APPENDIX A – TRAVEL MANAGEMENT
 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING CRITERIA AND ROUTE 

EVALUATION PROCESS USED BY BLM INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM
 

(Refer to attached Written Criteria, Evaluation 

Worksheets, and Final Evaluation Table for the Helena 

Travel Planning Area) 

The Butte Field Office Interdisciplinary Team developed 

an organized, systematic process to conduct route by 

route analysis for each of the 9 identified travel planning 

areas. Utilizing this process, each route was evaluated to 

determine its future management status as either Open, 

Open/With Restrictions, Closed, or Decommissioned. 

Evaluations were conducted by analyzing three 

identified key Resource categories (Wildlife/Habitat, 

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

level of impacts to those resources to the level of 

importance for Human Use. Six key Human Uses 

categories were identified. They are: Public Use 

(recreation, hunting, woodcutting, etc.), Wild-land 

Prescribed Fire, Forest Management, Mineral/Energy 

Development, and Range Management. Although the 

process provided separate analysis for Resource impacts, 

but combined the Human Use analysis, each was 

considered equally important and “weighted” the same 

during comparative analysis. 

In addition to it’s route by route analysis, the 

Interdisciplinary Team reviewed and consulted the 

public scoping comments (issues/concerns, potential 

solutions) generated during a series of public travel 

planning meetings. The public comments provided 

useful information for site specific route evaluation as 

well as help set overall context for each travel planning 

area. 

In order to provide a repeatable, systematic approach, 

Interdisciplinary Team members developed written 

criteria, with a range of numerical values (e.g., 0, 3, 6, 

9), for use with each Resource and Human Use 

Worksheet. For Resource impact analysis, a numerical 

value of 0 indicates “No Impact”, while a numerical 

value of 9 indicates a “High level of Impact”. For 

Human Use analysis, a numerical value of 0 indicates 

“No Importance” to human use, while a numerical value 

of 9 indicates a “High Level of Importance” to human 

use. 

As each Resource or Human Use specialist completed 

their route evaluation, the numerical values were entered 

on the respective Evaluation Worksheets and tabulated, 

and a final “rating” of Low, Medium, or High was 

assigned to each route. The Low, Medium, and High 

ratings were derived by tabulating the maximum 

numerical value achieved during the analysis, and then 

dividing the total into thirds to arrive at the Low 

Medium, and High rating. 

For an example, refer to the written Wildlife/Habitat 

Criteria and Evaluation Worksheet for the Helena Travel 

Planning Area. In this case, 7 Wildlife/Habitat criteria 

were identified for the Helena TPA, each with a range of 

numerical values. The total possible maximum 

numerical value for these 7 criteria is 52; however, 

assume the highest numerical value actually achieved 

was 36. To determine the rating for Low, Medium, or 

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

as follows: 

• Low = 0-12 

• Medium = 13-24 

• High = 25-36 

Continuing with this example, assume that for a 

particular route, the following numerical values have 

been determined and entered on the worksheet: 

• Big Game Habitat = 6 

• Unique Habitats = 0 

• Fragmentation of Habitat = 6 

• Connectivity = 0 

• Noxious Weeds = 4 

• Relict Plant Communities = 0 

• Special Status Plant Species and Habitats = 3 

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

will receive a rating of “Medium”. 

This is the same methodology that was used to complete 

the Aquatics/Fisheries, Soils, and Human Use route 

evaluations and ratings throughout the process. 

After the Resource and Human Use analysis was 

completed for a travel planning area, the final ratings 

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

onto the Final Evaluation Table. The Final Evaluation 

Table provides a format to compare the Resource Impact 

and Human Use ratings determined for each route for the 

particular travel planning area. The Final Evaluation 

Table includes a space for written comments to clarify 

the Interdisciplinary Team’s proposed management 

decisions. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 701 
Appendix A 

As an example, assume the following final ratings for a 

particular route: 

• Wildlife/Habitat Impact Rating – Low 

• Aquatics/Fisheries Impact Rating – Low 

• Soils Impact Rating – Medium 

• Human Use Rating – High 

For this example, the overall level of Resource impacts 

is Low, while the overall level of importance to Human 

Use is High. In this case, the ID team would likely 

propose to manage the route as Open, or perhaps 

Open/Restricted (seasonal restrictions) if Soil erosion 

were an issue. For a different route, the overall level of 

Resource Impacts might be High, while the overall 

importance to Human Use might be low; resulting in an 

Interdisciplinary Team proposal for Closure. In the 

above examples, there are no conflicts between the 

Resource Impact and Human Use ratings. 

However, a wide range of variations for 

Resource/Human Use ratings is possible, and in some 

cases required discussion and negotiation by the 

Interdisciplinary Team to arrive at a proposed 

management decision. For example, there were a 

number of routes where Resource Impacts and Human 

Use needs both rated out as High. These situations 

required group discussion and negotiation in order to 

arrive at a proposed management solution. 

Community Based Collaborative Working Groups 

During spring 2004, BLM identified and prioritized 9 

site specific areas needing travel planning. 5 of the 9 

areas were identified as High Priority, and are being 

addressed concurrently with the RMP revision. The 

remaining 4 areas were identified as Moderate Priority, 

and will need to be addressed after the RMP, due to time 

constraints. 

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

Priority 

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

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

4) Boulder/Jefferson City - High Priority 

5) Upper Big Hole River - High Priority 

6) Missouri River Foothills - Moderate Priority 

7) Jefferson County Southeast - Moderate Priority 

8) Broadwater County South - Moderate Priority 

9) Park/Gallatin - Moderate Priority 

Given their relative importance, a series of public 

scoping meetings were held for the 5 High Priority 

travel planning area during November and December 

2004, and January 2005. The primary purpose of the 

meetings was to solicit site specific issues and concerns, 

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

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

issue/concern – noise/dust impacts from motorized OHV 

use near housing area ; solution – restrict/prohibit OHV 

use near housing area, establish minimum distance, 

criteria – establish/determine minimum distance from 

housing areas ). 

During the meetings, it became apparent that three of the 

travel planning areas - Lewis and Clark County 

Northwest (Marysville), Helena (Scratchgravel Hills), 

and East Helena (North Hills) were particularly 

important to the public and travel planning. Meetings for 

these 3 areas were well attended; interest in the 

Scratchgravel Hills required a second meeting. 

Given the level of public interest, BLM decided to 

solicit the assistance of three community-based 

collaborative working groups, one for each travel 

planning area. Assisted in part by Tetra Tech (RMP 

contractor), the groups would work under the direct 

supervision and guidance of the Resource Advisory 

Committee (RAC). 

Several press releases and letters of interest were issued 

by Tetra Tech during May 2005, soliciting applicants for 

each of the 3 travel planning areas. The mission of the 

collaborative working groups was to “assist in 

developing a travel management plan mutually 

agreeable to both the collaborative working groups and 

BLM”. Membership criteria included: Montana 

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

and a willingness to work collaboratively with people of 

differing viewpoints. In addition, in accordance with the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act Members (FACA), 

members were selected from 3 different interest 

categories in order to provide for balanced 

representation. 

BLM anticipated enough public interest to support 3 

balanced working groups, composed of either 6 or 9 

people total. Tetra Tech was tasked with selecting group 

membership (for subsequent approval by the RAC), and 

coordinating and facilitating all of the group meetings. 

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

would not be able to sponsor the collaborative 

subgroups, due to time constraints and other unforeseen 

events. BLM contacted the Lewis and Clark County 

commissioners, who graciously agreed to sponsor the 

collaborative working groups under their direct guidance 

and supervision. 

Due to a shortage of interested candidates, only 2 (rather 

than 3) balanced collaborative working groups were able 

to be selected, each composed of 9 members. Given its 

group membership, interest, and local knowledge, one of 

the groups was tasked with assisting the BLM develop 

travel management for both the Helena (Scratchgravel 

Hills) travel planning area as well as the East Helena 

(North Hills) travel planning area, while the second 

702 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Travel Management 

group was selected to assist the BLM with the Lewis and 

Clark travel planning area (Marysville). 

Michael McHugh, the Lewis and Clark County land 

planner, represented the county and chaired both 

working groups throughout the process. Each group held 

a series of 6 meetings during June and July, 2005. Each 

meeting was assisted by Tetra Tech, and attended by 

BLM staff that answered questions and provided and 

information feedback from the BLM’s Interdisciplinary 

Team as needed. In addition, BLM provided a full range 

of maps and other travel planning information used by 

its own interdisciplinary travel planning team, including 

its preliminary travel planning recommendations for 

each of the 3 travel areas. (See list of supportive 

documents on page 2 of “Guidance for BLM Travel 

Planning Subgroups”). 

Group decisions were based on consensus. In the end, 

the working groups were able to arrive at complete 

consensus for the Marysville and North Hills areas, but 

only partial consensus for the Scratchgravel Hills area. 

From August 2005-October 2005, the BLM 

Interdisciplinary team met and developed a range of 

alternatives (A-D) for each of the 5 travel planning area. 

With the exception of some minor changes, the 

community based collaborative working group proposals 

were incorporated under Alternative B, the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Butte Field Office Travel Plan Variance 

Process/Application Form 

Travel plan variances are requests by the public, 

commercial interests, interagency personnel, or BLM 

personnel to temporarily use motorized vehicles on 

closed roads, seasonally restricted roads, and cross 

country (off road) use. The following process has been 

developed to address requests for motorized travel not 

already authorized by a prior decision based on analysis 

in an existing EIS, EA, or the provisions of a permit, 

lease, memorandum of understanding, or right of way. It 

is also intended to provide additional oversight for uses 

already generally authorized under the 2003 Statewide 

OHV ROD and Instruction Memorandum #MT-2001-

004 regarding administrative uses. 

Variance requests that cannot be approved due to issues 

raised during review would be subject to the NEPA 

process, or Documentation of NEPA adequacy (DNA). 

A DNA is documentation of whether or not there is 

existing NEPA documentation to cover the proposal. If 

the variance request cannot pass this “test”, additional 

NEPA documentation is required. 

The process is initiated by the program lead requesting 

the variance, or who has received a request from the 

public. After completing the basic information on the 

variance form, the flow chart should be circulated 

among the respective specialists for consultation and 

overall review. 

Example requests for variances include (but are not 

limited to): 

• Access to private property (patented mine claim, 

mining claim location and assessment work, 

seasonal cabin) 

• Casual use mineral exploration (refer to 43 CFR 

3809.5) 

• Permit lease administration (firewood collection, 

recreation) 

• Agency administrative work 

• Contract work or contract administration 

• Other permit leases 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 703 
Appendix A 

Flowchart 

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

applicable to the request). 

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

Must be Yes to continue 

| 

| 

Yes 

| 

| 

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

Must be No to continue 

| 

| 

No 

| 

| 

Is the activity in a WSA? 

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

Must be No to continue 

| 

| 

No 

| 

| 

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

Must be Yes to continue 

| 

| 

Yes 

| 

| 

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

Must be No to continue 

| 

| 

No 

| 

| 

Can resource impacts be sufficiently mitigated? 

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

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

Must be Yes to continue 

| 

| 

Yes 

| 

| 

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

Must be Yes to continue 

| 

| 

Yes 

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

704 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Travel Management 

Respective Program Reviewers: 

Program Lead Signature Date 

CULTURAL 

FORESTRY 

REALTY 

WILDLIFE/T&E 

GEOLOGY 

SOIL/WATER/AIR 

HAZMAT/AML 

RANGE/WEEDS 

RECREATION/WILDERNESS/VRM 

RIPARIAN 

FIRE/FUELS 

TRAVEL MANAGEMENT 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 705 
______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A 

USDI BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Authorization No.____________ 

Butte Field Office 

106 North Parkmont, Butte, Montana, 59701 

Telephone 406-533-7600 

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

When approved by the authorized officer, this permit authorizes: 

Name: __________________________________________________________________ 

Address: ________________________________________________________________ 

(City, State) (Zip) 

 Telephone Number (s): ____________________________________________________ 

(List additional authorized users on back of form) 

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

In order to conduct the following operations: 

Dates/Time of Use: 

Number and Type(s) of Vehicles: 

(See other side) 

Page 1 of 3 

706 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
_________________________________________________________________ 

Travel Management 

Standard Stipulations 

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

Variance restricted to authorized (listed) individuals only 

Permittee shall notify BLM of any changes under this authorization 

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

leaving closure area 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

when the permit is issued: 

(Applicant signature/date) 

Page 2 of 3 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 707 
_____________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix A 

Butte Field Office Manager Action 

Special Stipulations (if any): 

______ Variance Approved 

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

(signature/date) 

______ Variance Denied 

This application has been denied for the following reasons: 

See attached letter. 

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

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

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

showing that the decision appealed from is in error. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

stay should be granted. 

Page 3 of 3 

708 Butte Draft RMP/EIS