D due to secondlowest number of open roads(416.9 miles) overall, and within300 feet of streams (70.8 miles)of all alternatives. 

Lowest impacts to water qualityof any alternative due to fewestopen roads (372.4 miles). Fewestopen roads within 300 feet ofstreams (67.1 miles) of all alternatives. 

Fewer water quality impacts than

Alt. A but more than Alts. B andC. Second highest number ofopen roads (478.6 miles) androads within 300 feet of streams(74.6 miles) of all alternatives. 

152 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Road design and

maintenance standards 

Least protective of water qualityof all alternatives. 

More protective than Alt. A,because roads minimized inRMZs, outsloping surfaces, routing drainage away from streams,and culvert stream crossings. 

More protective than all otheralternatives because 100-yearstorm event culverts would beinstalled at stream crossings. 

Slightly less protective than Alt.B due to fewer design and maintenance considerations. 

Special designations Provides equal protection of

NWSRS-eligible segments asAlt. C by limiting activitieswithin a 0.25 mile corridor of allfour segments (12 miles). Spokane Creek aquatic resourcevalues within 14-acre area notprotected with ACEC designation. 

More protective than AlternativeD, but less than Alternatives Aand C since only two river segments considered for NWSRS.More protective than Alts. A andD in Spokane Creek due to itsdesignation as ACEC. 

Same as Alt. A for NWSRS suitability. Same as AlternativeB for Spokane Creek ACECdesignation. 

Less water quality protectionthan other alternatives since norivers recommended suitable forNWSRS. Spokane Creek not designated as potential ACEC. 

Oil and gas leasing Effects of NSO restrictions more

protective for perennial streamsand rivers than other alternatives. Standard lease terms lessprotective of municipal watersheds than other alternatives. 

More protective of municipalwater supplies than Alts. A andD due to NSO stipulation invarious municipal watersheds. 

Most protective municipal watersheds with No Lease stipulations in municipal watersheds. Controlled Surface Use stipula­ tion less protective of municipal watersheds than Alts. B and C. 

Mining operations Most water quality impacts because new roads and facilities

would be allowed in riparianareas. 

More protective than Alts. A andD, because new roads and facilities would not be allowed inriparian areas unless there is noother option. 

Most protective of all alternatives because new mining roadsand facilities prohibited in riparian areas. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Mineral withdrawals No proposed withdrawal in

Muskrat Creek drainage 

Would protect westslope cutthroat trout population, streamchannel by proposing a withdrawal from mineral entry of 180acres in Muskrat Creek drainage. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 153 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIESGeneral vegetation

Livestock grazing Biomass on allotments would be

reduced on 273,000 acres available for grazing. Density andproduction of palatable speciesmay be reduced in localizedareas. The reduction in fine fuelswould reduce frequency andintensity of wildland fire. 

Grazing effects would occur on265,000 acres. Fine fuels buildupand some grass species decadence may occur on 8,000 additional acres unavailable for grazing. 

Grazing effects would occur on262,000 acres. Fine fuels buildupand some grass species decadence may occur on 11,000 additional acres unavailable for grazing. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Revegetation seed mix Revegetation seed mixes consist

of mostly native species. 

Using native species or noninvasive seed mixes on burnedareas and sites with high erosionpotential would minimize proliferation of noxious weeds. Perennial non-native species mayinitiate persistent stands, whichcan inhibit colonization by native herbaceous species andconifers. 

Using only native species forrevegetation of disturbed areaswould require intense management for weed control but longterm benefits of little or no maintenance once they are established. The slope stabilizing,quick ground cover, and invasivespecies competition of introduced species would be foregone. 

Same as Alt. B 

Permanent Roads No set road density target for

areas in big game winter andcalving ranges. The existing roadnetwork would remain open forpublic use. Provides greatestflexibility for vegetation treatments. 

No new, permanent roads wouldbe allowed in big game winterrange or calving habitat whereroad densities are 1 mi/mi2 or

less. Vegetation treatment options could be limited more thanAlt. D but less than Alt C. 

No new, permanent roads in biggame winter range and calvingareas where road densities whereare 1.5 mi/mi2 or less. This is 

most restrictive of all alternatives for vegetation treatments. 

No new, permanent roads wouldbe allowed in big game winterrange or calving habitat whereroad densities are 0.5 mi/mi2 or 

less. Vegetation treatmentswould be limited more than Alt.A, but less than Alts. B and C.

Protection of raptor

nests 

Alt. A would provide no limitations to vegetation treatmentsassociated with occupied raptornests. 

Alt. B would restrict noise disturbance and most managementactivities within 0.5 miles ofoccupied raptor nests, during thenesting and brooding period. 

Alt. C would restrict noise disturbance and most managementactivities within 1 mile of occupied raptor nests, during thenesting and brooding period. 

Alt. D would restrict noise disturbance and most managementactivities within 0.25 miles ofoccupied raptor nests. 

154 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Approximately 500 acres pernest would be affected, makingmanagement more difficult. 

Affects approximately 2,000acres per nest, four times asmany acres as Alt. B and sixteentimes as many acres as Alt. D. 

Approximately 125 acres pernest would be affected, makingmanagement more restrictivethan Alt. A, but less than Alts. Band C. 

Grassland and Shrubland

Vegetation treatments Would treat 5,250 acres per decade resulting in a net increase in

conifer encroachment of approximately 1,161 acres per decade. 

Would restore up to 15,450 acresper decade of grassland andshrubland communities for a netrestoration (decrease in coniferencroachment) on up to 9,039acres per decade. 

Would treat up to 2,750 acres perdecade resulting in net increasein conifer encroachment ratherthan increase in restored habitatcompared to Alts. B and D. 

Would treat up to 25,900 acresper decade resulting in greaternet increase in restored habitat(up to 19,489 acres per decade)than all other alternatives. 

Fire management

(Prescribed fire) 

Would reduce fuel loading andremove encroaching conifers.No timing restrictions for prescribed burning. 

Projects planned to reduce density of conifer seedling and sapling on 80 percent of area burnedleaving conifer encroachment inmosaic of unburned patches.Soil, grasses, and forbs protectedfrom fire-related mortality during hotter drier months by imposed burning restrictions MayAugust. 

Projects planned to burn leastsurface area (60 percent) to treatconifer encroachment.Timing restriction for prescribedburning the similar to Alt. B, butincludes mechanical treatmentsas well, and therefore is mostrestrictive. 

Projects planned to burn 90 percent of surface area would beburned to reduce conifer encroachment.Same as Alt. A. 

Rest from livestock grazing ingrassland/shrubland habitatsbefore and after burning as determined through site-specificplanning. 

Resting areas from livestockgrazing in grassland/shrublandhabitats up to one year prior totreatment and two growing seasons following treatments (withcase by case flexibility) wouldpromote vegetative recoverybefore reapplying grazing. 

Same as Alt. B but without flexibility to reduce post-treatmentrest timeframe. Limited flexibility to meet permitteeforage needs. 

Rest prior to burning if neededand for one growing season after, additional rest on case-bycase basis. Vegetation recoverymay occur more slowly. Moreflexibility to meet permitteeforage needs. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 155 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES – continued

Mountain mahogany and

bitterbrush restoration 

No proactive restoration proposed. Treatment of mahogany and bitterbrush would be a priority.

Vigor and health of these specieswould be improved compared toAlts. A and C through treatmentsreducing competing plants. 

Would provide for opportunisticrestorative treatments of mountain mahogany and bitterbrushcommunities when associatedwith other projects. Effectswould be the same as Alts. B andD, but would occur on feweracres. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Forests and woodlands

Dry forest treatments Least acres of dry forest treated

per decade (5,100 acres) to helprestore historic conditions andstill exceed rate of decline inforest health. 

Second most acres of dry foresttreated per decade (up to 14,750acres) to help restore historicconditions that would exceedrate of decline in forest health. 

At a treatment rate of up to 4,800 acres per decade, dry forestwould not be restored at a rateexceeding rate of decline in forest health. 

Most acres of dry forest treatedper decade to restore historicconditions (up to 18,200 acresper decade) of all alternatives.

Cool, moist forest

treatments 

Least acres of cool, moist foresttreated per decade (2,350 acres)to help restore historic conditions and still exceed rate ofdecline in forest health. 

Second most acres of cool, moistforest treated per decade (up to3,750 acres) to help restore historic conditions that would exceed rate of declining foresthealth. 

At a treatment rate of up to 550acres per decade, cool moistforest would not be restored at arate exceeding rate of decline inforest health. 

Most acres of cool, moist foresttreated per decade to restorehistoric conditions (up to 5,050acres per decade) of all alternatives. 

Big Game Security

Cover 

Guidelines from the MontanaCooperative Elk-Logging Study(Lyon et al. 1982) can be considered on a case-by case basis,as compared to action alternatives which specify core acreages that must remain unroadedor closed during the huntingseason. Provides greatest flexibility for implementation. 

Maintaining 250 acre blocks forbig game security cover wouldrestrict vegetation treatmentoptions the same as Alt. D butless than Alt. C. 

Maintaining 500 acre blocks forbig game security cover wouldrestrict vegetation treatmentoptions the most of all alternatives. 

Same as Alt. B. 

156 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Old forest structure No specific limitations associated with maintaining old forest

structure. 

Maintain and promote old foreststructure through active restoration treatments and activities.More proactive than Alts. A andC. 

Maintain and protect old foreststructure. Management would bemore reactive than proactive,unlike Alts. B and D. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Unoccupied raptors nests No specific limitations on treatments associated with maintaining habitat around unoccupied

raptor nests. 

Maintain a 0.25 mile buffer(~125 acres) of suitable habitataround unoccupied nests for 5years. Less restrictive than Alt. Cbut more so than Alts. A and D. 

Maintain a 0.5 mile buffer (~500acres) of suitable habitat aroundunoccupied nests for 7 years.Most restrictive of all alternatives. 

Maintain a 0.25 mile buffer(~125 acres) of suitable habitataround unoccupied nests for 3years. Least restrictive of theaction alternatives.

Noxious weeds

Potential spread Management under Alt. A could

result in the lowest rate of potential weed spread, though infestedacres could still increase (43,000acres by 2015). 

Management under Alt. B couldresult in the third lowest rate ofpotential weed spread (48,000acres by 2015). 

Management under Alt. C couldresult in the highest rate of potential weed spread (51,000 acresby 2015). 

Management under Alt. D couldresult in the second lowest rateof potential weed spread (47,000acres by 2015). 

Weed spread

contributions 

Open and limited roads and trailswould contribute 13 acres/year,grassland treatments 66acres/year, forest treatments 38acres/year, and riparian treatments would be negligible contributors.Spread from wildfire is not included in the increased acres,and wildfire risk is greater thanAlts. B and D but less than Alt.C. 

Open and limited roads and trailswould contribute 9 acres/year,grassland and shrubland treatments 193 acres/year, foresttreatments 93 acres/year, andriparian treatments would benegligible contributors.Spread from wildfire is not included in the increased acres,and wildfire risk is greater thanAlt. D but less than Alts. A andC. 

Open and limited roads and trailswould contribute 8 acres/year,grassland and shrubland treatments 34 acres/year, forest treatments 27 acres/year, and ripariantreatments would be negligiblecontributors.Spread from wildfire is not included in the increased acres,and wildfire risk is the greatestunder this alternative. 

Open and limited roads and trailswould contribute 10 acres/year,grassland and shrubland treatments 323 acres/year, foresttreatments 116 acres/year, andriparian treatments 9 acres/year.Spread from wildfire is not included in the increased acres,and wildfire risk is the least under this alternative. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 157 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES – Noxious weeds continued

Oil and gas development 

Weed spread from oil and gasdevelopment would be similar toAlt. B, greater than Alt. C, andless than Alt. D. 

Weed spread from oil and gasdevelopment would be similar toAlt. A, greater than Alt. C, andless than Alt. D. 

Weed spread from oil and gasdevelopment would be leastunder this alternative. 

Weed spread from oil and gasdevelopment would be greatestunder this alternative. 

Lakeside

Camping 

Weed spread from camping onHolter and Hauser Lakes wouldbe greater than Alts. B and C butthe same as Alt. D. 

Weed spread from camping onHolter and Hauser Lakes wouldbe greater than Alt. C but lessthan Alts. A and D. 

Weed spread from camping onHolter and Hauser Lakes wouldbe least under this alternative. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Grassland and

Shrubland treatments 

Grassland treatments could result in up to 4,000 acres/decadeof weed resistant plantcommunities. No shrublandtreatments are anticipated. 

Grassland and shrubland (combined) treatments could result inup to 12,000 acres/decade ofweed resistant plant communities. 

Grassland and shrubland (combined) treatments could result inup to 2,000 acres/decade of weedresistant plant communities. 

Grassland and shrubland (combined) treatments could result inup to 19,000 acres/decade ofweed resistant plant communities. 

Aerial treatment

restrictions 

Aerial treatment restrictionswould result in greater costs permile of riparian treatments thanAlt. D, but less than Alts. B andC. 

Aerial treatment restrictionswould result in greater costs permile of riparian treatments thanAlts. A and D, but less than Alt.C. 

Aerial treatment restrictionswould result in the greatest costsper mile of riparian treatments. 

Aerial treatment restrictionswould result in the least cost permile of riparian treatments. 

Riparian types

Riparian protection SMZs provide protection to

water quality, streambank stability, down woody material andshade by restricting certain forestactivities on 3,528 acres. 

Increased stream shading, increased down woody materialrecruitment, and wider vegetative “filters” to prevent erodedsediment from reaching streamson 5,312 acres in RMZs. 

Increased stream shading, increased down woody material

recruitment, and wider vegetative “filters” to prevent erodedsediment from reaching streamson 11,393 acres in RMZs. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Riparian restoration Mechanically treating 30 acres

per decade would require thelongest timeframe to restoreriparian vegetation communitiesto proper functioning condition. 

Mechanically treating up to 700acres per decade would requirethe second shortest timeframe torestore riparian vegetation communities to proper functioningcondition. 

Would require second longesttimeframe to restore riparianvegetation communities toproper functioning condition atup to 200 acres per decade ofmechanical treatments. 

Treating up to 1,700 acres perdecade, could allow the shortestperiod required to restore riparian vegetation communities toproper functioning condition ofall alternatives. 

158 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Noxious weeds Adhering to application standards during aerial spraying,

including a 200’ buffer alongriparian areas, would protectuntargeted riparian vegetation. 

Adhering to application standards during aerial sprayingwould protect untargeted riparianvegetation, though there wouldbe less risk of inadvertent herbicide application given the bufferof 300’ in riparian areas. Cost oftreating weeds and risk of noxious weed spread in riparianareas would be greater than Alts.A or D. 

Least risk of inadvertent herbicide application to untargetedriparian vegetation, since noaerial spraying is allowed, butleast progress in minimizingweeds in these habitats. Cost oftreating weeds would be thehighest of all alternatives. 

Adhering to application standards during aerial sprayingwould protect untargeted riparianvegetation. Alt. D would allowgreatest flexibility in weed control options based on 100’ application buffer in riparian areas,and thus potential to better control weed infestation and spread.Lowest cost of treatment, butgreater risk of inadvertent herbicide application than Alts. A andB. 

Special designations Some protection of riparian

vegetation from potential futureland use disturbances such asutility corridors, timber harvest,or mining since 12 river mileswould be managed to maintainWSR eligibility. 

Increased protection of riparianvegetation over Alt. A since 5.7miles of river/stream segmentrecommended for WSR designation and additional 14 riparianacres in ACEC designation (Spokane Creek). 

Most protection of riparian vegetation of all alternatives since 12miles of river/stream recommended suitable for WSR designation. Same as Alt. B forACECs. 

Least protection of riparianvegetation of all alternativessince no rivers recommended forWSR designation. SpokaneCreek ACEC would not be designated. 

Lands and realty No mineral withdrawal proposed

for Muskrat Creek 

Muskrat Creek’s sensitive riparian values and vegetation protected from potential miningimpacts by 180 acre withdrawal. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A 

Mine-Related Road

construction 

No provisions in place for restricting mine-related roads inriparian areas. 

Reduced impacts to riparianvegetation from Alt. A by notallowing mining roads and facilities in riparian areas unless noother option exists. 

Least impacts of all alternativessince no mining-related road orfacilities allowed in riparianareas. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 159 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES – Riparian types continued

Oil and gas leasing 

Disturbance of riparian vegetation limited by NSO within 500feet of reservoirs, lakes, ponds,and intermittent streams. Disturbance of riparian vegetationlimited by NSO within 1,000feet of perennial streams andrivers. 

Less protection than Alt. A forreservoirs, lakes, ponds, andintermittent streams. Disturbance

of riparian vegetation limited byNSO of perennial streams andrivers plus Standard LeaseTerms (flexibility to move facilities up to 656 feet). 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

WILDLIFE

Dry forest habitats Alt. A would restore fewer acres

(up to 5,100 acres/decade) ofhabitat for those species thatdepend on dry forest types thanAlts. B and D but could restoreup to 300 acres more per decadethan Alt. C. 

Alt. B would restore more habitats for species that depend ondry forest types (up to 14,750acres/decade) than Alts. A and Cbut 3,450 acres less per decadethan Alt. D. Alternative B wouldhave fewer short-term adverseeffects on wildlife than Alt. D. 

Alt. C would restore the fewestacres of dry forest types (up to4,800 acres/decade) of all alternatives. Alt. C would have thefewest short-term adverse effectson wildlife from disturbance androad construction. 

Alt. D would restore the mostacres of dry forest types (up to18,200 acres/decade) of all alternatives and considerably improve habitat for a variety ofwildlife species. Alt. D wouldhave the most short-term adverseeffects on wildlife from disturbance and road construction.

Cool, moist forest

habitats 

Alt. A would restore fewer acres(up to 2,400 acres) of habitat forthose species that depend oncool, moist forests than Alts. Band D but could restore up to1,850 acres more per decadethan Alt. C. 

Alt. B would restore more habitat for cool forest species (up to3,750 acres/decade) than Alts. Aand C but up to 1,300 acres lessthan Alt. D. Alt. B would havefewer short-term adverse effectsto wildlife than Alt. D. 

Alt. C would restore the fewestacres of cool forest (up to 550acres/decade) of all alternatives.Alt. C would have the fewestshort-term adverse effects onwildlife of all the alternatives. 

Alt. D would restore the mostacres of cool forest (up to 5,050acres/ decade) of all alternativesand improve more habitat for avariety of wildlife species. Alt. Dwould have the most short-termeffects on wildlife from disturbance and road construction.

Snag management Alts. A and D would not provide

retention guidelines for snag anddown woody habitat and wouldnot proactively create snags insnag deficient areas. Alts. A andD would protect less snag habitatthan Alts. B and C. 

Alts. B and C would both use thesame protocol to identify therange of natural variability forretention or creation of snags.Unlike Alts. A and C, Alt. Bwould actively create snags insnag deficient areas. 

Alternative C could create lesssnag habitat over long-term thanAlt. B due to opportunistic snagcreation rather than active management. 

Same as Alt. A. 

160 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Timber Salvage Alt. A would have no restrictions

on the number of acres or size oftrees removed with timber salvage. Under Alt. A, snag habitatand down wood, which providesbreeding and foraging for a variety of species, would declinemore rapidly than under theaction alternatives. 

Contiguous blocks of dead anddying forest would be retained inadequate amounts during timbersalvage under Alt. B. Alt. Bwould retain more habitat forspecies dependent on dead anddying forests com

pared to Alts A

and D but less than Alt. C. 

By retaining 50 percent of deadand dying forest during salvagewhere these areas exceed 1,000acres, Alt. C would ensure themost acres available to speciesdependent on snag habitat. Alt. Cwould ensure breeding and nesting habitat is available in adequate amounts to maintain viability of species dependent onthis habitat type. 

Alt. D would retain fewer acresof dead and dying forest (30percent in areas that exceed1,000 acres) during salvagecompared to Alt. B and, especially, Alt. C. This would ensurethat some habitat is maintainedfor species dependent on deadand dying forest but may notensure the long-term viability ofthese species. 

Firewood cutting Alt A would have no restrictions

on the size of snags taken orwhere snags are removed. Thiswould reduce breeding and foraging habitat for many speciesmore than the action alternatives. 

Restricting the size of snagstaken would protect more breeding and nesting habitat than Alt.A but less than under Alt. C. 

Alt. C would protect more snagand down woody habitat of allalternatives by only allowingfirewood cutting in designatedareas to meet resource objectiveand only allowing trees <20”DBH to be removed. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Grassland/Shrubland

habitats 

Unlike the action alternatives,Alt. A only proposes treatinggrasslands (up to 5,250acres/decade) and not sagebrush.Alt. A would restore fewer acresof grassland and shrublands forthose species that depend onthese habitat types compared toAlts. B and D but could restoreup to 3,250 more grassland acresper decade than Alt. C. 

Alt. B would restore and enhance considerably more habitatfor grassland and shrubland species (up to 15,450 acres/decade)than Alts. A and C but up to10,400 acres less than Alt. D.However, Alt. B would havefewer short-term adverse effectsto wildlife than Alt. D. 

Alt. C would restore the fewestacres of grassland (up to 2,000acres/decade) of all alternativesand less shrubland (up to 750acres/decade) than Alts. B and Dbut more than Alt. A. Alt. Cwould restore considerably fewer acres of grassland/shrublandhabitats than Alts. B and D causing a decline in the quality andquantity of habitat for grasslandand sagebrush species. Alt. Cwould have the fewest shortterm adverse effects on wildlifeof all the alternatives. 

Alt. D would restore and enhance the most acres of grassland/shrubland (up to 25,850acres/decade) of all alternativesand improve more habitats forgrassland/shrubland species. Alt.D, however, would have themost short-term adverse effectson wildlife from disturbance andtemporary road construction. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 161 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

WILDLIFE – continued

Firewood cutting in

Riparian Areas 

With no restriction on firewoodcutting in riparian areas, Alt. Awould have the most detrimentaleffects to riparian species fromthe loss of breeding and nestinghabitat. 

Alt. B would maintain morebreeding and nesting habitat inriparian areas by restricting firewood cutting within 100 feet oflive streams and within 50 feetof intermittent streams. 

Alt. C would provide the greatestprotection to breeding and nesting riparian wildlife species ofall alternatives by not allowingfirewood cutting within 200 feetof live streams and within 100feet of intermittent streams. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Riparian habitat

protection 

Under Alts. A and D, riparianareas would be given a minimumamount of protection through theuse of SMZs. SMZs allow activities such as logging, prescribedfire, and road building in riparianareas (50 feet on either side of astream) but restricts how manytrees can be removed and whereroad construction can occur.SMZs provide limited protectionto overall riparian function andhabitat diversity to terrestrialspecies. By focusing dead andlive tree retention within the first50 feet of stream and by allowingsmaller diameter trees to be retained (down to 8 inches DBH),SMZs would limit wood recruitment to streams, reduce habitatfor foraging and breeding (lessvegetation and smaller diametersnags retained), reduce hidingand brood rearing habitat as wellas limit effective wildlife movement corridors. 

Alts. B and C would establishriparian management zones(RMZs) where all activitieswould have to meet ripariangoals and objectives. The RMZwidth would vary depending onthe type of stream (80 feet forperennial streams and 160 feetfor fish bearing streams). Theemphasis in riparian and streamfunctions along with widerRMZs would ensure that riparianhabitat is maintained alongstreams not only for water quality and aquatic habitat but alsofor the numerous terrestrial wildlife species that use riparianareas for breeding, foraging andhiding as well as for movementcorridors. 

Alt. C would ensure the bestprotection of riparian and streamhabitats by requiring all activities with 150 feet of perennialand 300 feet of fish bearingstreams meet riparian goals andobjectives. Alt. C would protectmore riparian habitat for terrestrial species than all other alternatives. 

Same as Alt. A 

162 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Noxious weeds Continued degradation of grassland, shrubland, riparian and

forested habitats with a reductionin forage, hiding cover, andvegetative diversity due to thefewest acres treated of all alternatives.Alt. A would provide more protection to non-target vegetationcompared to Alt. D by not allowing aerial spraying within 200feet of streams. 

Assuming implementation of thehigh end of proposed weedtreatment acres, Alt. B wouldtreat more weeds than Alts. Aand C but less than D. Alt. Bwould restore more habitat thanAlts. A and C but less than D.Alt. B would provide more protection from non-target speciesthan Alts. A and D by not allowing aerial spraying within 300feet of streams. 

Assuming implementation of thehigh end of proposed weedtreatment acres, Alt. C wouldtreat and restore more acres ofweeds than Alt. A but substantially less than Alts. B and D.Alt. C would provide the mostprotection of non-target vegetation of all alternatives by notallowing aerial spraying. Alt Ccould allow weed infestation torapidly spread in hard to accesssites by not allowing aerialspraying. 

Assuming implementation of thehigh end of proposed weedtreatment acres, Alt. D wouldrestore more habitats for a diversity of species compared to theother alternatives by reducingnoxious weed infestations. Alt. Dwould protect the least amount ofnon-target vegetation by allowing aerial spraying within 100feet of streams. 

Livestock grazing Alt. A would have more acres

available to livestock grazingthan Alts. B and C (273,000) andthe same as Alt. D. AlternativesA and D could have more negative effects due to competitionbetween livestock and big gamefor forage, spread of noxiousweeds, decrease in quality andquantity of grassland/shrublandhabitat and loss of riparian habitat than Alts. B and C. 

Alt. B would reduce the existingacres available for livestockgrazing to 265,000 acres andpotentially increase the qualityand quantity of habitat for biggame as well as nesting andforaging habitat for a variety ofgrassland/shrubland and riparianspecies compared to Alts. A andD. Annual maintenance of exclosures would ensure riparian areasare not degraded from livestockgrazing or trampling. 

Alt C would allow the fewestacres of livestock grazing(262,000 acres) compared to allother alternatives. This wouldbenefit the most wildlife speciesby reducing competition forforage, reducing disturbance,preventing spread of weeds,protecting riparian areas, andprotecting nesting and coverhabitat. Annual maintenance ofexclosures would ensure riparianareas are not degraded fromlivestock grazing or trampling. 

Same as Alt. A on allowableacres for livestock grazing butmore effects from reduced maintenance of livestock exclosuresexpected (exclosures to be maintained every 5 years). However,damaged and non-functionalexclosures could allow access toriparian areas and streams between 5 year maintenance intervals. Due to this, Alternative Dwould provide less protection toriparian areas than Alternatives Band C. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 163 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

WILDLIFE – continued

Bighorn sheep

management 

For new sheep/goat allotments orconversions from cows to sheep/goats, although Alts A and Dwould allow for a buffer of up to9 miles between wild and domestic sheep, these alternativeswould not have a minimumbuffer width. These Alts. wouldnot guarantee adequate separation between wild and domesticsheep to prevent disease transmission.Alt. A would not provide specific guidance when using domestic sheep for weed control inoccupied bighorn sheep habitat.This could allow for diseasetransmission to wild sheep during weed control activities. 

For new sheep/goat allotments orconversions from cows to sheep/goats, Alt. B would require aminimum buffer width of 5 miles between wild and domesticsheep populations to reduce thepotential for diseases to bepassed from domestic to bighornsheep.Alts. B and C would not allownew sheep or goat allotments inoccupied bighorn sheep habitatto protect wild sheep from disease transmission.Alts. B, C, and D would restrictwhen and for how long domestic sheep could be used for weedcontrol adjacent to occupied wildsheep habitat. 

For new sheep/goat allotments orconversions from cows to sheep/goats, Alt. C would have thegreatest protection to bighornsheep from disease transmissionand competition of resources dueto the largest mandatory buffer(9 miles) between wild and domestic sheep. Alt. C would alsohave the most restrictions onwhen domestic sheep could beused for weed control and wouldnot allow new sheep or goatallotments in occupied bighornsheep habitat. 

For new sheep/goat allotments orconversions from cows to sheep/goats, Alt. D would have thesame direction for a buffer between domestic sheep and goatallotments and wild sheep habitatas Alternative A, but would havethe same restrictions as Alt. B forthe use of domestic sheep andgoats during weed control adjacent to wild sheep habitat. Alt Dwould protect bighorn sheepfrom disease slightly more thanAlt. A but considerably less thanAlts. B and C. 

Fire Management Alts. A and D would have more

mortality to nesting migratoryand resident birds compared toAlts. B and C because therewould be no timing restrictionsduring prescribed burning ormechanical treatments. 

Alt. B would reduce mortality tonesting birds, including migratory and resident birds, by excluding the use of fire during thebreeding season.Because mechanical treatmentswould not have timing restrictions, there could be impacts tobreeding birds from implementation during the breeding season.Alt. B would protect breedingbirds and prevent more mortalitythan Alts. A and D but less thanAlt. C. 

Alt. C would prevent the mostmortality to migratory and resident breeding birds by restrictingboth prescribed fire and mechanical treatments during thebreeding season. 

Same as Alt. A. 

164 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Travel management Alt. D would have the most miles

of open yearlong roads (471.8miles) of all alternatives. Alt. Dwould have the most detrimentaleffects on wildlife from disturbance or loss of habitat for overwintering, breeding, and migrating wildlife. Alt. A would havemore roads that could causedirect mortality through road kill,prevent wildlife movement, create disturbance, cause spread ofnoxious weeds, and cause habitatfragmentation across the landscape. 

Alt. B would have substantiallyfewer detrimental effects to wildlife from open yearlong roads(261 miles) compared to Alt. A.Alt. B would also have fewernegative effects to wildlife fromloss of habitat, road kill, disturbance and fragmentation of habitat than Alt. D but more than Alt.C. 

Alt. C would have the least negative effects to wildlife from openroads because no new permanentroads would be constructed forforest treatments and becauseAlt. C would have the mostclosed and seasonally restrictedroads. Alt. C would have 244.3miles of open yearlong roads,considerably less than Alts. Aand D and 13.3 miles less thanAlt. B. 

Alt. D would improve wildlifehabitat and reduce disturbanceover Alt. A with 304.8 miles ofopen yearlong roads but wouldrestore much fewer acres andallow considerable disturbanceover Alts. B and C. 

Alt. A would have more detrimental effects to wildlife fromcross-country snowmobile useon 143,206 acres compared tothe other alternatives. Alt Awould allow more harassment ofwildlife during seasons of highstress. This could lead to individuals leaving an area and/orcause an increase in stress thatcould lead to mortality. 

Alt. B would have considerablyfewer acres available for crosscountry snowmobile use(112,682 acres) compared to Alt.A. Alt B would protect morewildlife from harassment andstress due to snowmobile usethan Alts A and D but substantially less than Alt. C. 

Alt. C would have substantiallyfewer detrimental effects towildlife from cross-countrysnowmobile use of all alternatives. Alt C would allow crosscountry snowmobile use on26,148 acres. 

Alt. D would allow 139,138acres to be open to cross countrysnowmobile use, considerablymore than Alts. B and C, but4,068 acres less than Alt. A.Alt. D would have the greatestnegative effects from harassment, displacement and an increase in stress to wildlife fromsnowmobile use of the actionalternatives, but would havefewer effects than Alternative A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 165 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

WILDLIFE – continued

Big game winter

range habitat 

Actual road densities in winterrange for Alt. A would be greaterthan 1 mi/mi2 in all five travel

plan areas being analyzed inRMP. Road densities above 1mi/mi2 can have substantial detrimental effects to big game

through loss of habitat, disturbance, an increase in stress, andan increase in vulnerability todirect mortality (road kill andhunting).No minimum size of unroadedforested habitats identified to beprotected as big game securityhabitat under Alt. A. Based on existing blocks of security habitat250 acres or greater in size, Alt.A would provide 5,846 acres ofsecurity habitat Decision Areawide. 

Alt. B would provide greaterprotection and larger blocks ofeffective big game habitats thanAlts. A and D by having roaddensities below 1.0 mi/mi2 in

winter range of all five travelplan areas being analyzed. Alt. Bwould further protect big gamehabitat over Alts. A and D byrestricting new road constructionin areas where open road densities are 1.0 mi/mi2 or less.

Alts. B and D would have substantially more functional biggame security habitat than Alt. Aby retaining moderate size blocks (250 acres) of forested habitats asunroaded or with closed roadsduring the hunting season. Alt. Bwould provide 8,510 acres ofsecurity habitat Decision Areawide. 

Alt. C would provide the mostprotection and the largest blocksof effective big game habitat ofall alternatives by reducing roaddensities within winter range inall five travel plan areas to 0.8mi/mi2 or less. Alt. C would

further protect big game habitatmore than all other alternativesby restricting new road construction in areas where open roaddensities are 1.5 mi/mi2 or less.

Alt. C would ensure the greatestamount of functional big gamesecurity habitat of all alternativesby retaining or creating largeblocks (500 acres) as unroaded orwith closed roads during thehunting season. Alt. C wouldprovide 10,946 acres of securityhabitat Decision Area-wide. 

Alt. D would create larger blocksof big game habitat over Alt. A,but fewer acres com

pared to Alts.

B and C. Road densities withinwinter range of the five travelplan areas being analyzed wouldbe 1.2 mi/mi2 or less. Alt. D 

would continue to reduce effective big game habitat becausenew road construction would berestricted in areas where openroad densities are 0.5 mi/mi2 or 

less.Alt. D would provide more security habitat than Alt. A, but lessthan Alts. B and C. Alt. D wouldprovide 7,007 acres of securityhabitat Decision Area-wide. 

Wildlife movement

corridors 

Habitat fragmentation and isolation of populations as a result ofdegradation of movement corridors can result in small, vulnerable populations. Disturbancerelated to high road densitywithin wildlife corridors candegrade the quality of wildlifecorridors, eventually makingthem unavailable to wildlifespecies that depend on them. 

Alt. B would substantially improve the quality of wildlifemovement corridors over Alt. Aby increasing the acreage withlow road densities to 114,086acres. 

Alt. C would provide the mostconnectivity and the least amountof habitat fragmentation of allalternatives by providing themost acreage with low road densities in wildlife movement corridors at 117,469 acres. 

Alt. D would have the leastamount of connectivity and thelowest quality movement corridors (109,796 acres with lowroad densities) compared to AltsB and C, but would have higherquality corridors compared toAlt. A. 

166 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Alt. A would have the fewestacres of wildlife movement corridors with low road densities(99,137 acres). 

Special designations Alt. A would continue management of the Sleeping Giant

ACEC but would not proposeany new ACECs. Under Alt. A,WSAs would revert back tomultiple use management if notdesignated as wilderness. If theexisting MOU in the ElkhornMountains is withdrawn, thisarea would also revert to multiple use management. Alt. Awould have the fewest acresmanaged for wildlife goals andobjectives through the specialdesignations compared to allother alts. 

Alts. B and C would proposefive ACECs. The two newACECs that would benefit wildlife the most under Alt B wouldbe Humbug Spires and, especially, Elkhorns. If the WSAdesignation is withdrawn forHumbug Spires, the ACECwould ensure habitat for manydry forest, riparian and cliff species would be protected in thisunique area.The Elkhorn ACEC would consist of 53,439 acres in andaround the Elkhorn Mountains

but would exclude the Limestone

Hills National Guard TrainingArea, Radersburg motorized playarea and small isolated parcelsalong the western boundary. ThisACEC would have long-termbenefits to wildlife by focusingmanagement specifically forwildlife. Substantially moreacres would be proposed underthis alternative than under Alt.D. 

Under Alt. C, the effects to wildlife from ACECs would be thesame as under Alt. B with theexception of the Elkhorn ACEC.Under Alt. C, the Elkhorn ACECwould consist of all BLM landsin and around the Elkhorns(67,665 acres). Alt. C wouldensure that all acres in the Elkhorn Mountains would be managed over the long-term specifically for wildlife. 

Alt. D would propose newACECs. The Humbug SpiresACEC would be the same asAlts B and C. Under Alt. D, theElkhorn ACEC would only include the existing WSA boundary (3,575 acres). This would besubstantially different from Alts.B and C. If the existing MOU iswithdrawn under Alt. D, themajority of BLM lands in theElkhorn Mountain Range would revert to multiple use management. This would be detrimental to wildlife in this unique area. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 167 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

WILDLIFE – continued

Recreation No food storage restrictions

would be in place at recreationsites to protect bears from beingmoved or destroyed. 

Alt. B would protect bears frombeing moved or destroyed byimplementing food storage restrictions at recreation sites. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A 

Oil and gas leasing All big game winter and calving

habitat in the five areas withmost potential for oil and gasdevelopment would be protectedwith timing restrictions. Timingrestrictions would be the samefor Alt. A, B, and D in big gamewinter/spring habitat. Timingrestrictions would allow habitatto be lost and would allow somedisturbance to big game duringdevelopment.Wildlife management areas(state lands) would be the mostprotected of the action alternatives with NL and NSO stipulations. 

Alt. B would use NSO to protectwildlife management areas(same as Alt. D) and in bighornsheep core habitat. Alt. B wouldensure habitat is not lost andsheep not disturbed in core areas.This is more protective thanAlts. A and D.Alt. B would also use timingrestriction in other big gamehabitats (calving/birthing areas)but they would be more restrictive than under Alts. A and D.This would give big game morerefuge during the calving seasonand also reduce stress during thewinter and spring seasons. 

Alt. C would provide completeprotection to big game from lossof habitats or disturbance byusing a NL stipulation in biggame habitat and in wildlifemanagement areas. 

Alt. D would be similar to Alt. Aand Alt. B in protecting biggame.This Alt. would provide morerefuge to bighorn sheep by having a longer time restrictionduring the winter and spring thanAlt. A. Alt. D would have lessprotection to bighorn sheep thanAlts B and C only using a timingrestriction in core habitat. Timing restrictions would allowhabitat to be lost and would allow disturbance to bighorn sheepcore habitat during development. 

FISH 

Riparian Function Under Alt. A and D, riparian

areas would be given a minimumamount of protection through theuse of SMZs. SMZs allow activities such as logging, prescribedfire, and road building in riparianareas (generally 50 feet on eitherside of a stream) but restrictshow many trees can be removedand where road construction canoccur. 

Alts B and C would establishriparian management zones(RMZs) where all activitieswould have to meet ripariangoals and objectives. The RMZwidth would vary depending onthe type of stream (80 feet forperennial streams and 160 feetfor fish bearing streams). 

Alt. C would ensure the mostprotection of riparian and streamhabitats by requiring all activitieswith 150 feet of perennial and300 feet of fish bearing streamsmeet riparian goals and objectives. Alt. C would protect moreriparian habitat for aquatic species than all other alternatives. 

Same as Alt. A 

168 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Although this would providesome protection to streams, theloss of riparian vegetation andsoil disturbance could causenegative impacts to streams fromincreased runoff, loss of largewoody material, loss of riparianvegetation and sedimentation. 

The emphasis in riparian andstream functions along withwider RMZs would ensure thatriparian and stream habitats andfunctions are maintained for thelong-term. 

Wildland fire

suppression 

Alts. A and D would not requirefish screens when removingwater during fire suppression.This could cause direct mortalityof fish. 

Alt. B would prevent mortality tofish by requiring fish screens areused when removing water fromstreams. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

Watershed function Watersheds with the highest road

densities often have lower qualityand less functional habitat available for fish. Alt A would havethe most BLM acres with highroad densities (>2 mi/mi2 ) of all

alternatives (107,566 acres). 

Alt. B would improve the overallfunction of watersheds and thequality of fish habitat by reducing acres with high road densitiesto 87,729 acres compared to Alt.A. Alt B would have fewer acreswith high road densities compared to Alt. D but more thanAlt. C. 

Alt. C would substantially improve overall watershed functions and aquatic habitats byhaving the fewest acres with highroad densities of all alternatives(81,196 acres). 

Alt D would improve watershedfunctions more than Alt. A with95,481 acres in high road densities but would allow more detrimental effects to aquatic habitatsfrom high road densities compared to Alts. B and C. 

Riparian roads Road crossings and roads that are

adjacent to streams can result inloss of riparian vegetation, lossof large woody material tostreams, increased sedimentation,direct stream channel alteration,and barriers to fish movement.Alt. A would have the most milesof open roads in riparian areas(87.7 miles) of all alternatives. 

Alt. B would allow improvementin riparian vegetation and decrease sedimentation and runoffto streams more than Alts. A andD with 70.8 miles of open roadsin riparian areas. 

Alt. C would have the greatestbenefit to fish and aquatic habitats by having the most miles ofclosed roads in riparian areas bydecreasing the amount of openroad miles to 67.1. 

Alt. D would improve aquaticand riparian habitats more thanAlt. A, but not as much as Alts.B and C by having 74.6 miles ofopen roads in riparian areas. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 169 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

FISH – continued

Lands and realty Alts A and D would not protect

the genetically pure westslopecutthroat trout population inMuskrat Cr. with a 180 acremineral withdrawal.Mining in and along Muskrat Cr.could cause a loss of riparianvegetation, streambed and bankdestabilization, erosion andsedimentation and alteration offloodplain and stream morphology. Alts A and D could allowcrushing or disturbance of gravels during spawning and wheneggs are incubating/hatching. Ifmining operations cause a decline in this population, the population may no longer be able tofunction as a donor source of fishfor MT and may impede longterm restoration efforts. 

Alt. B would provide long-termprotection of riparian and aquatichabitats for the restored population of westslope cutthroat troutin Muskrat Creek from the negative effects of mining (includingplacer mining) on aquatic andriparian species through a 180acre mineral withdrawal. Alts. B and C would ensure longterm protection to the newlyrestored westslope cutthroat troutpopulation in Muskrat Creekfrom the direct detrimental effects of mining (including placermining) by implementing a 180acre mineral withdrawal. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. 

Special designations Alt. A would protect the least

amount of fish bearing stream(11.4 miles) through ACECdesignations.No streams would be recommended for WSR but management would protect ORVs on allfour eligible segments (12 miles). 

More protective of fish-bearingstreams with 31 miles in ACECdesignations. More protection tofish and aquatic resources thanAlts. A and D with two eligiblesegments (5.7 miles) recommended for WSRS. 

Most protective of fish-bearingstreams with 32.9 miles in ACECdesignations. More protectivethan Alt. B because of additionalmiles in Elkhorns ACEC designation. Most protection to fishand aquatic resources fromWSRS with four segments (12miles) recommended as suitable. 

More miles of fish-bearingstreams in ACEC designationsthan Alt. A (21.5 miles), but lessthan Alts. B and C.No eligible WSRs would berecommended as suitable. 

170 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIESWildlife 

Raptors Under Alt A, there would be no

restrictions on projects aroundactive raptor nests.No unoccupied raptor nest siteswould be protected from loss ofhabitat. 

Alt. B could prevent more raptorsfrom abandoning nests due tonoise and project implementationthan Alts. A and D with a 0.5mile noise disturbance buffer.Enhanced protection and recruitment of raptors throughprotection of unoccupied nestsfor 5 years and retention of suitable habitat within 0.25 mileradius. 

Alt. C would prevent more raptors from abandoning nests compared to all other alternativeswith a 1 mile noise disturbancebuffer.Substantial protection to raptorsdue to a 0.5 mile buffer aroundunoccupied nests and protectionfor 7 years. 

Alt. D would have a smallerbuffer around raptor nests (0.25mile) and would have more detrimental effects to raptors thanAlts. B and C but less than Alt.A.Less protection than Alts. B andC due to a 0.25 mile bufferaround unoccupied nests andprotection for 3 years. 

Bald eagles There is no identified management for restoration of bald eagle

nest and roost sites. 

Alt. B would treat vegetationaround bald eagle nest and roostsites to protect nest trees fromfire and promote development ofnest trees. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. 

Grizzly bear habitat Road densities and open roads

can impact the quality and quantity of grizzly bear habitat. Grizzly bears underutilize habitatnear roads and other humanactivities. MFWP recommendsthat land management agenciesmanage for an open road densityof 1 mi/mi2 or less in occupied

grizzly bear habitat. Alt. A wouldhave the lowest quality and theleast amount of functional grizzlybear habitat compared to theother alternatives with a roaddensity of 2.4 mi/mi2 in occupied

grizzly bear habitat. 

Closing roads under Alt. B wouldminimize the negative impacts onbears related to disturbance andinteractions with humans more than under Alts. A and D but lessthan under Alt. C. Alt. B wouldhave a road density of 0.8 mi/mi2 

in occupied grizzly bear habitat.Alts. B and D would maintainfunctional habitat by restrictingnew, permanent roads in areaswhere open road densities are 1.0mi/mi2 or less. 

Alt. C would provide the largestblocks of effective grizzly bearhabitat of all alternatives byreducing road densities to 0.6mi/mi2 in occupied grizzly bear

habitat and by restricting new,permanent roads in areas whereopen road densities are 1.5mi/mi2 or less. 

Although Alt. D would providebetter quality habitat for grizzlybears than Alt. A, road densitieswould still be above the 1 mi/mi2 

(1.3 mi/mi2 ) recommended by

MFWP. Alt. D would providelower quality and less functionalhabitat for grizzly bear than Alts.B and C. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 171 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – Wildlife – continued

Oil and Gas leasing Alts. A and D would have CSU

for grizzly bear and gray wolfand would not ensure protectionfrom disturbance or loss of habitat from oil and gas explorationand development. Alts. A, B and D would havesimilar protections from NSO orTL to prairie dog towns, sagegrouse winter and spring rangeand bald eagle nest sites.Sage grouse would be the leastprotected under Alt. A with TLof 0.25 mile radius of leks. 

Grizzly bear in the recovery zonewould be completely protectedfrom disturbance and habitat losswith a NSO but bears in thedistribution zone would only beprotected from disturbance in thespring and fall.Gray wolf den sites would beprotected from disturbance butnot from loss of habitat.Alts B and D would give peregrine falcons more protectionfrom disturbance and loss ofhabitat than with Alts. A.Sage grouse leks would be completely protected from disturbance during the breeding seasonunder Alts. B and D but habitatcould be lost. 

Grizzly bear, gray wolf, sagegrouse, bald eagle, peregrinefalcon, and ferruginous hawkwould all be protected fromdisturbance and loss of habitatwith NSO or NL under Alt. C.Sage grouse leks would be completely protected from disturbance and habitat loss under Alts.

C with a 3 mile NSO. 

Alts. A and D would have CSUfor grizzly bear and gray wolfand would not ensure protectionfrom disturbance or loss of habitat from oil and gas explorationand development. 

Fish 

Westslope cutthroat

trout 

No emphasis on which westslopecutthroat trout populationsshould be restored.No management emphasis toremove non-native species thatout-compete or breed with westslope cutthroat trout. 

Alt. B could cause an expansionin population by emphasizingrestoration of genetically pureand <20 percent hybridized westslope cutthroat trout and theirhabitats.Alts. B and C would prevent theloss or degradation of westslopecutthroat trout populations byremoving non-native species thatoutcompete or breed with westslope cutthroat trout. 

Alt. C would allow the greatestamount of population expansionby emphasizing restoration of allwestslope cutthroat trout populations and their habitats, regardless of the degree of hybridization.Same as Alt. B. 

Alt. D would allow the leastamount of population expansionof the action alternatives byemphasizing restoration of genetically pure and <10 percenthybridized westslope cutthroattrout and their habitats.

Same as Alt. A. 

172 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Oil and gas leasing Alt. A would provide the least

amount of protection to aquaticspecies with NSOs up to 0.25mile for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout and Arcticgrayling, and a CSU for bulltrout. 

NSO within 0.5 mile of streamswould protect westslope andYellowstone cutthroat trout,Arctic grayling, and bull trout. 

Greatest amount of protection ofall alternatives to westslope andYellowstone cutthroat trout,Arctic grayling, and bull troutwith NSO or No Lease within 0.5mile of streams. 

Alt. D would provide more protection over Alt. A with 0.5 mileCSU or NSO but less protectionthan under Alts. B or C. 

Plants 

Noxious Weeds Under the worst case scenario

analysis assumptions, Alt. Awould have the fewest acres ofnoxious weed spread (43,000) ofall alternatives, place the leastamount of habitat at risk. 

Under a worst case scenario, Alt.B would have the second highestacres of spread (48,000) of allalternatives, putting more specialstatus plant habitat at risk. 

Under a worst case scenario, Alt.C would have the most acres ofweed spread (51,000) of all alternatives, placing the most habitatat risk. 

Under a worst case scenario, Alt.D would have fewer acres ofweed spread (47,000) than Alts.B and C, putting less habitat atrisk than the other action alternatives. 

OHV Most motorized use activity and

miles of open road, placing themost habitat at risk. 

Less motorized use activity thanAlts. A and D, lesser impacts onspecial status plant habitat. 

Least motorized use activity ofall alternatives, posing the leastimpacts on habitat. 

Less motorized use activity thanAlt. A, but more than Alts. B andC. More potential habitat impactsthan other action alternatives.

Riparian buffers SMZs would limit disturbance to

Idaho sedge and small yellowlady’s slipper habitat. 

RMZs would provide greaterbuffers than SMZs and also buffers for non-forested species suchas mealy primrose, Ute ladies’tresses and dwarf purple monkeyflower. 

Largest RMZ buffer for riparianspecies, protecting riparian andsome upslope special statusplants the most of all alternatives. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Dry forest tree, shrub,

grass treatments 

Less habitat treated than Alts. Band D. Potential short-term adverse effects due to ground disturbance would be less, as wouldpotential long-term benefits oftreatments than Alts. B and D. 

Treatments to restore dry forest,shrub, and grass habitat higherthan Alts. A and C. Greater potential short-term adverse effectsdue to ground disturbance, butgreater long-term benefits thanAlts. A and C. 

Fewest acres of habitat treatments of all alternatives. Fewerpotential short-term adverseeffects along with fewer longterm benefits of all alternatives. 

Most acres of habitat treatmentof all alternatives. Most potentialshort-term adverse effects alongwith most long-term benefits ofall alternatives. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 173 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES – Plants - continued

Oil and Gas NSO within 0.25 mile of known

sensitive status plant populationswould reduce risk of habitatdisturbance. 

NSO within 0.25 mile of knownsensitive status plant populationswould reduce risk of habitatdisturbance. 

Greatest reduction in risk ofhabitat disturbance with NSOwithin 0.5 mile of known specialstatus plant population. 

NSO of known sensitive statusplant populations would limit disturbance of populations, however risk of habitat disturbanceand fragmentation would be thehighest. 

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

Fire management Provides 7,300 acres of Category

A fire management in whichwildland fire is not desired whichwill limit fuels treatment optionsto mechanical treatment on thoseacres. 

Contains no Category A firemanagement, providing someflexibility in fire management. 

Most restrictive fire managementalternative with most acres(41,000) of Category A fire management which will limit fuelstreatment options to mechanicalonly treatment on those acres. 

Allows greatest flexibility in firemanagement with no Category Afire management and highestCategory D acres. 

Fire suppression

strategies 

Allows for some flexibility tomanage fires but a large percentage could be controlled whilestill small in size. 

Same as Alt. A, but more flexibility to manage fires since noCategory A designations. 

Greatest potential to reduce lossof life and property and protectresources because fire suppression high priority. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Hazardous fuel

treatments 

Reduces fuels on second leastacres (14,430 per decade). Lowerfuel levels would result in a reduced potential for high-severityfires. 

Reduces fuels on second mostacres per decade of all alternatives, and would reduce fireintensity and behavior, improvefire fighter safety, and movetowards historic FRCC levelsmore than Alts. A and C. 

Reduces fuels on least acres ofall alternatives, which would dothe least to reduce fire intensityand behavior, improve wildlandfire fighter safety, and changeFRCC. 

Reduces fuels on the most acresof all alternatives and would dothe most to reduce fire intensityand behavior, improve wildlandfire fighter safety, and movetoward historic FRCC levels. 

Travel management Provides greatest access for fire

suppression and fuel treatmentsand most opportunities for human caused wildland fire. 

Provides second lowest level ofaccess for fire suppression andfuel reduction treatments, andfewer opportunities for humancaused fire ignitions. 

Provides the least access for firesuppression and fuel treatmentsand fewest opportunities forhuman-caused wildland fire. 

Provides second highest level ofaccess for fire suppression andfuel reduction treatments, andsecond highest opportunities forhuman-caused fire ignitions. 

174 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS) 

Determined on case by casebasis. Provides for most flexibility between alternatives. 

Could limit the flexibility fordesigning and planning fuelsprojects and implementing firesuppression on 36,800 acres. 

Could limit the flexibility fordesigning and planning fuelsprojects and implementing firesuppression on 63,700 acres. 

Could limit the flexibility fordesigning and planning fuelsprojects and implementing firesuppression on 30,000 acres. 

Visual Resource

Management 

Second fewest acres designatedin VRM Class I and II. Thiswould provide for more flexibility for designing, planning, andimplementation of fuels projects. 

75,100 acres designated in VRMClass I and II. This could limit the effectiveness and flexibilityfor designing, planning, andimplementation fuels projects on those acres. 

The most VRM Class I and IIlands (93,800 acres) of any alternative, which may affect theextent of some fire managementactions and fuel treatments morethan under any other alternative. 

The least VRM Class I and IIlands (32,800 acres) of any alternative, which may affect theextent of some fire managementactions and fuel treatments. 

Wildlife (Seasonal

Timing Restrictions) 

There would be no seasonaltiming restrictions for prescribedfire or mechanical treatments inthis alternative 

Restrictions for prescribed fire inthis alternative. This may causedelays, higher cost, and possibleless effectiveness in reducing fireintensity and behavior, improvewildland fire fighter safety, andchange FRCC. 

Restriction on prescribed fire andmechanical treatments. This maylimit the opportunities and effectiveness of to reduce fire intensity and behavior, improve wildland fire fighter safety, andchange FRCC especially in areasof wildland urban interface. 

Same as Alt. A. 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Recreation sites/ special

designations 

Possible adverse effects due todevelopment of recreation sites. 

Increased protection of traditional cultural properties over Alts. Aand D due to acreage managed asACECs and increased restrictionson surface disturbing activity. 

Most protective of cultural properties due to largest acreage managed as ACECs. Increased protection of tradi­ tional cultural properties over Alt. A due to increase in acreage

managed as ACECs. 

Oil and gas leasing Large number of cultural sites

would be vulnerable to adverseeffects due to standard leaseterms and controlled surface usestipulations. 

Fewer cultural sites would bevulnerable to adverse effects dueto standard lease terms and controlled use stipulations as well asNSO for traditional culturalproperties compared to Alt. A. 

Most protective of cultural sitesbecause it has the lowest numberof acres open for fluid mineralleasing. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 175 
Table 224 Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL

Forest treatments Risk of impacting cultural and

paleontological resources due toground disturbance from vegetation treatments would notchange. 

Alt. B would place more culturaland paleontological resources atrisk due to an increase in foresttreatments over Alt. A. 

Fewer cultural and paleontological resources would be at riskthan in the other alternatives dueto less ground disturbance fromvegetation treatments. 

Highest proposed forest treatment acres would put more cultural and paleontological resources at risk than under anyother alternative. 

Visual Resource

Management 

Lowering the number of acresmanaged as Class II in this alternative may have an adverse impact on traditional cultural properties, which often incorporatethe quality of the viewshed fortraditional values. 

Increasing Class II acreageswould improve the visual qualityof traditional cultural propertiesin those viewsheds. 

Most beneficial to traditionalcultural properties by providinggreatest acres managed underClass II and III and allowingfewest viewshed intrusions. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Soil protection Alt. A would put the most cultural and paleontological resources at risk of loss from erosion due to less protection of the

soil resource. 

Alt. B would prevent soil erosionmore than Alts. A or D andwould therefore protect morecultural and paleontologicalresources. 

Alt. C would be most protectiveof soil resources and wouldtherefore, protect more culturaland paleontological resources. 

Same as Alt. A. 

OHV and Travel 

Management 

This alternative has the mostmiles of open roads and the fewest miles of closed roads. Therefore, this alternative presents thehighest risk of vandalism anderosional damage to culturalresources and paleontologicallocalities. 

Since this alternative has moreclosed roads, fewer cultural resources are at risk than underAlts A and D. Some resourcesmay be at risk from road closuresand decommissioning requiringmechanical treatment. 

Alt C. would protect the mostcultural resources and paleontological localities from vandalism because of the large numberof closed roads, but it would alsopresent some risk to other resources when closed and decommissioned roads requirephysical treatment prior to closing. 

Alt. D would put more sites atrisk than Alts. B and C due to theprovision for more open roads.Alt. D would have less risk thanAlt. A. 

176 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

VISUAL RESOURCES

Vegetation treatments Second lowest potential for

short-term adverse impacts tovisual qualities due to vegetationtreatments in grasslands andshrublands (5,250 acres/ decade).Second lowest potential for longterm benefits due to enhancedvegetation conditions and reduced wildfire risks. 

Increased treatment of grasslandand shrubland habitat (secondhighest – up to 15,450 acres/decade) could create additionalshort to mid-term impacts tovisual quality due to changes incolor and texture but would promote long-term visual benefitsdue to reduced potential forlarge-scale wildland fires. 

Least grassland and shrublandtreatments of the action alternatives. Effects would be similar toAlt. B but to a lesser extent,given that only up to 2,750 acresof treatment would be targeted/decade. 

Greatest potential impacts/ benefits to visual resources, since thisalternative proposes the mostvegetative treatments (up to25,850 acres/ decade). 

Forest products

removal 

Second lowest potential impactsto visual resources from harvesting activities in dry forests (5,100acres/decade) and cool, moistforests (2,400 acres/decade).Highest potential impacts fromtimber salvage given least restrictions imposed. 

Second highest potential impactsfrom dry (up to 14,750acres/decade) and moist (up to3,750 acres/decade) forest harvests. Second highest potentialfor impacts from salvage relatedactivities. 

Lowest potential impacts of allalternatives given that potentialforest treatment acres withinforest types (dry-up to 4,800acres/decade and moist- up to550 acres/decade) would be thelowest and restrictions governingsalvage cutting are the mostrestrictive. 

Highest potential impacts fromdry (up to 18,200 acres/decade)and cool, moist (5,050acres/decade) forest harvests.Second lowest potential for impacts to visuals next to Alt. A,from salvage harvests. 

Travel management Due to highest number of open

motorized roads (629 miles),effects on visual quality highestof all alternatives. 

Scenic qualities would be enhanced and sensitive viewpointsreduced by reducing designatedroutes more than Alts. A and Dsince open routes would be thereduced (417 miles). 

Lowest impacts to visual resources of all alternatives giventhat motorized uses and openroads would be limited to 372miles. 

Second highest impacts to visualresources as open roads wouldtotal about 479 miles. 

ROS Does not establish ROS and

would therefore be least protective of visual resources of allalternatives. 

More protection for visual resources than Alts. A and D due todesignation of one third of BFOlands (103,300 acres) as semiprimitive non-motorized andsemi-primitive motorized. 

Greatest protection for visualresources of all alternatives sincehighest acreages managed assemi-primitive non-motorizedand motorized (125,300 acres). 

Second fewest acres designatedunder the more protective ROS settings (62,300 acres) and therefore visual resources would besubject to more potential impacts than under Alts. B and C. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 177 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

VISUAL RESOURCES – continued 

Mineral and energy

exploration 

Potential impacts from oil andgas leasing would be higher thanunder Alt. D because of CSUstipulation that would only beStandard Lease Terms under Alt.D. Short and mid-term impactsfrom salable minerals would continue until vegetation andexcavation are reclaimed. 

Potential impacts from oil andgas leasing would be similar asAlt. A because of same CSUstipulation. Reduced impactscompared to Alt. A due to proposed withdrawal of 407 acresfrom mineral entry. 

Least impacting alternative tovisual resources since oil and gasleasing would be excluded from88 percent of DA. Benefits fromproposed mineral withdrawalswould be the same as under Alt.B. 

Impacts from oil and gas leasingwould be the greatest comparedto all other alternatives due toSLTs instead of CSU stipulation.Effects of other mineral activitysimilar to Alt. A. 

Special designations More protective of visual resources than Alt. D since six

WSAs managed as VRM Class Iand four suitable WSR segmentsas VRM Class II. 

More special designation acresclassified as VRM Class II thanAlt. A due to five ACEC designations and two suitable WSRsegments. 

Most visual protection of allalternatives since all four eligibleWSR segments found suitableand afforded greater long-termprotection, and because moreacres would be designated asACECs than under any otheralternative. 

Greatest potential visual impactsof all alternatives because noWSR segments would be protected and fewer acres would bedesignated as ACECs . 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS

PSQ Alt A would provide amounts of

forest products up to currentlevels under existing planning. 

Alt B. would provide similaramounts of forest products asprovided under Alt. A, utilizingtreatment approaches that treatgroup of stands or forested areastaken together holistically ratherthan an individual stand by standperspective that strives to providethe most products over time. 

Alt. C would provide the leastforest products of all alternatives 

Alt. D would provide more forestproducts than all alternatives, bymore aggressively treating more acres with fewer intermediatetreatments. 

178 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum 

No ROS Classifications and nooverall adjustment in forestproduct offerings. 

Approximately 18,554 acres offorest and woodlands designatedROS Semi-primitive nonmotorized and 26,283 acres designated as Semi-primitive motorized, potentially reducing PSQon 41 percent of forested areasavailable for product removal.Seventeen percent potential reduction in the forested areaavailable for small public demand sales such as Christmastrees and firewood from areaavailable under Alternative A. 

Most restrictive of all alternatives. Approximately 23,895acres of forest and woodlandsdesignated ROS Semi-primitive non-motorized and 31,583 acres designated as Semi-primitivemotorized, potentially reducingPSQ on 50 percent of forestedareas available for product removal. Twenty nine percentpotential reduction in the forestedarea available for small publicdemand sales such as Christmastrees and firewood from areaavailable under Alternative A. 

Approximately 18,029 acres offorest and woodlands designatedROS Semi-primitive nonmotorized and 13,823 acres designated as Semi-primitive motorized, potentially reducing PSQon 29 percent of forested areasavailable for product removal.Sixteen percent potential reduction in the forested area availablefor small public demand salessuch as Christmas trees and firewood from area available underAlternative A. 

Visual Resource

Management 

No VRM Classifications and nooverall adjustment in forestproduct offerings, but adjustments could occur on a case bycase basis depending on analysisof impacts. 

Approximately 16,902 acres offorest and woodlands designatedVRM Class II potentially reducing PSQ on 15 percent of forested areas available for productremoval under Alternative A. 

Most restrictive of all alternatives. Approximately 27,259acres of forest and woodlandsdesignated VRM Class II potentially reducing PSQ on 25 percent of forested areas availablefor product removal under Alternative A. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 179 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

FORESTRY AND WOODLAND PRODUCTS – continued

Riparian management Highest forest product offerings

and support of PSQ in riparianand nearby upland areas, as restrictions would be limited onlyby state regulations derived fromMontana SMZ laws. 

Limited product offerings asriparian management objectiveswould dictate treatment type andlevel of forest change needed tomeet objectives in the RMZs,which are defined as 160 feet oneither side of fish bearingstreams (39 acres per mile ofstream), 80 feet on either side ofnon-fish bearing streams (19acres per mile of stream), and 50feet on either side of intermittentstreams (12 acres per mile ofstream). Forest management andproduct removal efficiencywould be reduced as access andheavy equipment use would be restricted in these areas, based onimpacts to resources in the RMZ. 

Alternative C provides the smallest amount of product offeringsand support of PSQ from RMZs,which are defined as 300 feet oneither side of fish bearingstreams (73 acres per mile ofstream), 150 feet on either side ofnon-fish bearing streams (36acres per mile of stream), and 50feet on either side of intermittentstreams (12 acres per mile ofstream). No commercial forestproducts would be removed fromthese areas. 

Same as Alt. A 

Small forest product

sales 

Alts. A and B are similarly effective at meeting public demandfor small sale products, with Alt.B having slightly higher amountsof products made available dueto a more proactive landscapeapproach and anticipated use ofstewardship tools. Permits forforest products are less thanestimated under Alts. B and Dand much more than Alt. C. 

Second most effective at meetingpublic demand for small saleproducts. Alt. B is less restrictivewith more permits than Alts. Aand C, but less than Alt. D. 

Least effective at meeting publicdemand for small sale products.Lowest number of permits forforest products removal of allalternatives. Firewood would beleast available to the public underthis alternative, using permits tocut green trees or dead and downwood in designated areas. 

Highest level of permits for forest products. Most effective atmeeting public demand for smallsale products. 

Biomass Opportunities for biomass would

be 55 CCF/decade, the least ofall alternatives. 

Biomass production would beapproximately 77 CCF/decade. 

Same as Alternative A. Biomass production would be

greater than under all other alternatives with 105 CCF/decade. 

180 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Timber salvage Alt. A provides greatest salvage

opportunities. Loss of forestproducts from fire would creategreater salvage opportunitiesthan under all other alternatives. 

Limited salvage compared to Alt.A. Salvage from fire mortalitywould have less product removalthan Alternatives A and D. 

Limited salvage opportunitiescompared to other alternatives asAlternative C includes mostrestrictive prescriptions. Projectsare likely to be smaller and occurless often. 

Alt. D limits salvage compared toAlt. A, but projects would belarger and occur more often thanAlternatives B and C. 

Travel management Provides greatest access for small

sales permits and economic efficiency for forest managementand timber removal activities, with approximately 416 open road miles available in the fivesite-specific travel planningareas. Most miles of open andseasonally limited roads, approximately 379 miles would support small product sales. 

Road closures could reduce economic efficiency of some projects, reduce public access forsmall sales permits. Approximately 84 percent of the roadsavailable under Alt. A for timberremoval in the five site-specifictravel planning areas would beavailable under Alt. B , 45 percent of which would be availablefor public use in the removalsmall sale products such asChristmas trees and firewood. 

Reduces economic efficiency ofprojects compared to AlternativeB, as no construction of newpermanent roads would be allowed. Public access for smallsales would be reduced morethan under other alternatives dueto fewer open roads. Approximately 87 percent of the roadsavailable for timber removalunder Alt. A in the five sitespecific travel planning areaswould still be available underAlt. C, 33 percent of whichwould be available for public usein the removal small sale products such as Christmas trees andfirewood. 

Economic efficiency similar toAlternative B, but public accessfor small sales permits and ability to meet public demand wouldbe greater than Alts. B and C.Approximately 87 percent of theroads available for timber removal in the five site-specificTPAs under Alternative A would still be available, 61 percent ofwhich would be available forpublic use in the removal smallsale products such as Christmastrees and firewood. 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING

Alts. A and D provide greatestopportunity for livestock grazingwith 273,000 acres available. 

265,000 acres available for grazing would be more than Alt. C,but less than Alts. A and D. 

Fewest acres (262,000) availablefor livestock grazing. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 181 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

LIVESTOCK GRAZING – continued

Vegetation treatments Forage quality and quantity improvement on grasslands and 

shrublands would slowly declinebecause of net increase in coniferencroachment (1,161 acres perdecade). Short-term effectswould occur where defermentand temporary removal of livestock required after vegetationtreatments. 

Forage quality and quantity improvement on grasslands and shrublands would improve because of net decrease in coniferencroachment (up to 9,039 acresper decade). Short-term impactsto grazing from the one-yearresting period before vegetationtreatment and the two-year resting period after treatment (withcase by case flexibility). 

Forage quality and quantity improvement on grasslands and shrublands would decline atfastest rate because of net increase in conifer encroachment(3,661 acres per decade). Impactsto livestock grazing are mandatory rest one year prior to treatment and rest two growing seasons following treatments. 

Greatest improvement in longterm livestock forage quality andquantity due to most acres undergoing vegetation treatmentresulting in largest net decreaseof conifer encroachment— up to19,489 acres per decade. Shortterm impacts to grazing from theone-year resting period beforevegetation treatment and the oneyear resting period after treatment. 

Noxious weed

management 

Under a worst case scenario ofweed treatment accomplishmentsin under action alternatives, Alt.A would have the least amount ofnoxious weed spread—to 43,000acres over a ten year period andwould have the least impact tolivestock forage base. 

Forage base for livestock grazingreduced under worst case weedtreatment scenario because noxious weed spread would reach upto 48,000 acres in ten years. 

Worst case weed treatment scenario could lead to noxious weedspread on up to 51,000 acres overten years would reduce the forage base the most of all alternatives. 

Worst case weed treatment scenario could lead to noxious weedspread on up to 47,000 acres overten years, consequently morelivestock forage would be maintained than under alternatives Band C, but less than A. 

Travel management Greatest potential conflicts (gates

left open, livestock disturbance,etc.) with grazing program due tothe most roads open and openw/restrictions – 629 miles DAwide. 

Compared to Alt. A, conflictsbetween grazing and wheeledvehicles would be reduced due toroad closures leaving 417 milesof roads open and openw/restrictions DA-wide. 

Alt. C would provide the leastmiles of road open and openw/restrictions – 372 miles DAwide, resulting in fewest conflicts with grazing of all alternatives. 

Conflicts with grazing more thanAlts. B and C, but less than Alt.A, as 479 miles of road would beopen and open w/restrictionsDA-wide. 

182 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

ENERGY AND MINERALS

Riparian management

zones 

No change. Potential additional expenditures

and longer permitting timeframefor the mineral developer due torequirements to avoid roads andfacilities inside RMZs whenpossible. Placer mines could bemore difficult and time consuming to permit. 

Additional restrictions couldimpact the ability to proceed withthe project, should access towater or the stream bed be acritical part of the proposed operation. Operating/rehabilitationrequirements could make someplacer mining operations uneconomic. 

Avoidance, mitigations, andBMPs associated with roads inriparian areas would make effectsof Alt. D similar to Alts. A andB. 

Leasable Minerals (Oil and Gas)Stipulations Major constraints such as NSO

stipulations may decrease some lease values, increase operatingcosts, and to a lesser extent require relocation of well sites andmodification of field development. Leases issued with moderate constraints such as CSU ortiming stipulations may result in similar impacts to a lesser degreeand delays in operations anduncertainty.Under Alt. A, federal mineralestate lands would be availablesubject to the following levels ofconstraints:Major Constraints – 43.6%Moderate Constraints – 42.5%Standard Terms – 6.2%Approximately 7.2% would beunavailable for lease.Alts. A and B would be similar in their level of constraints. 

The impact of individual constraints would be similar to thatfor Alt. A; however, the level and nature and number of constraintsvaries from that alternative forthis alternative.Under Alt. B federal mineralestate lands would be available,subject to the following levels ofconstraints:Major Constraints – 43%Moderate Constraints – 49.8%Standard Terms – 2.9%Approximately 4.2% would beunavailable for lease.Alternatives A and B would besimilar in their level of constraints. 

The impact of individual constraints would be similar to thatfor Alternative A; however, thelevel and nature number of constraints varies from that alternative for this alternative.Under Alt. C federal mineralestate lands would be available,subject to the following levels ofconstraints:Major Constraints – 3.9%Moderate Constraints – 4.8%Standard Terms – 2.8%Approximately 88.6% would beunavailable for lease.Alternative C would be the mostrestrictive of the four alternatives. 

The impact of individual constraints would be similar to thatfor Alternative A; however, thelevel and nature and number ofconstraints varies from that alternative for this alternative.Under Alt. D federal mineralestate lands would be availablesubject to the following levels ofconstraints:Major Constraints – 15.3%Moderate Constraints – 69.1%Standard Terms – 11.3%Approximately 4.2% would beunavailable for lease.Alternative D would be the leastrestrictive of all alternatives. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 183 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

ENERGY AND MINERALS – continuedLocatable Minerals

High mineral potential –

117,573 total acres 

103,095 open acres11,642 restricted acres3,098 closed acres 

72,746 open acres41,882 restricted acres3,206 closed acres 

70,489 open acres44,140 restricted acres3,206 closed acres 

103,095 open acres11,642 restricted acres3,098 closed acres 

Medium mineral

potential – 31,677 total

acres 

24,560 open acres6,543 restricted acres574 closed acres 

17,933 open acres13,170 restricted acres574 closed acres 

17,345 open acres13,758 restricted acres574 closed acres 

24,560 open acres6,543 restricted acres574 closed acres 

Low to None Mineral 

Potential – 150,534 total

acres 

108,376 open acres31,539 restricted acres10,459 closed acres 

95,926 open acres43,697 restricted acres10,752 closed acres 

84,251 open acres55,372 restricted acres10,752 closed acres 

109,263 open acres30,653 open acres10,459 closed acres 

Totals 236,031 open acres

49,724 restricted acres

14,131 closed acres 

172,085 open acres113,269 restricted acres

14,532 closed acres 

172,085 open acres113,269 restricted acres

14,532 closed acres 

236,918 open acres48,837 restricted acres

14,131 closed acres

Notes:Acreage analyzed excludes 2,289 acres not covered by the MBMG Mineral Potential reviews and 376,000 acres of federal subsurface minerals. Restricted areas include WSAs, ACECs, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Threatened and Endangered species habitat (grizzly bear, bald eagle and bull trout) 

Closed areas include WithdrawalsOpen areas are all other areasTravel Plan road designations not included in analysis

Lands and realty Increased or decreased opportunities to explore/develop areas

could result from acquisition ordisposal of lands with mineralvalue. 

Same as Alt. A. Additionally,withdrawal of 180 acres in theMuskrat Creek drainage to protect westslope cutthroat troutpopulations would decreaseavailable acres in the BFO formineral location. 

Same as Alt. B Same as Alt. A. 

Special designations Performance standards required

for protection of relevant andimportant values of ACECs, andNotice-level review that wouldrequire NEPA analysis wouldcause time delays for permitting. 

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. 

184 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Travel management Alternative A is less restrictive in

providing access to mineralizedareas than any other alternative. 

Alternative B is potentially morerestrictive on access to mineralized areas than Alternatives Aand D, and less restrictive thanAlternative C. Operators wouldneed to obtain travel variances toconduct exploration on moreclosed roads than under Alternatives A and D. 

Alternative C is potentially themost restrictive alternative foraccess to mineralized areas. Operators would need more travelvariances to conduct explorationon closed roads than under anyalternative. 

Alternative D is the least potentially restrictive of the actionalternatives, but more restrictivethan Alternative A for access tomineralized areas. 

Abandoned mine lands Reclamation of AML would

reduce risks to the public frompotential environmental or safetyhazards. However these activitieswill also result in the removal orobscuring of information used byexploration companies to sampleand map mineral deposits. 

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. 

Salable Minerals 

Mine development for salableminerals would usually be located near municipalities or small

rural communities to maximizeconvenience to the public. 

Additional expenditures andlonger approval time could resultfrom management direction toavoid or minimize effects onriparian zones from structures,support facilities, and roads. 

Same effects as Alt. A, but sincedevelopment of new pits byprivate citizens would be eliminated; mineral materials wouldcost more through commercialsources due to higher transportation costs. 

Same as Alt. A. 

RECREATION

Vegetative treatments Second lowest potential for quality recreation experiences dependant on natural settings due to

disturbances associated withvegetation treatments. 

Second highest potential forimpacts on dispersed recreationuses due to higher disturbancesassociated with vegetation treatments. 

Lowest potential for impacts ondispersed recreation uses due todisturbances associated withvegetation treatments since leastacres treated. 

Highest potential for impacts ondispersed recreation uses fromdisturbances associated withvegetation treatments since mostacres treated. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 185 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

RECREATION

– continued 

Riparian restoration Dispersed recreation most impacted and developed site management least impacted since

riparian protection less restrictivethan Alts. B and C. 

Dispersed recreation in riparianareas improved and developedsite management impacted overAlts. A and C due to increasedsize of RMZs. 

Most enhanced dispersed recreation experiences and impacts todeveloped site management dueto greater RMZ protective measures. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Noxious weeds Recreationists seeking a natural

setting with fewer weeds wouldbenefit most since this alternativewould result in the lowest projected weed infestation (43,000acres by 2015 under worst caseweed treatment scenario). 

More beneficial to recreationistsdesiring natural setting experiences without weeds (48,000acres of weed infestation by 2015under worst case weed treatmentscenario) than Alt. C, but lessthan Alts. A and D. 

Recreationists seeking a naturalsetting without weeds would benefit least under this alternative given the projected weedinfestation of 51,000 acres by2015 under the worst case weedtreatment scenario. 

More beneficial to recreationistsdesiring natural setting experiences without weeds (47,000acres by 2015 under worst caseweed treatment scenario) thanAlts. B and C, but less beneficialthan Alt. A. 

Road densities Least impact to motorized users

and potentially the greatest impact to non-motorized users since Alt. A features the most openroads. 

More impacts to motorized usersthan Alts. A and D due to projected reduction of open roads inbig game winter range. Recreationists seeking non-motorizedexperiences would be benefitedthe second most next to Alternative C. 

Motorized users most impactedand non-motorized users mostbenefited due to an added restriction of no net increase in permanent roads where target roaddensities are exceeded in biggame winter range areas. 

Impacts to motorized riders lessthan Alts B and D due to higherroad densities and more openroads. 

User opportunities Most opportunities for motorized

users, those seeking organizedmotorized events, and snowmobile riders due to fewest restrictions. Fewest non-motorizedopportunities. Most opportunitiesfor boat-in camping. 

More opportunities than Alts. Aand D for non-motorized usersdue to fewer open roads. Feweropportunities for motorized use,organized motorized events andsnowmobile riding. Reduction indispersed recreation sites bylimiting boat-in camping opportunities. 

Greatest opportunities for nonmotorized users due to fewestopen roads. Least motorized andsnowmobile opportunities. Opportunities for organized motorized events eliminated. Dispersedcamping at Holter and HauserLakes eliminated by closingentire shoreline to boat-in camping except at developed sites. 

Provides most opportunities formotorized users, next to Alt. Adue to acres available for motorized events, mileage of openroads and fewest opportunitiesfor non-motorized users. Boat-incamping opportunities same asAlt. A. 

186 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SRMAs Recreation management emphasis prioritized within SRMAs

ensuring quality recreation opportunities and experiences areprovided. 

Increased recreation managementover Alts. A and D through addition of four more SRMA designations. 

Same as Alt. B but most SRMAswithin ROS Semi-Primitive,Non-Motorized setting. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Outfitter fees, permits

and camping limits 

Value based revenues from outfitters using developed BLMriver/lake access sites not realized. Greatest opportunities offered for commercial and publiccamping. 

Fair value revenues realized fromoutfitters using developed BLMriver/lake access sites. Commercial and public camping opportunities limited to a greater degreethan Alts. A and D. 

Fair value revenues maximizedfrom outfitters using developedBLM river/lake access sites.Commercial and public campingopportunities limited the most. 

Fair value revenues from outfitters using developed BLMriver/lake access sites realized ina more comprehensive and customer friendly manner. Commercial and public camping opportunities same as Alt. A.

User conflicts and

violations 

Potential for social conflicts andviolations within the Scratchgravel Hills would be the highestsince no management changeswould occur. 

Potential for social conflicts andviolations within the Scratchgravel Hills would be reducedthe second most given the proposed nighttime restrictions onmotorized uses. 

Potential for social conflicts andviolations within the Scratchgravel Hills would be reducedthe most given the additionalnighttime restrictions proposedon motorized uses. 

Potential for social conflicts andviolations within the Scratchgravel Hills would be similar toAlt. A. 

Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum 

Possible negative impacts torecreation use since no ROSclassifications. Managementwould be reactive rather thanproactive. 

Balanced approach for managingrecreation settings, opportunities,and experiences compared toAlts. C and D. 

Maximum acreage designated asROS Semi-Primitive NonMotorized creating greatest nonmotorized and least motorizedopportunities. 

Highest acreage of designatedROS settings that allow for motorized uses, developed infrastructure and less natural settings. Impacts similar to Alt. A.

Special designations Least protective of special designation values as only the Sleeping Giant ACEC (11,679 acres)

would continue to be designated.None of the four eligible WSRsegments would be recommended as suitable althoughORVs would be protected. 

Second greatest protection of therelevant and important valuesand associated recreation opportunities as five ACECs would bedesignated totaling about 73,666acres and outstandingly remarkable values as two WSR segments totaling 5.7 miles wouldbe protected and two segmentstotaling 6.3 miles dropped. 

Most protective of special designation values and associatedrecreation opportunities as fiveACECs would be designatedtotaling about 87,893 acres andall four WSR segments totaling12 miles would be recommendedas suitable. 

Second least protective of specialdesignation values and associatedrecreation opportunities as threeACECs would be designatedtotaling about 23,695 acres andno WSR segments would beprotected. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 187 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

RECREATION - continued 

Visual Resource

Management 

Protects second lowest acreagemanaged as Class I and II VRM 

Second highest acreage underClasses I and II allowing management for higher natural character retention. 

Highest acreage under Classes Iand II allowing greatest level ofmanagement for natural characterretention. 

Least protective of recreationalopportunities and experiencesdependent on natural settingssince lowest acreage managed asVRM Classes I and II.

Mineral and energy

management 

High probability that recreationsettings and visitor experienceswould be impacted by oil and gas

leasing since second lowest levelof stipulations. 

Better protection of recreationfacility investments and siteopportunities than Alts. A and Dsince nine sites withdrawn frommineral entry.Lower probability of impacts torecreation settings and visitorexperience than Alts. A and Ddue to stipulations on solid andfluid mineral activities. 

Impacts from withdrawal of ninesites same as Alt. B. Lowestprobability for impacting recreation settings and visitor experience due to most restrictivestipulations on solid and fluidmineral activities. 

Highest probability for impactingrecreation settings and visitorexperiences due to lowestamount of restrictive stipulationson solid and fluid mineral activities. 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESSTravel Management – Field Office-wide

Field Office-wide area

designations for travel 

Alt. A area designations forwheeled vehicles would be:Open- 4,367 acresClosed-31,500 acresLimited-266,018 acres. 

Alt. B area designations forwheeled vehicles would be:Open- 283 acresClosed-31,500 acresLimited-270,102 acres. 

Alt. C area designations forwheeled vehicles would be:Same as Alt. B. 

Alt. D area designations forwheeled vehicles would be:Same as Alt. B. 

Field Office-wide area

designations for travel 

Alt. A area designations forsnowmobiles would be:Open- 143,206 acresClosed- 27,065 acresLimited- 131,614 acres. 

Alt. B area designations forsnowmobiles would be:Open- 112,682 acresClosed- 54,706 acresLimited- 134,497 acres. 

Alt. C area designations forsnowmobiles would be:Open- 26,148 acresClosed- 65,270 acresLimited- 210,467 acres. 

Alt. D area designations forsnowmobiles would be:Open- 139,138 acresClosed- 31,282 acresLimited- 131,465 acres. 

188 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Total miles of travel

routes available 

Under Alt. A, the total mileage oftravel routes available DecisionArea-wide (Open,Open/Restricted, SnowmobileOnly, Non-Motorized Trails,Game Retrieval Only, Motorcycles Only, ATV Only) would beapproximately 684 miles. 

Under Alt. B, the total mileage oftravel routes available (Open,Open/Restricted, SnowmobileOnly, Non-Motorized Trails,Game Retrieval Only, Motorcycles Only, ATV Only) would beapproximately 485 miles. 

Under Alt. C, the total mileage oftravel routes available (Open,Open/Restricted, SnowmobileOnly, Non-Motorized Trails,Game Retrieval Only, Motorcycles Only, ATV Only) would beapproximately 430 miles. 

Under Alt. D, the total mileage oftravel routes available (Open,Open/Restricted, SnowmobileOnly, Non-Motorized Trails,Game Retrieval Only, Motorcycles Only, ATV Only) would beapproximately 547 miles. 

Motorized/nonmotorized opportunities Greatest number of motorized opportunities. Motorized opportunities less than Alts. A and D, but similar to Alt.

C. Non-motorized opportunitiesmore than Alts. A and D but lessthan Alt. C. Disallowing competitive motorized events wouldcause long-term effects on userswho prefer these activities. 

Route closures would result innet decrease of motorized routesand highest level of nonmotorized opportunities compared to Alts. B and D. Same asAlt. B for competitive motorizedevents. 

Alt. D is less restrictive andcould result in more routes in thetransportation system. Nonmotorized opportunities wouldbe more than under Alt. A, butless than under Alts. B and C. 

User conflicts User conflict greatest under Alt.

A, because motorized and nonmotorized users would sharesame routes. Conflicts withsnowmobile use would increasebecause cross-country travelwould continue. 

Reduced user conflict due todispersed recreational opportunities. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

Illegal activities Greatest under Alt. A due to

more miles open to yearlongmotorized access. 

Illegal activities may be lessunder Alt. B than Alts. A and D,but may still occur more thanAlt. C. 

Due to increase in route closures,Alt. C would have the leastamount of illegal activity. 

Illegal activities may be lessunder Alt. D than Alts. A, butmay still occur more than Alts. Band C. 

Road and trail safety More accidents/injuries expected

under Alt. A due to motorizedand non-motorized users on thesame routes. 

Less accidents/injures due todispersed recreational opportunities. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 189 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS – continuedTravel Management – Field Office-wide

Forest management If needed, up to 5.5 miles of new

permanent roads could be constructed per year to provide access for treatments. Opportunitiesfor motorized users could beincreased and non-motorized users could be diminished byincreasing road density for forestproduct management wherepermanent roads are constructed. 

Temporary road constructionwould also be kept to a minimum, and temporary roadswould be decommissioned withinone year of project completion.Degree of new road constructionwould be less than Alts. A and D. 

Temporary road constructionwould also be kept to a minimum, and temporary roadswould be decommissioned withinone year of project completion.Impacts less than other alternatives because no new permanentroads would be constructed. 

Degree of road building wouldbe less than Alt. A but more thanAlt. B. 

Wildlife and special

status species 

Reduced short term impacts ontravel and access due to fewerseasonal wildlife closures thanother alternatives. 

Seasonal wildlife closures wouldcreate short term impacts ontravel and access. 

Same as Alt. B except stricterresource protection. 

More seasonal wildlife closuresthan under Alternative A, but lessrestrictive than alternatives B andC. 

Road density Road density would not change Road density levels in big game

winter ranges would result infewer motorized routes and concentrated use on fewer roads. 

Greater effect on transportationsystem than Alts. B and D because 500-acre core blocks of biggame security habitat wouldconcentrate use on fewer roads. 

Overall net decrease of availablemotorized routes but to a lesserextent than Alts B and C. 

User compliance/

implementation 

Information kiosks would enhance user compliance and public safety. Management costsunder Alt. A would be mixed.Less personnel time would berequired to monitor user compliance; however more effort wouldbe required for initial signingefforts. 

Moderate increase in travel management costs due to initial signimplementation and long-term travel plan compliance. In comparison, higher than Alts. A andD, but less than Alt. C. 

Management costs would begreater than under all other alternatives due to greater effortsneeded to monitor travel plancompliance. 

Same as Alt. B. 

190 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Public easements Acquiring easements would

increase the overall route network and expand both motorizedand non-motorized opportunities. 

Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. Same as Alt. A. 

Special designations Lowest potential impacts on

future transportation routes giventhat only 11,679 acres would berecommended or designated asACECs or WSRs. 

Second highest acres protected asACECs and WSRs and thereforetransportation routes would besubject to greater restrictions. 

Highest special designation acreage protected and therefore themost restrictions imposed onexisting and future transportationsystems. 

Second lowest acreage protectedas special designations thereforegreater potential for future transportation access routes. 

Mineral operations New permanent roads for mineral

development could increasepublic access. 

Short or long-term increase intransportation system from permitting roads for mineral operations outside RMZs. 

New roads would not be allowedwithin RMZs for mineral development. Some travel networkexpansion may occur with routesoutside RMZs. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Helena TPA

Motorized/Nonmotorized opportunities No non-motorized trails desig­ nated. Motorized use would

continue 24 hours a day withinthe Scratchgravel Hills. 

Increased opportunities for nonmotorized users since motorizedaccess restricted to routes leadingto existing trailheads and oneloop route in Scratchgravel Hills. 

Alt. C would provide 15 percentmore non-motorized routes thanAlt. B and 85 percent fewermotorized routes than Alt. A. 

Increased opportunities for motorized users because new looproutes created in ScratchgravelHills. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) - Open:0, Closed: 0, Limited: 10,164 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) same asAlternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) same asAlternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) same as Alternative A 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 52.2 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 13.6 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 7.0 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 21.9 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 0 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 38.6 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 45.3 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 30.8 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 191 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS – continuedHelena TPA

Snowmobile use Area wide cross-country snowmobile use would continue to be

allowed as well as travel on allexisting routes, during the seasonof use (12/2-5/15), snow conditions permitting.Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) - Open: 10,164,Closed: 0, Limited: 0Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 52.2 

Same opportunities as Alt. A. Potential long-term effects to

users because cross-countrysnowmobile use would not beallowed.Area Availability for snowmobile use (in acres) - Open: 0, Closed: 0, Limited: 10,164Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 7 

Same as Alt. A. 

User conflicts User conflict would be greatest

around the Scratchgravel Hillsdue to lack of opportunities toseparate motorized from nonmotorized uses. 

Separate use areas and decreasedopen road density would lessenuser conflicts. 

Alt. C would be most beneficialto reducing user conflict thanother alternatives. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Illegal activities Greatest level of illegal activities

expected to occur. 

Illegal activities in the Scratchgravel Hills would be reduceddue to closure of 60 percent ofroads to motorized use. 

Lowest level of illegal activityexpected since use of Scratchgravel Hills would be restrictedafter dark. 

Illegal activities would be lessthan Alt. A but more than Alts. Band C. 

Road and trail safety More accidents/injuries expected

under Alt. A due to motorizedand non-motorized users on sameroutes. 

Less accidents/injures due todispersed recreational opportunities. 

Greater benefit than Alt. B because use of Scratchgravel Hillswould also be restricted afterdark. 

Same as Alt. B. 

User compliance No additional effort needed. Substantial effort required to

educate public on change in usefor Scratchgravel Hills. 

Same as Alt. B. Increased costcould result from need to expandtrailhead parking lots. 

Same as Alt. B. 

192 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

East Helena TPA

Motorized/

Non-motorized

opportunities 

Alt. A would have 60 percentmore motorized opportunitiesthan Alts. B and C, and 15 percent more than Alt. D. 

Non-motorized opportunitieswould increase in North Hillscompared to Alts. A and D. Alt.B would also provide increasedopportunities for disabled hunters. 

Least amount of motorized access of all alternatives providingmost non-motorized opportunities. 

Alt. D would have 14 percentfewer motorized opportunitiesthan Alt A and over 55 percentmore than Alts. B or C. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) – Open:0, Closed: 0, Limited: 20,266 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 44.3 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 17.0 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 12.0 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 38 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 26.4 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 47.1 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 59.1 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 32.6

Snowmobile use Open to cross-country snowmobile use except Ward Ranch,

McMasters and Spokane Hillstemporary closure areas. 

Reduced cross-country snowmobile use from Alt. A, additionaltravel closures (includes crosscountry travel as well as travel onexisting routes) for the area immediately west of the YorkBridge (“Mount Bend”), theFrench Bar area, and BLM landslocated adjacent to the SpokaneHills area. 

Potential long-term effects tousers because cross-countrysnowmobile use would not beallowed. 

Less area open to cross-countrysnowmobile travel than with Alt.A, but more area open than withAlts. B and C. 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 15,066,Closed: 1,588, Limited: 3,612 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 6,362,Closed: 13,904, Limited: 0 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 0, Closed: 0, Limited: 20,266 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 14,461,Closed: 5,805, Limited: 0

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 44.3 Miles of motorized routes avail­ able to snowmobile travel: 21.5 Miles of motorized routes avail­ able to snowmobile travel: 12 Miles of motorized routes avail­ able to snowmobile travel: 47.5 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 193 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS - continuedEast Helena TPA

User conflicts Conflict expected to increase as

urbanization continues. 

Separate use areas and decreasedroad density would lessen userconflicts. 

Same as Alt. B User conflict would be similar to

Alt. A. 

Illegal activities Greatest level of illegal activities

expected to occur. 

Route closures across 60 percentof area would reduce illegalactivities. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. 

Road and trail safety More accidents/injuries expected

under Alt. A due to motorizedand non-motorized users on moreof the same routes. 

More separate use areas anddecreased road density wouldincrease road and trail safety. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. A. 

User compliance/

implementation 

No additional effort/expendituresneeded. 

Costs would be greater underAlternative B than Alternatives Aand D, due to the development ofnon-motorized trail heads. 

More effort/cost required thanunder other alternatives to educate public on change in use andto monitor compliance. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Lewis and Clark County NW TPA

Motorized/Nonmotorized opportunities Alt. A would have 47 percent more motorized routes than action alternatives. Non-motorized

users would have fewer opportunities under Alt. A. 

Opportunities for non-motorizedusers would be greater than Alts.A and D. 

Alt. C would provide fewer opportunities for motorized users.Closure of routes in northwest corner of TPA would result inenhanced non-motorized opportunities. 

Alt. D would provide more motorized opportunities than otheraction alternatives. Opportunitiesincreased for ATV riders andhunters through yearlong ATVonly and game retrieval route.

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) – Open:0, Closed: 0, Limited: 16,997 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 64.2. 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 28.1. 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 19.7. 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 34.1. 

194 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 5.3 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 37.7. 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 46.7. 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 29.1. 

Snowmobile use Allows cross-country snowmobile use outside Great Divide Ski

Area, greatest of all alternatives. 

Reduced opportunities becausenorthwest portion of TPA restricted to designated routes. 

Potential long-term effects tousers because cross-countrysnowmobile use would not beallowed. 

Increase in snowmobile opportunities on designated routes compared to Alts. B and C. 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 16,112,Closed: 888, Limited: 0.Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 56.5. 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 12,649,Closed: 888, Limited: 3,463.Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 50.8(includes 1.8 miles of snowmobile only trail). 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) - Open: 0, Closed: 888, Limited: 16,112.Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 9.1(includes 1.1 miles of snowmobile only trail). 

Area availability for snowmobileuse same as Alternative B.Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 51(includes 2.0 miles of snowmobile only trail). 

User conflicts User conflict during winter due

to snowmobile use; on Continental Divide Trail due to motorizedand non-motorized use on thesame trail. 

User conflict reduced due todispersed recreational opportunities. Rerouting Continental Divide Trail would enhance motorized/non-motorized conflicts. 

Same as Alt. B. Same as Alt. B. Restricted 

snowmobile use in northwestportion of TPA and Great DivideSki Area would reduce winteruse conflicts. 

Boulder/Jefferson City TPA

Motorized/Nonmotorized opportunities Alt. A would have the most open routes of all alternatives. No

designated non-motorized routes.Fewer recreation opportunitiesfor non-motorized users. 

Provides more opportunities fornon-motorized users than Alt. A. 

Fewer opportunities for motorized users since least number ofopen routes. Increased nonmotorized opportunities sinceroutes in southwest corner ofTPA closed to motorized use. 

Opportunities for motorized useswould be greater than Alts. B andC but less than Alt. A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) – Open:0, Closed: 0, Limited: 14,487 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alternative A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 195 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS - continuedBoulder/Jefferson City TPA

Motorized/Nonmotorized opportunities Miles of wheeled motorized routes available (Open Yearlong,

Seasonally Restricted): 60.5 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 27.3 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 23.5 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 38.1 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 0 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 33.2 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 36.9 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 23.3 

Snowmobile use Alt. A would provide greatest

opportunity for motorized winteruse because TPA would be opento area-wide cross country use aswell as on all existing routes. 

Same as Alt. A. Alt. C would provide fewest 

opportunities for snowmobilessince cross-country travel wouldnot be allowed and fewer designated routes would be available. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (in acres) – Open: 14,487, Closed: 0, Limited: 0Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 60.5 

Same as Alt. A. Area Availability for snowmobile use (in acres) – Open: 0, 

Closed: 0, Limited: 14,487Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 3.0 

Same as Alt. A. 

User conflicts Greatest potential for user conflict, due to lack of separate use

areas and high level of motorizedroutes. 

Conflicts between non motorizedand motorized users would beless during the spring/ summer/fall use season but continueor increase during the winter useseason. 

Fewer user conflicts than otheralternatives due to dispersedrecreational opportunities. 

Same as Alt. A. 

Upper Big Hole River TPA

Motorized/Nonmotorized opportunities Alt. A would have 38 percent more motorized routes than any

other alternative. Alt. A wouldhave fewest non-motorized opportunities. 

Reduction by half of motorizedopportunities due to seasonalrestrictions or road closures.Non-motorized opportunitieswould be enhanced compared toAlt. A. 

Fewest opportunities for motorized users due to least number ofopen routes. Non-motorizedopportunities would be greatest. 

Fewer opportunities for motorized use than Alt. A, but morethan Alts. B and C. 

196 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use (in acres) – Open:0, Closed: 0, Limited: 63,249 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alt. A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alt. A. 

Area availability for wheeled,motorized use same as Alt. A.

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 158.6 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 80.9 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 60 

Miles of wheeled motorizedroutes available (Open Yearlong,Seasonally Restricted): 97.4 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 11.0 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 83.5 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 106.9 

Miles of non-motorized trailsavailable (includes existing trails,as well as closed and decommissioned roads): 62.9 

Snowmobile use Provides greatest opportunities

for snowmobile use since areawide cross-country travel and useon existing routes generally allowed. 

Fewer opportunities than Alternative A. Additional areas wouldbe closed to cross-country travel,other areas restricted to designated routes during the season ofuse (12/2-5/15). 

No cross-country travel allowed;travel restricted to designatedroutes only during the season ofuse (12/2-5/15). 

Same as Alternative A. 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (acres) – Open: 31,600, Closed: 31,607, Limited: 0 

Area availability for snowmobileuse (acres) – Open: 13,243, Closed: 46,932, Limited: 3,032 

Area Availability for snowmobile use (acres) – Open: 0,Closed: 31,607, Limited: 31,600 

Area Availability for snowmobile use (acres) – Open: 31,600,Closed: 31,607, Limited: 0

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 90.2 Miles of motorized routes avail­ able to snowmobile travel: 55.5

(Includes 2.5 miles of snowmobile use only trail). 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 16.4(Includes 2.4 miles of snowmobile use only trail). 

Miles of motorized routes available to snowmobile travel: 92.7(includes 2.5 miles of snowmobile use only trail).

User conflicts Greatest user conflict due to least

number of non-motorized trailsavailable for recreation. 

User conflicts would be reducedfrom Alt. A due to greater separation of motorized/nonmotorized uses. 

east amount of user conflicts dueto greatest number of nonmotorized routes for disperseduse. 

Same as Alt. B. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 197 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS - continuedUpper Big Hole River TPA - continued

Road and trail safety Greatest risk of road/trail accidents/injuries due to less separation of motorized/non-motorized

uses and year-round river ford atSawlog Gulch. 

Improved public safety comparedto Alt. A associated with greaterseparation of motorized/nonmotorized uses and limitingvehicular crossing of Big HoleRiver in Sawlog Gulch for gameretrieval only. 

Most enhanced public safety dueto greatest separation of motorized/non-motorized uses andelimination of river ford at Sawlog Gulch. 

Less risk to public safety thanunder Alt. A but more than underAlts. B and C. Seasonal restriction on Sawlog Gulch to avoidfording river during high water. 

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIESField Office-Wide

Road maintenance,

monitoring and

compliance, and weed

control 

Highest transportation facilitycosts than action alternatives dueto more motorized routes. 

Transportation facility costswould be less than Alts. A and D,and similar to Alt. C. Lowerfacility costs due to overall reduction in available routes despite increased design standardsfor stream crossings (culverts)and proposed barbed wire gatereplacement. 

Transportation facility costswould be less than Alts. A and D,and similar to Alt B. Lower facility costs due to overall reductionin available routes despite increased design standards forstream crossings (to withstand100-year flood events) and asneeded barbed wire gate replacement. 

Transportation facility costswould be greater than Alts. B andD, but less than Alt. A. Lowerfacility costs due to overall reduction in routes despite increased design standards forstream crossings, completebarbed wire gate replacement,and new construction to provideadditional loop routes.

Helena TPA

Road signing,

maintenance, monitoring

and compliance 

Short-term lower costs for signage and compliance monitoringsince fewer route restrictions. 

Short-term increase in costs fortrailhead maintenance, gates, andsignage associated with restrictedmotorized access, and compliance costs associated with nighttime closure of the ScratchgravelHills. 

Same as Alt. B. Short-term increase in cost for

signage and long-term increasecompared to Alts. B and C forroute maintenance associatedwith constructing new connectorroutes and reconstructing existing routes. 

198 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Overall costs of facility

maintenance 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be highest of all theaction alternatives; almost threetimes more than Alts. B and D,and six times more than Alt. C. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be less than Alts. Aand D due to fewer open routesto maintain, but more than Alt.C. 

Due to the overall reduction inavailable routes, transportationfacility costs would be least of allthe alternatives. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be greater than Alts.B and C, but less than Alt. A. 

East Helena TPA

Road signing,

maintenance, monitoring

and compliance 

Short-term lower costs for signage and compliance monitoringsince fewer route restrictions. 

Short-term increase in cost forcompliance monitoring effort,trailhead development and maintenance for trailhead in NorthHills and for signage and signmaintenance for hunters with adisability access in South Hills. 

Short-term increase in costs forcompliance monitoring, signageto mark restricted routes. Indirectcosts for sign maintenance andreplacement greater than otheralternatives. 

Short-term increase in costs forcompliance monitoring, signageand long-term increase for routemaintenance associated withconstructing new routes. 

Overall costs of facility

maintenance 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be similar to Alt. Dand much less than Alts. B andC. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be less than Alts. Aand D and more than Alt. C. 

Due to the overall reduction inavailable routes, transportationfacility costs would be least of allthe alternatives. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be similar to Alt. Aand less than Alts B and C. 

Lewis and Clark County NW TPA

Road signing,

maintenance, monitoring

and compliance 

Short-term lower costs for signage and compliance monitoringsince fewer route restrictions. 

Short-term increase in costs foradditional signage and compliance monitoring and from closing upper northwest portion ofarea to motorized vehicles andcross-country snowmobile travel. 

Short-term increase in costs foradditional signage and monitoring compliance and due to closing entire northwest portion ofTPA to motorized vehicles andcross-country snowmobile travel. 

Short-term increase in costs dueto new signage and monitoringcompliance and maintenanceassociated with addition of newroutes including ATV-only andgame retrieval route, and closingnorthwest portion of TPA to cross-country snowmobile travel.

Overall costs of facility

maintenance 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be greatest of allalternatives since highest level ofmotorized access. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be similar to Alt. D,less than Alt. A and more thanAlt. C. 

Due to the overall reduction inavailable routes, transportationfacility costs would least of allthe alternatives. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be greater than Alts.B and C, but less than Alt. A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 199 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES – continuedLewis and Clark County NW TPA – continued

Motorized trail

maintenance 

No costs for motorized trailmaintenance. 

No costs for motorized trailmaintenance. 

No costs for motorized trailmaintenance. 

Only alternative with motorizedtrail maintenance. 

Boulder/Jefferson City TPA

Road signing,

maintenance, monitoring

and compliance 

Short-term lower costs for signage and compliance monitoringsince fewer route restrictions. 

Short-term increase in costs forsignage and compliance monitoring effort compared to Alt. A. 

Short-term increase in costs foradditional signage and compliance monitoring effort and due toclosing southwest corner of TPAto motorized use and entire areato cross-country snowmobiletravel. 

Short-term increase in costs forsignage and compliance monitoring effort. 

Overall costs of facility

maintenance 

Greatest overall transportationfacility costs due to the greatestlevel of motorized access. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be less than Alts. Aand D and more than Alt. C. 

Due to the overall reduction inavailable routes, transportationfacility costs would be the leastof all the alternatives. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be greater than Alts.B and C, but less than Alt. A.

Upper Big Hole River TPA

Road signing,

maintenance, monitoring

and compliance 

Lower costs for signage andcompliance monitoring sincefewer route restrictions. 

Short-term increased costs fromnew signage and compliancemonitoring due to changing seasonal use restrictions in variousareas and closing some areas tocross-country snowmobile travel. 

Short-term increase costs for newsignage and compliance monitoring due to route closures andseasonal restriction changes andclosing some areas to crosscountry snowmobile travel. 

Short-term increase in costs dueto new signage and compliancemonitoring due to route restrictions in various areas and closureof some areas to cross-countrysnowmobile travel.

Overall costs of facility

maintenance 

Transportation facility costswould be almost twice that of theaction alternatives due to thehighest level of motorized access. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be more than twotimes less than Alt. A, more thanAlt. C and slightly less than Alt.D. 

Due to the overall reduction inavailable routes, transportationfacility costs would be the leastof all alternatives. 

Overall transportation facilitycosts would be substantially lessthan Alt. A due to a great reduction in motorized access andslightly higher than Alts. B or C. 

200 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

LANDS AND REALTY

Renewable energy Renewable energy developments 

could result in requests for landuse authorizations. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Facility locating Would provide greatest flexibility in locating transmission lines,

pipelines, and communicationsites since no designated right-ofway corridor, use areas, exclusion areas, and limited avoidanceareas would be identified. 

Limiting new communicationfacilities to seven designatedcommunication sites would concentrate these uses and diminishproliferation of separate rightsof-way. Designating utility corridors would focus locations offuture facilities. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

Land ownership 

adjustment 

No Change. Would improve and provide

better guidance by prioritizingactions associated with chronicmanagement problems and protecting public resource values.Focus on identifying areas forfuture acquisitions associatedwith special designations andspecial status/priority specieshabitat. 

Same as Alternative B. Same as Alternative B. 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONSACECs 

Existing ACEC (Sleeping Giant)only area managed as an ACECtotaling 11,679 acres. 

All five potential areas would bedesignated as ACECs totaling 73,666 acres. This alternativewould provide the second greatest protection of relevant andimportant values. 

This alternative provides thegreatest protection of relevantand important values since allfive potential areas totaling87,893 acres would be designated as ACECs. 

The second least amount ofACECs (three) and acreage(23,695 acres) would be designated as ACECs. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 201 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS – continuedNational Trails 

Lowest protection provided forthe two National Trail corridorsgiven that ROS, VRM, travel andoil and gas restrictions would belowest. 

Second highest protection afforded the National Trails as resource use restrictions wouldbe greater than Alts. A and D. 

Greatest protection of the existing National Trails and associated user experiences since allresource uses such as timberharvesting, motorized travel,rights-of-way, minerals, and oiland gas would be restricted themost through ROS, VRM, and travel management. 

Second lowest protection forNational Trails as potential impacts from other resource useswould be higher than Alts. B andC. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Outstandingly remarkable valuesof all WSR eligible segmentswould be minimally affected asinterim protective measureswould be applied until suitabilitydecisions were made. 

Only two of the four eligibleWSR segments would be recommended as suitable forNWSRS (Muskrat Creek andUpper Missouri River). Theremaining two segments wouldbe dropped from consideration. 

All four segments would berecommended as suitable forconsideration in NWSRS; interim management would be thesame as Alternative A. The potential for long-term protection ofthe outstandingly remarkablevalues would be greatest of allalternatives. 

Least protection provided for theWSR values as no river segmentswould be recommended as suitable for WSR managementstatus. 

Wilderness Study Areas (Fall back management if removed from wilderness consideration)

Sleeping Giant and Sheep CreekWSAs would be managed asACECs under the current Sleeping Giant ACEC ManagementPlan. 

Four WSAs would be managedas ACECs providing some longterm resource value protectionshould Congress remove themfrom further wilderness consideration. Yellowstone River Islandand Black Sage would be managed to protect their natural characteristics and outstanding valuesto a greater degree than Alt. Dand a lesser degree than Alt. C. 

Same as Alternative B, with theexception that oil and gas stipulations would be more restrictivefor Black Sage (and protective ofexisting values) if dismissedfrom further wilderness consideration. 

Same as Alternative B, with theexception that Black Sage wouldbe open to all salable and leasable minerals and less protectiveoil and gas leasing stipulations ofAlt. D. 

202 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMICEconomic Environment

Agricultural and

livestock use 

Livestock grazing (actual use)would support 21 total (direct,indirect, induced) jobs and totallabor income of $248,000.Dependency of local livestockoperators on BLM forage wouldremain at less than 1 percent oftotal livestock forage needs.Approximately 174 operatorshave grazing permits on BLMpublic lands. BLM forage oftenprovides a critical element of thelivestock producer’s matchedcomplement of grazing, forage,and hay production.Livestock grazing would continue to generate about $40,000in annual government revenues;$14,000 would be distributed tothe state and counties. 

Livestock grazing (estimatedactual use) would support 20total (direct, indirect, induced)jobs and total labor income ofabout $239,000.Changes in grazing managementand economic effects would bespread unequally among permittees. Dependency and government revenues would be similarto Alternative A. 

Same as Alt. B, i.e. livestockgrazing (estimated actual use)would support about 20 total(direct, indirect, induced) jobsand total labor income of about$239,000.Changes in grazing managementand economic effects would bespread unequally among permittees. Dependency and government revenues would be similarto Alternative A. 

Same as Alternative A 

Forest products The combined effect of 10,400

CCF of timber sales would be111 total jobs and $2.8 million inannual labor income. 

The combined effect of 10,000CCF of timber sales would be104 total jobs and $2.7 million inannual labor income. 

The combined effect of 4,200CCF of timber sales would be 47total jobs and $1.2 million inannual labor income. 

The combined effect of 12,000CCF of timber sales would be123 total jobs and $3.2 million inannual labor income. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 203 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC – continuedEconomic Environment – continued

Recreation An estimated 459 total local jobs

and $12.0 million in total annuallabor income would be supportedby 1.39 million recreation visitsper year on public lands. Theamount of revenues generated byrecreation management would be$580,000. 

An estimated 455 total local jobsand $11.8 million in total annuallabor income would be supportedby 1.38 million recreation visitsper year on public lands. Recreation revenues would be similar toAlternative A. 

An estimated 451 total local jobsand $ 11.7 million in total annuallabor income would be supportedby 1.36 million recreation visitsper year on public lands. Recreation revenues would be similar toAlternative A. 

An estimated 4640 total localjobs and $12.1 million in totalannual labor income would besupported by 1.41 million recreation visits per year on publiclands. Recreation revenues wouldbe similar to Alternative A. 

Mining and mineral An estimated 105 local jobs and

$1.2 million in annual laborincome would be supported byexploration, development, and production of 931,000 MCF ofgas, 365,000 tons of limestone,400 tons of dimension stone, and20,000 tons of sand/gravel. Federal revenues from leases, rents,and royalties would be about$742,000. State and local revenues would be $371,000 and$46,000, respectively. 

Economic impacts would besimilar to those described forAlternative A. 

An estimated 20 local jobs and$0.73 million in annual laborincome would be supported byexploration, development, and production of 365,000 tons oflimestone, 400 tons of dimensionstone, and 20,000 tons ofsand/gravel. There would be nofederal, state, or local revenuesfrom leasing, rents, or royalties. 

Economic impacts would besimilar to those described forAlternative A. 

BLM management

effects on the local

economy 

BLM management would support about 840 local jobs and$20.9 million in local labor income. This would be about 0.5percent of total local jobs and 0.3percent of total local labor income. 

BLM management would support about 840 local jobs and$20.9 million in local labor income. This would be about 0.5percent of total local jobs and 0.3percent of total local labor income. 

BLM management would support about 690 local jobs and$18.6 million in local labor income. This would be about 0.5percent of total local jobs and 0.3percent of total local labor income. 

BLM management would support about 870 local jobs and$22.4 million in local labor income. This would be about 0.5percent of total local jobs and 0.3percent of total local labor income. 

204 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

The 19 percent increase in localemployment and 8 percent increase in labor income wouldlargely be caused by oil/gasdevelopment. 

Compared to Alt. A, the 18 percent increase in local employment and 9 percent increase inlabor income would largely becaused by oil/gas development. 

Compared to Alt. A, the 3 percent decrease in local employment and 4 percent decrease inlabor income would largely becaused by declines in timbersales. 

Compared to Alt. A, the 23 percent increase in local employment and 16 percent increase inlabor income would largely becaused by oil/gas development,increased recreation use, andincreased timber sales.

Indirect non-market and

non-use values 

Based strictly on the number ofacres that would be in an ACEC,Alternative A would have thelowest non-use values. 

Based strictly on the number ofacres that would be in an ACEC,Alternative B would have thesecond highest non-use values. 

Based strictly on the number ofacres that would be in an ACEC,Alternative C would have thehighest non-use values. 

Based strictly on the number ofacres that would be in an ACEC,Alternative D would have thesecond lowest non-use values.

Economic stability,

diversity, and growth 

Economic stability (indicated by seasonal unemployment, sporadic population changes, and fluctuating income growth rates) and economic diversity (indicated by the number of economic sectors) would not be influenced by BLM resource management. Alternative C

and to a lesser extent, Alternative B would indirectly provide an environment more conducive to continuing long-term population growth 

and corresponding economic growth because of more resource protection offered.

Weed management Economic benefits from weed management and costs (in terms of reduced agricultural output, reduced recreation use, increased soil loss 

and water pollution (sedimentation and turbidity) associated with the spread of weeds are unknown. 

Soil and water Economic benefits from soil and water management and costs (from lost agricultural production, additional costs for municipal water 

treatments, shortened life of dams and reservoirs, additional cost of water for industrial purposes, reduced water recreation use, reduced soil productivity, and water pollution) associated with resource use are unknown. 

Fire/Fuels Economic benefits from fire and fuels management (beyond those covered under forestry management) and potential costs (in terms of 

property losses, lost revenues from wildland fires, and increase suppression costs) associated with hazardous fuels buildup are unknown. 

Social and Economic

Goals 

All alternatives would, to varying degrees, provide opportunities for economic benefits while minimizing adverse impacts on resources and resource uses; sustain, and where appropriate, restore the health of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems to provide a 

sustained flow of economic benefits within the capability of the ecosystem; protect visual quality, wildlife habitats, and recreation opportunities to sustain non-market values; and make resource commodities available to provide a sustainable flow of economic benefits within the ecosystem. 

Environmental Justice 

No disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and lowincome populations would occur. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 205 
Table 2

24 Table 2-24 Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Public Health and Safety

Abandoned mine

reclamation 

Reclamation of abandoned minesites would continue to remediatesafety and environmental quality issues. 

Same as Alternative A. AMLprogram would reclaim shaft inRinging Rocks potential ACECreducing safety hazard. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Hazardous Materials 

Land use authorizations not issued for uses involving disposalor storage of hazardous materials. Lands proposed for acquisition or disposal would be inventoried for hazardous materials. 

Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. Same as Alternative A. 

Social Environment

Timber and Logging

Interests 

No change to current social conditions under this alternative. Alt. B would be favored over Alts. A and C by timber industry 

and workers because it providesfor higher projected harvest levels and availability of forestproducts. 

Alternative C would have thelowest projected harvest levelsand therefore, would be lesslikely to be favored by thoseconcerned about timber employment. 

Likely to be the most favoredalternative by the timber industryand workers concerned aboutemployment because highestprojected timber harvest levels.

Ranching/Livestock 

Permittee Interests 

No change in authorized AUMs;projected levels of grazing wouldbe maintained at current levels 

Effects would be similar to Alternative A, but conflicts between livestock grazing andwheeled vehicles would be addressed. 

Effects would be similar to Alternative B. Effects would be similar to Al­ ternative B. 

Recreation Interests Most roads open under this alternative.

Would not address concernsabout conflicts between motorized and non-motorized use. 

Emphasized balance of motorized and non-motorized recreation and access.Entire Scratchgravel Hills closedafter dark. 

Overall effect of reducing motorized recreation, but quality ofexperience may increase becauseuser conflicts reduced.Scratchgravel Hills closed afterdark. 

Emphasis on motorized recreation.Motorized use of ScratchgravelHills would be allowed 24 hoursper day; would address someconcerns about conflicts betweenmotorized and non-motorizeduses. 

206 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Comparison of Effects 

Table 2-24

Summary Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Resource or Aspect of

Management 

Alternative A

(No Action) 

Alternative B

(Preferred Alternative) Alternative C Alternative D 

Commercial Outfitter

and Guide Interests 

Favored by outfitter guides overAlternatives B and C becausefewer constraints. 

Outfitters/ guides less likely tofavor Alternative B because more constraints on their operations. 

Outfitter/guides less likely tofavor Alternative C because ofmore constraints on their operations. 

Favored by outfitters/guidesbecause fewest constraints. 

Groups/Individuals

who give a high priority

to resource protection 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource protection would be less likely to support this alternative than Alternatives B or C. 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource protection would be likely to favor thisalternative over Alternatives Aand D, but may be less likely tofavor this Alternative over Alternative C. 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource protection would likely favor Alternative C because of wildlife andriparian habitat protection andestablishment of WSRs andgreatest acreage in new ACECs. 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource protection would be less likely to favorAlternative D than the otheraction alternatives. 

Groups/Individuals who

give a high priority

to resource use 

Groups and individuals concerned about resource use wouldprobably favor this alternative orAlternative D. 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource usewould be more likely to favorAlternative B over Alternative C,and possibly Alternative A. 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource usewould less likely favor Alternative C because timber harvest,oil & gas development, etc.would be more restricted thanunder Alternatives B and D. 

Groups and individuals who givehigh priority to resource usewould be likely to favor Alternative D because timber harvestwould be highest and oil and gasconstraints would be less restrictive. 

Tribal Rights 

Provides opportunity to exercisetribal treaty rights such as hunting, fishing, and gathering onpublic lands. 

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 207