APPENDIX H – AREAS OF CRITICAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Butte Field Office, Montana March 2006 

Butte Resource Management Plan 

Final Report on 

Importance and Relevance 

Criteria and Findings for 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern Considerations 

Prepared for: 

US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

106 North Parkmont 

Butte, Montana 59701 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 769 

Appendix H 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

Importance and Relevance Criteria and Findings for Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Considerations ............773
 

1. Executive Summary......................................................................................................................................... 773
 

2. Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 773
 

2.1 What is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern?................................................................................. 773
 

3. Steps in the ACEC Process.............................................................................................................................. 774
 

3.1 Nomination .................................................................................................................................................. 774
 

3.2 Evaluation of Nominations for Relevance and Importance ........................................................................ 774
 

3.3 Consideration of Potential ACECs .............................................................................................................. 776
 

3.4 Comment on Proposed ACECs ................................................................................................................... 776
 

3.5 Designation .................................................................................................................................................. 776
 

4. Nominations..................................................................................................................................................... 776
 

5. Importance and Relevance Evaluations........................................................................................................... 776
 

5.1 Elkhorn Mountains ...................................................................................................................................... 778
 

5.2 Jerry Johnson Creek..................................................................................................................................... 780
 

5.3 City of Butte Big Hole River Diversion ...................................................................................................... 781
 

5.4 Soap Gulch-Camp Creek ............................................................................................................................. 781
 

5.5 High Ore Creek............................................................................................................................................ 782
 

5.6 Sleeping Giant ACEC (Existing Designation) ............................................................................................ 782
 

5.7 Sleeping Giant ACEC Extension................................................................................................................. 783
 

5.8 Spokane Creek ............................................................................................................................................. 785
 

5.9 Ringing Rocks ............................................................................................................................................. 787
 

5.10 Humbug Spires ACEC Nomination ........................................................................................................ 789
 

6. Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 791
 

References...........................................................................................................................................................................792
 

Glossary ..............................................................................................................................................................................793
 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure Page 

Figure 1 Butte RMP Planning Area.................................................................................................................................. 775 

Figure 2 Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern........................................................................................... 777 

Figure 3 Elkhorn Mountains Potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern............................................................ 779 

Figure 4 Location of Existing Sleeping Giant Area of Critical Environmental Concern ................................................ 784 

Figure 5 Spokane Creek Potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern................................................................... 786 

Figure 6 Ringing Rocks Potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern ................................................................... 788 

Figure 7 Humbug Spires Potential Area of Critical Environmental Concern.................................................................. 790 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

Table 1 Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern............................................................................................ 791 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 771 
Appendix H 

LIST OF ACRONYMS 

Acronym or Abbreviation Full Phrase 

ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

BLM United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management 

FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act 

Forest Service United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

Planning Area Butte Resource Management Plan planning area 

RMP resource management plan 

US United States 

WSA Wilderness Study Area 

. 

772 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

IMPORTANCE AND RELEVANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR AREAS OF 

CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN CONSIDERATIONS 

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

As part of the land use planning process for the Butte Resource Management Plan (RMP), a 

US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) interdisciplinary team 

reviewed ten nominations for special designation as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

(ACECs). Five nominations were external (made by other agencies or the public), three were 

internal (made by BLM specialists), one was recommended for study in a 1979 BLM 

management plan (BLM 1979), and one is an existing ACEC. The team analyzed the ten 

areas to determine if they contain values that meet the relevance and importance criteria for 

consideration as potential ACECs. 

Five areas were found to meet the relevance and importance criteria: Elkhorn Mountains, the 

existing Sleeping Giant ACEC, Spokane Creek, Ringing Rocks, and Humbug Spires. These 

areas are identified as potential ACECs. Various alternatives in the Draft RMP will 

recommend the areas for designation as ACECs (or continued designation in the case of 

Sleeping Giant ACEC) if special management is required to protect the relevant and 

important values. Areas found not to meet the relevance and importance criteria are not 

carried forward as potential ACECs. 

2. INTRODUCTION 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and BLM policy (Manual 1613 

[BLM 1988a]) require the BLM to give priority to the designation and protection of ACECs 

during the land use planning process. The BLM, Butte Field Office, is currently revising its 

older land use plans, the Headwaters RMP (BLM 1984) and the Dillon Management 

Framework Plan (BLM 1979). The revised RMP will provide a single, comprehensive land 

use plan that will guide management of public land administered by the Butte Field Office 

over the next 15 to 20 years. Only that public and federal mineral estate managed by BLM 

within the Butte Field Office boundary is the subject of this document. 

The BLM Butte Field Office Planning Area is in mid-western Montana (Figure 1). Within the 

Planning Area, BLM administers about 311,000 acres of public surface land and 656,000 

acres of federal mineral estate in Lewis and Clark, Jefferson, Broadwater, Deer Lodge, 

Beaverhead, Silver Bow, Gallatin, and Park Counties. 

This analysis and the resultant findings for ACEC relevance and importance criteria has been 

performed pursuant to FLPMA Section 202 (43 US Code 1712[c][3]), 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations 1610.7-2 and BLM Manual 1613 (BLM 1988a). 

2.1 What is an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? 

FLPMA Section 103 (43 US Code 1702[a]) and 43 Code of Federal Regulations 1601.0-5(a) 

describes ACECs as “areas within the public lands where special management attention is 

required to protect and prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic 

values, fish and wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes, or to protect life and 

safety from natural hazards.” Therefore, only BLM-administered lands are included in ACEC 

boundaries. 

Designation of an ACEC in and of itself does not automatically prohibit or restrict other uses 

in the area. The one exception is that a mining plan of operation is required for any proposed 

mining activity within a designated ACEC. The ACEC designation is an administrative 

designation that is accomplished through the land use planning process. It is unique to BLM 

in that no other agency uses this form of designation. 

The intent of Congress in mandating the designation of ACECs through FLPMA was to give 

priority to the designation and protection of areas containing unique and significant resource 

values. The BLM staff followed guidance set forth in BLM Manual 1613 for the process of 

identifying and evaluating potential ACECs. This report documents the first three steps in the 

process: compiling a list of areas recommended for ACEC designation, obtaining information 

on relevance and importance, and evaluating each resource or hazard to determine if it meets 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 773 
Appendix H 

both the relevance and importance criteria. The remaining two steps, public comment on 

proposed ACECs and ACEC designation, will be completed after publishing this draft report. 

Section 3 describes these steps. 

3. STEPS IN THE ACEC PROCESS 

This section summarizes the five main steps in the identification and evaluation of ACECs. 

3.1 Nomination 

BLM staff, other agencies, or members of the public may nominate ACECs at any time, but 

they are only designated during the BLM land use planning process. External nominations 

from agencies and the public generally are solicited during an RMP’s scoping process. In 

addition, BLM regulations require reconsideration of existing ACECs during RMP revision 

(BLM 1988a). 

3.2 Evaluation of Nominations for Relevance and Importance 

Each nominated area is evaluated to determine if it meets the relevance and importance 

criteria listed in BLM Manual 1613. A nomination must meet one or more of the relevance 

criteria and the importance criteria to be considered a potential ACEC. 

Relevance Criteria 

Does the area contain one or more of the following values? 

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not limited to rare or 

sensitive archeological resources and religious or cultural resources important to 

native Americans); 

2. A fish or wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for endangered, 

sensitive, or threatened species, or habitat essential for maintaining species 

diversity); 

3. A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, sensitive, or 

threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relict plants or plant communities that are 

terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare geological features); and/or 

4. A natural hazard (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, dangerous 

flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or dangerous cliffs). A hazard 

caused by human action may meet the relevance criteria if it is determined through 

the RMP process that it has become part of a natural process. 

Importance Criteria 

Does the value, resource, system, process, or hazard have substantial significance or value? 

Does it meet one or more of the following criteria? 

1. Does it have more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to 

any similar resource? 

2. Does it have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse 

change? 

3. Has it been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy national priority 

concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA? 

4. Does it have qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare? 

5. Does it pose a significant threat to human life and safety or property? 

774 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
 

Great Falls 

Missoula 

Helena 

Butte 

Billings 

Bozeman 

Butte Field Office Planning Area 

FIGURE 1 

Butte RMP Planning Area, Montana

0 60 BLM, Butte Field Office Miles Butte RMP and EIS 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) for use of
data for purposes not intended by BLM.
 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 775
Appendix H 

3.3 Consideration of Potential ACECs 

Potential ACECs (those meeting the relevance and importance criteria) are considered as 

RMP alternatives are developed. Each potential ACEC is proposed for designation in at least 

one of the management alternatives in the Draft RMP. The need for special management and 

the resulting effects from applying such management are assessed in the associated draft 

environmental impact statement. 

3.4 Comment on Proposed ACECs 

Public feedback will be sought on the designation recommendations included in this draft 

report, and the public may comment on any aspect of the ACEC analysis. The comments are 

considered during preparation of the Proposed RMP and Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. After a 30-day protest period on the Proposed RMP, the BLM prepares a record of 

decision and approves the RMP. 

3.5 Designation 

A potential ACEC is proposed for designation if it requires special management to protect the 

important and relevant values. Special management is defined as management outside of 

standard or routine practices. Special management refers to management prescriptions 

developed expressly to protect the important and relevant values of the area from the potential 

effects of actions permitted by the RMP. They usually include more detail than other 

management prescriptions contained in the RMP. Special management is typically needed 

when one of the following conditions is met: 

• Current management or management activities proposed in the alternative are not 

sufficient to protect the relevant and important resource values; 

• The needed management action is considered unusual or outside of the normal range 

of management practices typically used; or 

• The change in management is difficult to implement without ACEC designation. 

Only if analysis determines that special management is required, the potential ACEC is 

recommended for designation. Designation of ACECs occurs when the record of decision is 

signed and the RMP is approved. 

4. NOMINATIONS 

For the Butte RMP process, the notice of intent to prepare the RMP (December 2003) 

included the following request for nominations: 

“The BLM is ... requesting public input for nominations considered worthy of ACEC 

designation. To be considered as a potential ACEC, an area must meet the criteria of 

relevance and importance as established and defined in 43 CFR 1610.7-2. 

Nominations must include descriptive materials, detailed maps, and evidence 

supporting the ‘relevance’ and ‘importance’ of the resource or area. ... All ACEC 

nominations within the planning area will be evaluated during development of the 

RMP” (Federal Register 2003). 

The BLM received five external nominations from four different sources. Each nomination 

included a varying degree of descriptive materials, maps, and evidence supporting the 

relevance and importance of each area. In addition, the BLM interdisciplinary team evaluated 

three internal nominations, one existing ACEC (Sleeping Giant), and one area recommended 

for study in the Dillon Management Framework Plan (BLM 1979). Figure 2 depicts the 

locations of the ten areas. Evaluations of each area are provided below. 

5. IMPORTANCE AND RELEVANCE EVALUATIONS 

The following information describes each area and whether or not it meets the relevance and 

importance criteria. 

776 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Miss ouri River 

Yell 

Madison River 

Gall atin River 

J e fferson River 

Missou ri River 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

LEWIS & CLARK COUNTY 

CASCADE COUNTY 

Sleeping Giant Nominated ACEC Extension 

Sleeping Giant Existing ACEC 

POWELL COUNTY 15 Spokane Creek Potential ACEC 

MEAGHER COUNTY 

GRANITE COUNTY High Ore Creek 

Nominated ACEC Elkhorn 

Mountains 

Potential 

Canyon 

Ferry 

Reservoir 

ACEC 

BROADWATER COUNTY 

JEFFERSON COUNTY 

DEER LODGE COUNTY 

Ringing Rocks Potential ACEC 

SILVER BOW COUNTY 

Jerry Johnson 

Nominated ACEC 

City of Butte Big Hole
 

Water Diversion Soap Gulch-Camp Creek Nominated ACEC GALLATIN COU Nominated ACEC 

M o n t a n a 

MADISON COUNTY 

BEAVERHEAD COUNTY 

Butte Field Office Planning
 

Area Boundary
 

1:1,100,000 

0 2 Miles 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) for use of 

data for purposes not intended by BLM. 

Potential Area of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

Butte Field Office 

Planning Area Boundary 

Rivers and Streams 

Interstates 

Roads 

County Boundaries 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 

Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) Lands 

Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR) Lands 

Private Lands 

State of Montana Lands 

USDA Forest Service Lands 

USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service Lands 

YELLOW 

FIGURE 2 

Nominated Areas of 

Critical Environmental 

Concern Considered 

BLM, Butte Field Office 

Butte RMP and EIS 

777 
Appendix H 

5.1 Elkhorn Mountains 

This external nomination was made during the public scoping process for the Butte RMP. The 

nominated area is shown in Figure 3. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

The Elkhorn Mountains are an island mountain range in southwest Montana, near the capital city 

of Helena. The communities of Townsend, Boulder, Three Forks, and Winston also border the 

range. The nominated Elkhorn Mountains ACEC is about 67,500 acres of BLM-administered 

lands in Jefferson and Broadwater Counties. The nominated ACEC encompasses the BLMadministered 3,575-acre Elkhorn Wilderness Study Area (WSA) on the west side of the Elkhorn 

Mountains; this WSA has not been studied for wilderness suitability. The BLM-administered lands 

in the nominated ACEC encircle (but do not include) about 160,000 acres managed by the US 

Department of Agriculture, National Forest Service (Forest Service); these lands comprise the only 

Wildlife Management Unit in the National Forest System. Included in these Forest Service lands, 

and adjacent to the BLM-administered Elkhorn WSA, is the 64,522-acre Elkhorn WSA that is 

administered by the US Forest Service. 

The wildlife emphasis resulted from the decision on the Elkhorns Wilderness Study EIS done 

in the late 1970s. The study was controversial, and the public response was both vocal and 

conflicting. Throughout the debate, consensus emerged: the wealth of natural diversity in 

wildlife and habitats and the associated recreation values of the Elkhorn Mountains should be 

recognized and retained. In 1992, the BLM, Helena and Deerlodge National Forests, and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing 

to work together to manage the Elkhorns as a mountain range. The MOU established the 

Elkhorn Cooperative Management Area as a unique, cooperatively administered geographic 

area. However, the BLM-managed lands have remained under full multiple use, whereas the 

Forest Service lands emphasize wildlife and recreation values. 

Relevance Criteria 

This area meets Relevance Criteria 1 and 2. There are significant Native American cultural 

sites on BLM-managed lands in the Elkhorn Mountains, as well as historic mining and 

ranching localities (Relevance Criteria 1). The Elkhorn Mountains’ highlight is its wealth of 

natural diversity in wildlife and habitats (Relevance Criteria 2). The ecosystem includes 

everything from prairie to alpine, and from mayflies (Ameletus bellulus) to mountain goat 

(Oreamnos americanus). Together, the Forest Service and BLM lands in the Elkhorn 

Mountains provide diverse, productive wildlife habitat essential for maintaining species 

diversity. The Elkhorn Mountains also provide expansive big game winter range on public 

land. The mountain range is also an important wildlife corridor between the Big Belt 

Mountains and the Continental Divide. The lower-elevation portion of the ecosystem includes 

BLM-managed lands that provide critical winter range for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), 

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana), and elk (Cervus elaphus). The BLM-managed lands also 

provide habitat for mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) and for several sensitive species 

including westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), golden eagle (Aquila 

chrysaetos), northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), long-billed curlew (Numenius 

americanus), black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), American three-toed woodpecker 

(Picoides dorsalis), and Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri). These fish and wildlife values 

are recognized by the MOU between the BLM, Helena and Deerlodge National Forests, and 

Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks that establishes the Elkhorn Cooperative Management 

Area. 

778 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Dry Creek 

Bi g Pipestone Creek 

Pipestone 

Creek 

nyon Ferry Reservoir 

M is s ouri 

River 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
 

D e e r Winston 

Jefferson

 County 

H e l ena

L odge N a t i o nal

Townsend 

Forest

Elkhorn WSA 

Boulder 

National National

Forest

Broadwater 

County 

Black Sage WSA 

Ringing Rocks Potential ACEC 

Pipestone Hot Springs 

Three Forks 

Whitehall 

Location within 

the Butte RMP 

Planning Area 

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area (WSA) (BLM) Lands FIGURE 3 Bureau of Reclamation 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) 

Potential Area of Critical 

(BOR) Lands 

1:401,462 Butte Field Office Private Lands Location of Potential Area of 

Planning Area Boundary State of Montana Lands Critical Environmental Concern 0 5 Miles Rivers and Streams

Interstates USDA Forest Service Lands Elkhorn Mountains 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) for use of Roads USDI Fish and Wildlife BLM, Butte Field Office

data for purposes not intended by BLM. County Boundaries Service Lands Butte RMP and EIS

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 779 
Appendix H 

Importance Criteria 

This area’s fish and wildlife values, as recognized by the MOU, meet Importance Criteria 1, 

2, and 3. The wildlife management unit, the Elkhorn Cooperative Management Area, has 

more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth and distinctiveness 

(Importance Criteria 1). The unique management of the Elkhorn Mountains across 

administrative boundaries has been nationally recognized as a model of collaborative 

management. The public has come to expect this seamless management of the Elkhorn 

Mountains and generally expects that management across the ecosystem favors wildlife. The 

public generally does not realize that the BLM, Butte Field Office, has a separate multiple-use 

plan for the Elkhorn Mountains. The relevant fish and wildlife values, as recognized by the 

MOU, also represent a unique wildlife management unit of national priority (Importance 

Criteria 3). 

The Elkhorn Mountains’ expansive big game winter range on public land is unique. The pure 

native westslope cutthroat trout also are unique, fragile, sensitive, rare, threatened, and 

vulnerable (Importance Criteria 2). Muskrat and Dutchman Creeks are unique because of 

these pure native westslope cutthroat trout. Pure strains of westslope cutthroat trout are found 

in only four streams of the Elkhorn Mountains, and two of these streams occur on BLM lands. 

Streams with westslope cutthroat trout are rare in the Elkhorn Mountains and are threatened 

by nonnative species and habitat degradation. 

Findings 

This area meets both the relevance and importance criteria and will be carried forward as a 

potential ACEC. 

5.2 Jerry Johnson Creek 

This area was formerly located within the BLM Dillon Field Office. The Dillon Management 

Framework Plan (BLM 1979) recommended that 15 areas, including Jerry Johnson Creek, be 

considered further for ACEC designation once guidance was available to conduct the 

evaluations. The BLM guidance finalized the process for identification and evaluation of 

ACECs in the 1980s, but a Dillon Management Framework Plan amendment was never 

completed for the 15 nominations. Because the area is now within the Butte Field Office 

boundary, it is being evaluated during the Butte RMP process. The nominated area is shown 

in Figure 2. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

This approximate 12,100-acre area in Silver Bow County includes BLM-administered lands 

adjacent to the north side of the Big Hole River from the town of Divide west about 2.5 miles 

to the Silver Bow-Deerlodge County line. Approximately 200 elk and 300 deer use the area 

for winter range. 

Relevance Criteria 

This nomination meets Relevance Criteria 2 for a fish and wildlife resource, because the 

winter range is necessary to maintain existing populations of deer and elk, and there is habitat 

for threatened and endangered species, including: 

• Federally listed as threatened Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis); 

• Federally listed as threatened grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis); and 

• Federally listed as endangered and experimental population gray wolf (Canis lupus). 

Importance Criteria 

The small area does not meet the importance criteria for a fish and wildlife resource. Though 

it contains threatened and endangered species habitat, there is nothing more than locally 

significant about this area, as these species occur elsewhere in Montana. 

Findings 

This nomination meets the relevance criteria for a fish and wildlife resource but does not meet 

importance criteria. As such, it will not be carried forward as a potential ACEC. 

780 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

5.3 City of Butte Big Hole River Diversion 

This external nomination was made during the public scoping process for the Dillon RMP in 

2001. Because it is located in the Butte Field Office, it was not considered in the Dillon 

ACEC evaluation. The nominated area is shown in Figure 2. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

The City of Butte Big Hole River Diversion is on the Big Hole River one mile west of the 

town of Divide, in Silver Bow County. This nomination stated that all municipal watersheds 

should be considered as ACECs because they have immediate and important effects to 

humans. The description of this nomination was not adequate to determine exact locations or 

total acres of public lands. The nominator did not participate in the Butte RMP scoping 

process, so additional information was not solicited. 

Relevance Criteria 

This nomination does not meet any of the four relevance criteria. The municipal watershed 

does not have significant historic or cultural value (Relevance Criteria 1). 

Importance Criteria 

The importance criteria were not reviewed because the relevance criteria were not met. 

Findings 

This nomination does not meet any relevance criteria and will not be carried forward as a 

potential ACEC. 

5.4 Soap Gulch-Camp Creek 

This external nomination was made during the public scoping process for the Dillon RMP in 

2001. The area is split between the Butte and Dillon Field Offices. The Dillon ACEC 

evaluation considered portions on Dillon Field Office lands. The nominated area is shown in 

Figure 2. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

This habitat area is split between the Butte and Dillon Field Offices and is north/northeast of 

the town of Melrose in Silver Bow County. The nominated area in the Butte Field Office 

totals about 9,300 acres. Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) were reintroduced into historic 

habitat around Camp Creek in the mid-1960s and served as the basis for the Soap Gulch 

ACEC nomination in the 1979 Dillon Management Framework Plan (BLM 1979). The 

bighorn sheep population has expanded to occupy suitable habitat around this core area, 

including lands west of the Big Hole River (Melrose-Maiden Rock ACEC nomination in the 

Dillon RMP). 

Wildlife viewing is a major regional interest with bighorn sheep seasonally present along 

Interstate 15 and the Big Hole River. A major die-off decimated this herd in 1995, but small 

bands of bighorn sheep have persisted throughout the previously occupied habitat, and a 

supplemental reintroduction was made in 2001. Current distribution of bighorn sheep exceeds 

the original core habitat area. No overall habitat management plan is in place. 

Relevance Criteria 

This nomination meets the Relevance Criteria 2 for a fish and wildlife resource. Bighorn 

sheep is a priority species for the BLM and occur in these areas. 

Importance Criteria 

This habitat area does not meet the importance criteria for a fish and wildlife resource. It does 

not have more than locally significant qualities or circumstances, as there are over 40 herds of 

bighorn sheep in Montana and many others in the western US. The nominated areas are not 

more or less important than other bighorn sheep areas in Montana or the Intermountain West. 

Bighorn sheep are susceptible to adverse change, but the habitats in the nominated area are 

not susceptible to these changes. The area is not considered fragile, nor has it been recognized 

as warranting special protection under the importance criteria. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 781 
Appendix H 

Findings 

This nomination meets the relevance criteria for a fish and wildlife resource but does not meet 

the importance criteria. Therefore, this nomination will not be carried forward as a potential 

ACEC. 

5.5 High Ore Creek 

This external nomination was made during the Butte RMP public scoping process in 2004. 

High Ore Creek is shown in Figure 2. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

The nomination stated that this area on High Ore Creek, west of the Boulder River in 

Jefferson County, should be considered for ACEC designation based on post-placer mining 

restoration that has significantly enhanced the water quality, aquatic integrity, and 

conservation value of this tributary. The potential to restore the High Ore Creek’s native 

fishery provides another reason to consider ACEC protection. The exact location and size of 

the nominated area was not included in the nomination so is not known. 

Relevance Criteria 

This nomination does not meet any of the four relevance criteria. This is a mining reclamation 

area that is not part of the natural process (Relevance Criteria 3). While the condition of many 

of the historic properties is exceptional (Relevance Criteria 1), those resources are located on 

private land, and ACECs may only be considered on BLM-managed lands. The historic 

mining features on BLM-managed land are abandoned mine openings and ditches, and those 

site types are very common in the area. As such, the BLM-managed lands do not meet any 

relevance criteria. 

Importance Criteria 

The importance criteria were not reviewed because the relevance criteria were not met. 

Findings 

This nomination does not meet any relevance criteria and will not be carried forward as a 

potential ACEC. 

5.6 Sleeping Giant ACEC (Existing Designation) 

The Sleeping Giant ACEC (Figure 4) was designated an ACEC in the Headwaters RMP 

Record of Decision in 1984 (BLM 1984). The Sleeping Giant ACEC Management Plan 

(BLM 1988b) directs that the area is managed for the values for which it was designated. It is 

being reevaluated now because BLM regulations require reconsideration of existing ACECs 

during the RMP revision process (BLM 1988a). 

Description of Area/Nomination 

The 11,609-acre Sleeping Giant ACEC is adjacent to the Holter Lake Recreation Area 

complex, about 30 miles north of Helena in Lewis and Clark County. The ACEC is mostly 

comprised of the Sleeping Giant WSA and Sheep Creek WSA. The ACEC has steep irregular 

topography, with elevations ranging from 3,600 to 6,800 feet. About half the area is forested 

with mixed conifers, including Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), ponderosa pine (Pinus 

ponderosa), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Cottonwood 

trees (Populus spp.) and deciduous shrubs are associated with numerous riparian areas within 

the ACEC. The nonforested portions are composed of sedimentary rock ledges, talus slopes, 

and native grasslands. Twenty drainages dissect the area. Watershed values are high, and 

there are six important perennial streams. 

Relevance Criteria 

This area meets Relevance Criteria 1 for significant scenic values and Relevance Criteria 2 for 

a fish and wildlife resource. The most outstanding features or landmark in the ACEC is the 

Sleeping Giant, a formation created by the profile of the Beartooth Mountain and the rock 

outcroppings of the lower ridgeline that extend toward the Missouri River. The Sleeping 

Giant is a well-known landmark visible from the city of Helena. 

782 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

The overall terrain is highly natural, providing outstanding scenic values. Off-site vistas of the 

surrounding landscape also are outstanding. Seven miles of ridgeline hiking routes offer 

panoramic views of the Rocky Mountains. The nationally significant Lewis and Clark 

National Historic Trail traverses the area. Recreation opportunities are diverse and include 

fishing, camping, hiking, horse travel, hunting, nature study, photography, and snowshoeing. 

There is an abandoned homestead, consisting of a cabin, framed house, barn, outhouse, shed, 

and root cellar, in the area. Another important value includes 11 miles of Holter 

Lake/Missouri River shoreline (BLM 1991, 2004). 

Important wildlife species include bighorn sheep, mountain goat, elk, American black bear 

(Ursus americanus), mule deer, furbearers, coldwater fisheries (particularly trout 

[Oncorhynchus spp.]), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), the 

federally listed as threatened grizzly bear, and the federally listed as threatened bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 

Importance Criteria 

This area meets Importance Criteria 1 for scenic values and a fish and wildlife resource 

because the values have more than locally significant qualities that give the area special 

worth, consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially compared to 

any similar resources. Also, the area meets Importance Criteria 2 for both relevant values 

because the values have qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable to adverse change. 

Findings 

This nomination continues to meet the relevance and importance criteria and will be carried 

forward as a potential ACEC. 

5.7 Sleeping Giant ACEC Extension 

This external nomination was made during the Butte RMP public scoping process in 2004. 

The nominated area is shown in Figure 2. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

The nomination stated that the proposed Sleeping Giant Extension ACEC is at the west end of 

the existing Sleeping Giant ACEC on both sides of Interstate 15. It includes BLM lands in 

Sections 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35 of Township 14 North, Range 4 

West; and Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of Township l3 North, Range 4 West, and 

Section 18 of Township l3 North, Range 3 West, Montana Principal Meridian, Lewis and 

Clark County. The site is composed of approximately 8,000 acres within a diverse landscape 

of ridges, hills, grasslands, and aspen-sagebrush mosaics. The area includes Little Prickly 

Pear Creek and several hiking trails, logging roads, and all-terrain vehicle trails. 

Relevance Criteria 

When the Sleeping Giant ACEC was originally evaluated in the early 1980s, the extension 

areas included in this nomination did not meet any relevance criteria. The relevant values of 

the Sleeping Giant ACEC – significant scenic and historical values (unique topographic and 

vegetation features and stage coach travel route and ford from Great Falls to Butte) 

(Relevance Criteria 1) and a wildlife resource (Relevance Criteria 2) – are not present in the 

nominated extension area. 

Importance Criteria 

The importance criteria were not reviewed because the relevance criteria were not met. 

Findings 

This nomination does not meet any of the relevance criteria so will not be carried forward as a 

potential ACEC. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 783 
Holter Lake 

Missouri River

Appendix H
 

Sheep Creek WSA 

Sleeping Giant WSA 

Sleeping Giant ACEC 

Lewis & Clark County 

15 

Location within 

the Butte RMP 

Planning Area 

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area (WSA) (BLM) Lands FIGURE 4 Potential Area of Critical Bureau of Reclamation 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) (BOR) Lands 

Location of Existing Area of Butte Field Office Private Lands 1:100,000 Planning Area Boundary Critical Environmental Concern State of Montana Lands 0 2 Rivers and Streams Miles Sleeping Giant Interstates USDA Forest Service Lands No warranty is made by the Bureau of BLM, Butte Field Office 

Land Management (BLM) for use of Roads USDI Fish and Wildlife 

data for purposes not intended by BLM. Service Lands Butte RMP and EIS 

County Boundaries 

784 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

5.8 Spokane Creek 

This internal nomination made by BLM specialists is depicted in Figure 5. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

This area is part of the McMaster Ranch acquisition that was facilitated by The Conservation 

Fund and purchased by the BLM in 2004 with Land and Water Conservation Funds. The 

approximately 14-acre area is located on BLM-managed lands along Hauser Lake in Sections 

4 and 5, Township 7 North, Range 4 West, Montana Principal Meridian, Lewis and Clark 

County (Figure 5). 

The area is comprised of two converging perennial reaches of Spokane Creek and a diverse 

composition of riparian vegetation. It is immediately downstream of a 120-acre private parcel 

that is under a conservation easement. The Conservation Fund, and ultimately the BLM, has 

first right of purchase for the privately owned parcel if the private owners decide to sell in the 

future. Within the conservation easement, there are several large springs that contribute the 

majority of the stream flows through the nominated area. The BLM has been entrusted to 

manage the conservation easement and its water resources to maintain or enhance its natural 

values. Partnerships are currently underway to protect this important resource. 

Relevance Criteria 

The natural characteristics of the nominated Spokane Creek area meet Relevance Criteria 2 

and 3. The area provides essential habitat for maintaining both plant and animal diversity 

(Relevance Criteria 2). The aquatic and riparian plant communities provide a natural 

functioning system (Relevance Criteria 3). 

Importance Criteria 

The relevant resource values are substantially significant and meet Importance Criteria 1, 2, 

and 3. Spokane Creek and its associated riparian vegetation, which provide a natural 

functioning system, present more than locally significant qualities of special worth, 

distinctiveness, and cause for concern (Importance Criteria 1). It is critically important as a 

natural spawning stream for three key sport fish species (brown trout [Salmo trutta], rainbow 

trout [Oncorhynchus mykiss] and Kokanee salmon [Oncorhynchus nerka kennerlyi]) in 

Hauser Lake and the Missouri River that attract anglers throughout Montana and the US. This 

important spawning stream also provides food sources for the federally listed as threatened 

bald eagle. 

The relevant values are sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, unique, and vulnerable, which makes 

them worthy of special management and protection (Importance Criteria 2). These qualities 

are a result of Spokane Creek being the only properly functioning perennial, spawning stream 

that flows into Hauser Lake. The stream is primarily spring fed, has high water quality, 

maintains consistently cool temperatures, and provides excellent yearlong spawning habitat 

because of its abundant gravel bars, overhanging banks, and vegetative shading. In addition to 

its unique qualities for sustaining fisheries on Hauser Lake and the Missouri River, this 

nominated area provides habitat for bald eagle, osprey, and numerous species of waterfowl, 

and excellent opportunities for wildlife observation and nature study. 

The FLPMA mandates that important fish and wildlife resources be protected through special 

management attention that ACEC designations provide (Importance Criteria 3). 

Findings 

This nomination meets the relevance and importance criteria and will be carried forward as a 

potential ACEC. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 785 
Hauser Lake 

Spokane

Cree

McGuire Creek 

Centennial Gulch 

Appendix H
 

k

Spokane Creek Potential ACEC 

Lewis & Clark County 

Location within 

the Butte RMP 

Planning Area 

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area (WSA) FIGURE 5 (BLM) Lands 

Potential Area of Critical Bureau of Reclamation 

Environmental Concern (ACEC) (BOR) Lands Location of Potential Area of Butte Field Office Private Lands 1:24,000 Planning Area Boundary Critical Environmental Concern State of Montana Lands 0 0 Rivers and Streams Miles .5 Spokane Creek Interstates USDA Forest Service Lands No warranty is made by the Bureau of USDI Fish and Wildlife BLM, Butte Field Office Roads Land Management (BLM) for use of 

data for purposes not intended by BLM. County Boundaries Service Lands Butte RMP and EIS 

786 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

5.9 Ringing Rocks 

This internal nomination made by BLM specialists is depicted in Figure 6. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

The Ringing Rocks are located approximately four miles northeast of the town of Pipestone 

and Interstate 90. The nominated ACEC is about 160 acres of BLM-administered lands in 

Section 9, Township 2 North, Range 5 West, Montana Principal Meridian, Jefferson County. 

The ACEC encompasses an approximate one-acre open outcrop of weathered monzonite with 

a wide range of weathered boulders. These weathered blocks range from 3 to 13 feet. The 

rocks ring with bell-like tones when struck lightly with a stout stick or rock hammer. The 

rocks only ring in outcrop; hand samples broken off will not ring. 

Relevance Criteria 

This area meets Relevance Criteria 3 for a rare geological feature. Ringing rocks are 

reportedly found throughout the world, but they are not common. The only other site where 

ringing rocks are found in the US is in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 

Importance Criteria 

The geologic feature meets Importance Criteria 1 (more than locally significant distinctive 

geological feature) and 2 (rare and unique geological feature). The Ringing Rocks site is one 

of only two known sites in the continental US where rocks ring when struck, thus making this 

an extremely rare occurrence. 

Findings 

This nomination meets the relevance and importance criteria and will be carried forward as a 

potential ACEC. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 787 
Dry Creek 

Big Pipestone Creek 

B gi Pipestone C reek 

Appendix H 

Deerlodge National Deerlodge National F orest

Jefferson County 

Ringing Rocks Potential ACEC 

Pipestone Hot Springs 

Location within 

the Butte RMP 

Planning Area 

Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Area (WSA) (BLM) Lands FIGURE 6 Potential Area of Critical Bureau of Reclamation

Environmental Concern (ACEC) (BOR) Lands Location of Potential Area of Butte Field Office Private Lands 1:60,000 Planning Area Boundary Critical Environmental Concern State of Montana Lands 0 1 Miles Rivers and Streams Ringing Rocks Interstates USDA Forest Service Lands No warranty is made by the Bureau of BLM, Butte Field Office Roads USDI Fish and Wildlife Land Management (BLM) for use of Service Lands Butte RMP and EIS data for purposes not intended by BLM. County Boundaries 

788 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

5.10 Humbug Spires ACEC Nomination 

This internal nomination by BLM specialists is depicted in Figure 7. 

Description of Area/Nomination 

This potential ACEC includes the majority of both the Humbug Spires original Primitive Area 

designated in 1972 and the recommended wilderness Instant Study Area that was finalized in 

1981. The potential ACEC totals about 8,400 acres of public land. The area is located in 

Silver Bow County in southwestern Montana, approximately 15 miles south of Butte and four 

miles east of Divide and Interstate 15. The area is accessible from I-15 via a primitive road 

from the Divide interchange and an improved gravel road from the Moose Creek interchange 

that leads to a developed trailhead. 

The Humbug Spires potential ACEC is a highly natural and pristine area. The majority of the 

area is forested with dense stands of Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine. Small areas of old 

growth Douglas-fir trees exist within numerous drainage bottoms. Riparian areas of willows, 

dogwood, alder, aspen, and cottonwoods are scattered throughout the streams and upper 

tributaries. The topography is extremely diverse with numerous ridges and dissecting 

drainages. Geologically, there are hundreds of large granite spires throughout the area. About 

ten of these light gray spires are between 300 and 600 feet tall. Moose Creek is the primary 

perennial stream bisecting the area. Moose Creek supports small populations of brook, 

rainbow, and cutthroat trout. Important big-game species include elk, mule deer, black bear, 

moose, and bighorn sheep. Other wildlife species common to the area are mountain lion, 

coyote, fox, weasel, bobcat, beaver, squirrels, rabbits, grouse, and several species of raptors. 

Relevance Criteria 

The natural characteristics of the Humbug Spires area meet Relevance criteria 1, 2, and 3. The 

natural and diverse topography, vegetation, streams, and rock spires of the area provide 

outstanding scenic values that are significant. The Visual Resource Management 

Classification of this area is Class 1 which is highest and most protective BLM rating 

possible. These characteristics meet Criterion 1. 

The area provides essential habitat for maintaining both plant and animal diversity, thus 

meeting relevance criterion 2. In addition the area provides active habitat for the following 

Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive species: Canada lynx, bald eagle, Northern goshawk, 

peregrine falcon, black-backed woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis and the long-eared myotis. 

The aquatic and riparian plant communities associated with Moose Creek and its upper 

tributaries provide a natural functioning system. Sensitive plant species found within the area 

include Idaho sedge and Sapphire rockcress. These features meet relevance Criterion 3. 

Importance Criteria 

The above resource values are substantially significant and meet Importance Criteria 1, 2, and 

3. 

The abundance, size, and quality of the granite spires provide outstanding rock climbing 

opportunities that are regionally significant. Levels of difficulty range from beginner to 

expert. The overall availability, setting and diversity of climbing experiences provided in the 

area is exceptional and significantly important. These qualities meet importance Criterion 1. 

This area has qualities that are sensitive, rare, irreplaceable, unique and vulnerable that makes 

it worthy of special management and protection. These qualities are due to the fact that it is 

highly natural in character and provides important habitat for several big-game species as well 

as Threatened/Endangered/Sensitive species of both plants and animals. These characteristics 

meet importance Criterion 2. 

Due to the outstanding qualities of scenery, naturalness, solitude and primitive and unconfined 

recreation opportunities the area has been both designated as a Primitive Area as well as 

recommended for Wilderness designation. These qualities meet importance Criterion 3. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 789 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

A total of ten nominated areas and existing ACECs were evaluated. These included five 

external nominations (made by other agencies or the public), three internal nominations 

(made by BLM specialists), one recommendation from the Dillon Management Framework 

Plan (BLM 1979), and one existing ACEC. Five areas totaling approximately 87,700 acres 

meet the relevance and importance criteria and will be carried forward as potential ACECs 

(Table 1). 

Various alternatives in the Draft RMP will recommend the areas for designation as ACECs 

(or continued designation in the case of Sleeping Giant ACEC) if special management is 

required to protect the relevant and important values. Areas found not to meet the relevance 

and importance criteria are not being carried forward as potential ACECs. 

Table 1 

Potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

Size Relevance Importance 

Potential ACEC (acres) Criteria Met Criteria Met 

Elkhorn Mountains 67,500 1, 2 1, 2, 3 

Sleeping Giant ACEC 11,609 1, 2 1, 2 (existing designation) 

Spokane Creek 14 2, 3 1, 2, 3 

Ringing Rocks 160 3 1, 2 

Humbug Spires 8,400 1, 2, 3 1, 2, 3 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 791 
Appendix H 

REFERENCES
 

BLM (US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 1979. Management Framework Plan, Dillon Summary, 

Montana. BLM, Montana. September 1979. 

_____. 1984. Headwaters Resource Area Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Butte District, 

Montana. BLM, Butte District, Montana. 

_____. 1988a. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern. BLM Manual 1613. Rel.1-1541. BLM, Washington, DC. 

September 29, 1988. 

_____. 1988b. Sleeping Giant ACEC Management Plan. Butte District Office and Headwaters Resource Area, Montana. 

December 28, 1988. 

_____. 1991. Sleeping Giant and Sheep Creek Wilderness Study/Environmental Impact Statement – Final. BLM, Butte 

District Office, Montana. 

_____. 2004. Montana Westside Recreation Sites, BLM Recreation Sites in western Montana. Internet Web site: 

http://www.mt.blm.gov/bdo/pages/recsites.html. Accessed on March 26 and May 6, 2004. 

Federal Register. 2003. Notice of Intent To Prepare a Resource Management Plan for the Butte Field Office and 

Associated Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. 68, No. 244, page 70833. December 19, 2003. 

792 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

GLOSSARY
 

AREA OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (ACEC). An area established through the 

planning process, as provided in FLPMA, where special management attention is required 

(when such areas are developed or used or where no development is required) to protect and 

prevent irreparable damage to important historic, cultural, or scenic values; or to fish and 

wildlife resources or other natural systems or processes; or to protect life and afford safety 

from natural hazards. 

IDENTIFICATION CRITERIA. To be considered as a potential ACEC and analyzed in RMP 

alternatives, an area must meet the criteria of relevance and importance, as established and 

defined in 43 CFR 1610.7-2. 

RELEVANCE. An area meets the relevance criterion if it contains one or more of the 

following: 

1. A significant historic, cultural, or scenic value (including but not 

limited to rare or sensitive archeological resources and religious or 

cultural resources important to native Americans); 

2. A fish and wildlife resource (including but not limited to habitat for 

endangered, sensitive, or threatened species, or habitat essential for 

maintaining species diversity); 

3. A natural process or system (including but not limited to endangered, 

sensitive, or threatened plant species; rare, endemic, or relict plants or 

plant communities that are terrestrial, aquatic, or riparian; or rare 

geological features); and/or 

4. Natural hazards (including but not limited to areas of avalanche, 

dangerous flooding, landslides, unstable soils, seismic activity, or 

dangerous cliffs). A hazard caused by human action may meet the 

relevance criteria if it is determined through the RMP process that it 

has become part of a natural process. 

IMPORTANCE. The value, resource, system, process, or hazard described above must 

have substantial significance and values in order to satisfy the importance criteria. 

This generally means that the value, resource, system, process, or hazard is 

characterized by one or more of the following: 

1. Has more than locally significant qualities that give it special worth, 

consequence, meaning, distinctiveness, or cause for concern, especially 

compared to any similar resource; 

2. Has qualities or circumstances that make it fragile, sensitive, rare, 

irreplaceable, exemplary, unique, endangered, threatened, or vulnerable 

to adverse change; 

3. Has been recognized as warranting protection in order to satisfy 

national priority concerns or to carry out the mandates of FLPMA; 

4. Has qualities that warrant highlighting in order to satisfy public or 

management concerns about safety and public welfare; and/or 

5. Poses a significant threat to human life and safety or to property. 

PLANNING AREA. The geographical area for which land use and resource management plans 

are developed and maintained. 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (RMP). A land use plan that establishes land use 

allocations, multiple-use guidelines, and management objectives for a given planning area. 

The BLM has used the RMP planning system since about 1980. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 793