CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED
 

OVERVIEW 

The United States Department of the Interior (DOI), 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared this 

draft revision of the Resource Management Plan (RMP) 

to provide direction for managing public lands under the 

jurisdiction of the Butte Field Office in mid-western 

Montana and an environmental impact statement (EIS) 

to analyze the environmental effects that could result. 

The affected lands are currently being managed under 

two plans: the Headwaters Resource Management Plan 

(USDI-BLM 1984a) and the Dillon Management 

Framework Plan (MFP) (USDI-BLM 1979). The Headwaters RMP has been formally amended on eight occasions and the Dillon MFP has been formally amended on 

three occasions. In addition, several new laws, regulations, and policies have affected management of public 

land since approval of both plans. 

Land use planning is used to manage resources and to 

designate uses on public lands in coordination with 

tribal, state, and local governments, land users, and 

interested public. This RMP: 1) incorporates new information and regulatory guidance, and 2) provides management direction where it may be lacking or requires 

clarification. Current management direction that has 

proven effective and requires no change will be carried 

forward into the revised RMP. 

The RMP is being revised according to guidance in the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 

1976 (43 US Code [USC] 1701 et seq.) and BLM’s Land 

Use Planning Handbook, H-1601-1. An EIS is incorporated into this document as required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 

1500-1508) (CEQ 1978), and requirements of BLM’s 

NEPA Handbook, H-1790-1 (USDI-BLM 1988). 

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR 

REVISING THE PLAN 

Since the original plans were approved, several conditions have changed. These include: 

• Changed ecological, socioeconomic, institutional, 

and regulatory conditions; 

• Many new laws, regulations, and policies that invalidate or superseded previous decisions; 

• Changing user demands and activities; 

• Changing acceptance of impacts; and 

• Changes in the Butte Field Office boundaries. 

These conditions drive the need for an inclusive, comprehensive plan that provides updated, clear direction to 

both BLM and the public. 

The purpose of the RMP is to provide a single, comprehensive land use plan to guide management of public 

lands administered by the Butte Field Office. The plan 

provides goals, objectives, land use allocations, and 

management direction to maintain, improve, or restore 

resource conditions and to provide for the long-term 

economic needs of local communities. In the context of 

site-specific travel planning, there is a need 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. 

Planning for the management of BLM-administered 

lands is a tiered process. Documents produced during 

each successive tier are progressively more focused in 

scope and more detailed in terms of their identification 

of specific measures to be undertaken and impacts that 

may occur. The four tiers are described briefly below: 

The RMP provides an overall vision of the future (goals 

and objectives) and includes measurable steps, management actions, and allowable uses to achieve the vision. 

Subsequent implementation decisions are carried out by 

developing activity-level or project-specific plans. Activity-level plans usually describe multiple projects for a 

single or multiple resource programs. Project-specific 

plans usually describe a single project or several related 

projects. 

The RMP provides basic program direction with the 

establishment of goals, objectives, allowable uses, and 

management actions or prescriptions. The RMP focuses 

on what resource conditions, uses, and visitor experiences should be achieved and maintained over time. To 

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

Defining planning issues and planning criteria represent 

the first steps in establishing the scope of the RMP revision. These, combined with public input, provide the 

framework in which RMP decisions are made. RMP 

decisions refer to what is established or determined by 

the final RMP. The RMP provides guidance for land use 

planning decisions in accordance with the following 

categories: 

• Natural, biological, and heritage resources 

Planning Area is all the land within the Butte Field 

Office administrative boundary regardless of jurisdiction. 

Decision Area is comprised of only those lands administered by the BLM (surface and mineral estate). 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 1 
Chapter 1 

• Resource uses 

• Special designations such as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

In the context of these categories, the planning team 

develops management strategies aimed at providing 

viable options to address planning issues. These management strategies provide the basis for future activitylevel plans or specific projects. 

In addition to the RMP type decisions described above, 

several implementation decisions associated with activity plans for several site-specific travel plans will be 

made based on this document. Travel route-specific 

management decisions will be made for the following 

five Travel Planning Areas: Helena, East Helena, Lewis 

and Clark County Northwest, Upper Big Hole, and 

Boulder/Jefferson City. 

DESCRIPTION OF THE 

PLANNING AREA 

The Butte Field Office administrative area is located in 

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

the land within the Butte Field Office administrative 

boundary. Within the Planning Area, BLM administers 

about 302,000 acres of public land surface and 678,000 

acres of federal mineral estate in Broadwater, Deer 

Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark (southern 

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

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

Area by county. Collectively, the lands that BLM 

administers (surface and mineral estate) are considered 

the “Decision Area”. Surface lands within the Planning 

Area administered by other federal agencies, such as the 

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

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

decisions made in association with this RMP. Approximately 1,800 acres of land administered by the Bureau 

of Reclamation surrounding Canyon Ferry Lake near 

Townsend are subject to fluid mineral leasing decisions 

in this document. Approximately 65,500 acres of land 

administered by the State of Montana, including several 

wildlife management areas, are also subject to fluid 

Table 1-1 

Lands Within the Butte Planning Area 

County 

BLM 

Surface 

Acres 

BLM 

Mineral 

Estate 

County Acres 

in Planning 

Area 

Beaverhead 12,660 22,404 31,429 

Broadwater 65,404 111,947 792,866 

Deer Lodge 5,227 152,618 473,932 

Gallatin 7,250 34,900 1,683,558 

Jefferson 94,397 117,423 1,061,462 

Lewis & Clark 63,510 117,621 895,925 

Park 8,365 53,875 1,793,054 

Silver Bow 45,221 67,401 460,124 

TOTALS 302,034 678,189 7,192,349 

management areas, are also subject to fluid mineral 

leasing decisions in this document. 

The Decision Area consists of many tracts ranging in 

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

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

directly affected by BLM decisions. 

The BLM will coordinate with other federal and state 

agencies, especially for those resources and issues that 

share boundaries. 

PLANNING PROCESS 

The planning process involves public participation, 

assessment, decision-making, implementation, plan 

monitoring, and evaluation, as well as adjustment 

through maintenance, amendment, and revision. This 

process ensures that land use plans and implementation 

decision remain consistent with applicable laws, regulations, orders, and policies. The steps of RMP preparation 

are interrelated as illustrated in Figure 1-1 and Table 

1-2. 

Figure 1-1. Planning Process 

Identify Issues* 

Develop Planning Criteria* 

Issue Notice of Intent, Start Scoping 

Collect Inventory Data* 

Analyze the Management Situation* 

Formulate Alternatives* 

Estimate Effects of Alternatives 

Select the Preferred Alternative 

Issue Draft RMP/EIS, Notice of Availability 

Issue Proposed RMP/Final EIS, NOA 

Initiate Governor’s Consistency Review

 No Protest Protest 

Sign Record of Decision Resolve Protests, Issue Notice of 

(ROD) Approving the RMP Significant Change (If Applicable) 

Sign ROD 

Implement Decision Monitor 

and Evaluate RMP 

* These steps may be revisited throughout the process. 

2 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Great Falls 

Missoula 

Helena 

Butte 

Billings 

Bozeman 

Purpose and Need
 

Butte Field Office Planning Area 

Map shows the state of Montana with the location of the Butte Field
Office Planning Area boundary in southwestern Montana.
 

Map 1: Project Location Map

 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S.

This map is intended for display purposes. No warranty is made by the Bureau of Land Bureau of Land Management Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of these data for individual Miles or aggregate use with other data, or for purposes not intended by BLM. This map may 0 100 not meet National Map Accuracy Standards. This product was developed through Albers Equal Area, NAD83 Projection digital means and information may be updated without notification. 

Map Scale 1:4,000,000 

Map generated by the Butte Field Office in February 2007 

Butte Field Office

Draft RMP/EIS 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 3 
Chapter 1 

Table 1-2 

Steps in the BLM Land Use Planning Process 

Step Process 

Step 1 – 

Identification of Issues 

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

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

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

planning issues. 

Step 2 – 

Development of 

Planning Criteria 

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

unnecessary information and data. 

Step 3 – 

Collect and Compile 

Inventory Data 

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

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

needed to address the issues. The data required for land use planning decisions is usually at a 

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

Step 4 – 

Analysis of the 

Management Situation 

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

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

Planning Area, identifies problems and concerns resulting from the current management, and 

identifies opportunities to manage these lands differently. It also forms the basis for the “No Action” alternative. 

Step 5 – 

Formulate Alternatives 

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

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

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

management scenarios. Alternatives usually vary by the amounts of resource production or 

protection that would be allowed, or in the emphasis of one program area over another. 

Step 6 – 

Estimation of Effects 

This step involves estimating the physical, biological, economic, and social effects of implementing each alternative in order to provide a comparative evaluation of impacts in compliance with 

CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500). 

Step 7 – 

Selection of 

Preferred Alternative 

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

Alternative. The Draft RMP/EIS is then prepared for printing and distributed for a 90 day public 

review. 

Step 8 – 

Selection of 

RMP 

Following review and analysis of public comments on the Draft RMP/EIS, BLM makes adjustments as warranted and selects a proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP and a Final EIS is then 

published. A final decision is made after a 60-day Governor’s Consistency Review and a 30-day 

public protest period are completed. BLM then publishes the Record of Decision (ROD) and 

prepares the Approved Resource Management Plan. 

Step 9 – 

Monitoring and 

Evaluation 

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

the effectiveness of the plan in resolving the identified issues and achieving desired results. Implementation of decisions requiring subsequent action is also monitored. Monitoring continues 

from the time the RMP is adopted until changing conditions require revision of the whole plan or 

any portion of it. 

SCOPING AND PLANNING ISSUES 

SCOPING PROCESS 

Early in the planning process, the public was invited to 

identify planning issues and concerns relating to the 

management of BLM-administered public lands and 

resources/uses in the Planning Area. The formal scoping 

period began with publication of the Notice of Intent 

(NOI) in the Federal Register on December 19, 2003. 

The scoping period ended February 17, 2004, which 

provided 60 days for comment submittal. 

The Butte RMP website housed current information 

including background documents, maps, meeting announcements, published bulletins, and other documents 

(http://www.mt.blm.gov/bdo/rmp). After April 2005 the 

BLM was required to take the website down and it was 

unavailable until approximately January 2006.Scoping 

information and newsletters were sent to a list of individuals, agencies, and organizations compiled including 

those who participated in past BLM events, those who 

requested to be on the mailing list, or individuals who 

4 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Purpose and Need 

participated in the scoping meetings or submitted a 

comment. 

Advertisements were published in Montana newspapers 

and a press release was sent to newspapers, radio stations, and television stations to: notify the public of the 

project, announce six public open houses, request public 

comments, and provide contact information for the 

BLM. 

Six public meetings were held in January 2004. Table 

1-3 illustrates the attendance at each scoping meeting. At 

the six scoping meetings, 37 people registered their 

attendance. Comment forms were available at the six 

scoping meetings to collect comments. No written comments were received during the public meetings; however, verbal comments were offered and recorded. 

Table 1-3 

Scoping Meeting Summary 

Meeting Location Meeting Date Attendance 

Helena, MT January 6, 2004 7 

Boulder, MT January 8, 2004 2 

Wise 

River/Divide, MT 

January 13, 2004 6 

Butte, MT January 13, 2004 14 

Bozeman, MT January 14, 2004 4 

Townsend, MT January 15, 2004 4 

Representatives from the Butte Field Office also met 

with several groups during the scoping period, including 

County Commissioners (Lewis and Clark, Silver Bow, 

Broadwater, Deer Lodge, and Jefferson counties); the 

Big Hole Watershed Committee, the Western Montana 

Resource Advisory Council; American Wildlands; and 

the East Pioneers Stewardship Group. 

During initial scoping, the public submitted a total of 17 

responses containing 554 comments. 

Proposed Planning Scenario 

Using comments received during the initial scoping 

period, the BLM interdisciplinary team developed the 

“Proposed Planning Scenario”, which describes possible 

management prescriptions and goals for individual programs. The Proposed Planning Scenario (PPS) was distributed on June 6, 2005 to gather public and agency 

comment on issues and concerns regarding the plan. The 

comment period closed July 6, 2005. Comments on the 

PPS were contained in 34 written responses, which included 691 comments. 

On August 10, 2005, the PPS was sent to tribal governments, local, state, and federal agencies asking them to 

comment. The deadline for these comments was September 6, 2005. No comments were received. 

Public meetings were held on the PPS, June 9, 2005 in 

Helena and June 13 and 29, 2005 in Butte. These meetings were attended by a total of about 30 people. Public 

comment forms were provided at the meetings. Few 

comments were received at the public meetings. Most 

comments were subsequently received in writing during 

the comment period. 

In an effort to solicit more public feedback on the RMP, 

29 organizations or groups were contacted and offered 

BLM briefings on the PPS. Of those, 10 requested briefings. The briefings were held during June and July 2005. 

Of the ten organizations that received briefings, six were 

county commissions, the remainders were advocacy 

groups. 

Travel Management Planning 

Travel management and access is addressed at two levels in this document. Proposed management is described 

at the Field Office level as part of the RMP decision to 

be made. In addition, there are five Travel Planning 

Areas for which site-specific management by individual 

travel routes is proposed by alternative. Site-specific 

travel plan decisions for each of these five areas will be 

made separately from the RMP level decisions as implementation type decisions. 

Five public meetings were held over a two-week period 

in November and December 2004. Separate meetings 

were held specific to each of the five following travel 

management Planning Areas: Upper Big Hole, Boulder/Jefferson City, East Helena (North Hills), Lewis and 

Clark County Northwest (Marysville) and Helena 

(Scratchgravel Hills). To advertise the meetings, BLM 

sent a mailer to all people on its mailing list and advertised the meetings on its public website. In addition, 

BLM sent a press release to the appropriate newspapers, 

radio stations, and television stations announcing the 

meetings. Table 1-4 presents a summary of attendance at 

the five meetings. 

A formal presentation was given by the Butte Field 

Office management. After the presentation the participants were asked to state issues and concerns and proposed solutions before the group. Participants were also 

encouraged to submit written comments which were 

used to formulate the alternatives for travel management 

in these areas. Appendix A presents the issues, concerns, and solutions for the five Travel Planning Areas 

(TPAs). 

Table 1-4 

Travel Planning Meeting Summary 

TPA Meeting Date Attendance 

Upper Big Hole November 15, 2004 

November 3, 2005 

4 

11 

Boulder/Jefferson 

City November 16, 2004 7 

East Helena November 30, 2004 24 

Helena December 1, 2004 101 

Lewis and Clark 

County NW December 2, 2004 16 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 5 
Chapter 1 

Two additional public meetings (one in Divide, the other 

in Butte) were held on November 3, 2005, to scope 

public feedback on the Upper Big Hole travel Planning 

Area. A total of 11 people attended these meetings. 

Working Group Proposal Development 

BLM initiated community based collaborative working 

groups in an effort to help BLM develop site-specific 

travel management alternatives agreeable to the public 

as well as the agency. Refer to Appendix A – Travel 

Planning for further details on the working group process. Additional information on this topic can be found in 

Chapter 5. 

PLANNING ISSUES 

Planning issues were identified through an extensive 

review of the Dillon MFP (1979), Headwaters RMP 

(1984), and associated amendments and decision documents. This resulted in the Butte RMP Preparation Plan, 

which identified land management direction that could 

be carried forward, and management direction that 

needed to be changed (see the Purpose and Need section 

above). 

Public comments were reviewed, categorized, and analyzed to identify specific planning issues and concerns to 

be addressed in the Butte RMP. 

Planning issues and management concerns identified and 

the land management direction to be developed in the 

Butte RMP are described in (page 9). 

Issue Identification 

Issue identification is the first step of the nine-step BLM 

planning process (see Planning Process below). A planning issue is a major controversy or dispute regarding 

management of resources or uses. These issues drive the 

formulation of the range of alternatives considered in 

this EIS. 

The criteria used to identify issues included identifying 

if the effects: 

• Would approach or exceed standards or a threshold. 

• Would substantially change a resource. 

• Would be controversial. 

• Would offer a wide range of opportunities. 

• Would cause disagreement regarding their environmental impact. 

Analysis of the public comments was completed and a 

Scoping Summary Report finalized in September 2005 

(USDI-BLM 2005a). After consideration of public responses, five major planning issues and 12 management 

concerns were identified. These issues and management 

concerns were used to develop alternatives. 

Issue 1: Vegetation Communities 

How will vegetation on BLM lands be managed to 

achieve healthy ecosystems while providing for a broad 

range of multiple uses? 

This issue highlights concerns over management of 

vegetation resources and communities. There is considerable interest in insuring that vegetation management 

provides a range of commodity uses such as timber and 

other forest products, and livestock grazing, while maintaining or restoring vegetative communities to provide 

other resource values such as high quality wildlife and 

aquatic habitats. 

Ecosystems within the Planning Area have evolved over 

time in response to periodic fire disturbance, and sustainable ecosystems are those that are in balance with the 

inherent frequency, size, and severity of the natural 

disturbance cycle. Many acres in the Decision Area have 

missed one or two fire disturbance cycles due to longterm fire suppression efforts. The vegetative response to 

this lack of fire disturbance is a change in species presence or prominence, and fuel quantity and continuity. 

Management of noxious weeds and other non-native, 

invasive species is a critical part of public land management. Noxious weeds are one of the largest threats to 

maintaining and restoring ecosystem health because they 

usually spread aggressively and have a history of substantial negative impacts on soils, water, habitat, wildlife, and fire cycles. They can also affect local economies with regard to recreation, grazing, forestry, and 

mining activities. 

Issue 2: Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, Special 

Status and Priority Plant and Animal Species 

How will BLM lands be managed to provide wildlife 

and fish habitat, and to conserve and recover special 

status and priority species? 

The RMP will focus on a multi-species, ecosystem approach to managing habitat for wildlife, fish, and special 

status plants and animals. There is a need to protect 

habitat for viable populations of all native species, manage habitat at scales large enough to accommodate natural disturbances such as fire, wind, and insect outbreaks, 

provide diversity of vegetative communities, and manage human uses in a manner that conserves and enhances 

ecological processes. Areas where restoration activities 

could restore or enhance terrestrial and aquatic habitat 

will also be identified. 

Special status species include species that are listed, 

proposed for listing, or are candidate species under the 

Endangered Species Act; and sensitive species identified 

by BLM. BFO lands provide habitat for species listed as 

threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), including the Ute ladies’ tresses, bald eagle, 

Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, bull trout, and one 

species that has been de-listed under the ESA, the peregrine falcon. In addition, the area provides habitat for 45 

6 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Purpose and Need 

“sensitive species” identified by the BLM. Sensitive 

species are those for which BLM must manage in a 

manner to minimize the risk of a future federal listing 

under the ESA. The RMP will identify strategies that 

contribute to conservation and recovery of special status 

species in the PA in consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service as required under the ESA for listed 

species. 

Issue 3: Travel Management and Access 

How should the BLM manage motorized public travel 

to meet the needs for public access and resource uses 

while minimizing user conflicts and impacts to air, soil, 

watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and other resource 

values? 

Travel and access considerations are of major importance to hunters, off-highway recreationists, livestock 

grazers, miners, wildlife advocates, non-motorized recreationists, and others. 

Travel and access issues are driven by the need to manage for the use and enjoyment of the public lands while 

protecting resource values and providing user safety. 

Travel management also involves the need to adequately 

address increased conflict between motorized and nonmotorized users, particularly at urban/rural interfaces. 

RMP alternatives for five Travel Planning Areas (TPAs) 

were developed in consideration of the public’s interest 

and demand for motorized as well as non-motorized 

travel opportunities while minimizing and/or mitigating 

resource impacts and user conflicts. 

Issue 4: Recreation 

How should recreation be managed to accommodate 

the full range of recreational uses enjoyed by the public on BLM lands? 

This issue focuses on the need to set direction for recreation management in light of: increased demands on 

developed recreations sites and the need for new strategies to improve management efficiency, appropriate 

services and facilities, and public experiences; the need 

for management of Special Use Permits to better protect 

natural resources, minimize user conflicts, provide for 

needed opportunities and ensure fair value returns for 

both the permittee and BLM; and the need to classify 

recreation settings using the Recreational Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) system and modify existing Special 

Recreation Management Areas to provide a wide range 

of appropriate activities that foster beneficial experiences for the public. 

Issue 5: Special Designations including Areas of 

Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs), 

National Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and 

Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) 

Which areas, if any, should be managed as special 

designations? How should they be managed to protect 

values that warrant their special designation status? 

In the Butte RMP process, nine nominated areas were 

reviewed for ACEC designation. In order to qualify as 

potential ACECs, nominated areas must meet relevance 

and importance criteria that are established in regulation 

and in BLM guidance. Five areas met the relevance and 

importance criteria and are being considered in the 

RMP. Inclusion of particular potential ACECs within 

specific alternatives was based in part on the focus of the 

alternatives. 

Concerns with ACEC designation revolve around limitations that special management might place on current 

and future uses. Proponents of ACEC designation see it 

as a way of preventing loss of or impact to values of 

particular interest. 

FLPMA states that priority should be given to the designation and protection of these areas when developing 

land use plans. A potential ACEC is designated in the 

approved RMP if it requires special management to 

protect its relevant and important values. Management is 

considered special if it is outside of the ordinary or routine requirements of the BLM or if it is not covered by 

provisions already stipulated in the RMP; special management is unique to the area and includes terms and 

conditions specifically designed to protect the values in 

the ACEC. 

Each of the five potential ACECs have been proposed 

for designation in at least one alternative in accordance 

with ACEC guidance found in BLM Manual 1613. 

The RMP also provides protective strategies and appropriate uses for the management of National Trails to 

protect their resource values and characteristics. 

The approved RMP will determine whether any rivers in 

the Planning Area are recommended as suitable for 

inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River system. 

Four river segments were assessed as to whether they 

would be suitable for designation under the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. Recommendations were 

incorporated into the plan alternatives. 

Six Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) are located within 

the Butte Field Office. RMP alternatives consider management options for WSAs that would take effect if 

Congress releases them from wilderness consideration. 

Management Concerns 

Management concerns are topics that involve a resource, 

resource management activity, or land use that generally 

do not have enough controversy surrounding them to 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 7 
Chapter 1 

generate different RMP alternatives to address them. 

While these concerns are addressed in the plan, management related to them may or may not vary by alternative. Concerns were raised outside of the issues described above. These are described below. 

Air Quality 

This management concern is driven by the need to identify area-wide standards that apply to activities authorized by the Butte Field Office that might affect air quality. Yellowstone National Park is a Federal Class I airshed, and a portion of Silver Bow County is a nonattainment area. These could be affected by activities 

authorized under the plan. 

Air quality concerns include public health impacts from 

wildland and prescribed fires. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) recommends following the 

Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed 

Fires (May 15, 1998) to assure that an air quality analysis is completed for prescribed burns. 

Soil 

This management concern focuses on the need to reduce 

accelerated soil erosion and compaction from occurring 

within the Decision Area and the potential impacts on 

soil productivity and other resources. 

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use has created new roads 

and trails in areas with steep terrain, causing accelerated 

soil erosion. Other roads and trails have been constructed to a new standard and these disturbances create 

areas with some short-term and potential long-term soil 

erosion. In some places, historic cattle grazing has impacted soil and caused localized soil erosion and compaction. The spread of noxious weeds and conifer encroachment may have also had a detrimental effect on 

soils. 

Water Resources 

Management concerns associated with water resources 

involve preventing water quality degradation and improving watershed function to support beneficial uses. 

Additional concerns stem from water rights issues including management of existing water rights and acquiring water rights when feasible and with willing holders 

where acquisition of the water right meets a management objective or need. 

Over the next decade, several total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) plans (restoration plans for water quality impaired streams) will be developed by the State of Montana. This will result in new water quality goals intended 

to improve water quality where beneficial uses are impaired. 

Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural 

Properties and Paleontological Resources 

Management concerns include compliance with new 

laws, guidelines, and directives to ensure that significant 

cultural, traditional, and paleontological resources are 

identified and evaluated prior to surface disturbing activities to ensure protection of resources through appropriate mitigation. The alternatives present options for 

inventory of archeological and historical sites, coordination with tribal governments to identify religious or 

traditional lifeway values, education and public outreach 

programs, mitigation of cultural sites, maintenance of 

historic buildings, and mapping of fossil localities. 

Visual Resources 

Management concerns focus on the need to establish 

Visual Resource Management (VRM) Classifications to 

guide the management of public land based on scenic 

quality, sensitivity levels and distance zones. 

Lands and Realty 

Management concerns for lands and realty focus on 

establishing conditions for disposal, retention, or acquisition of land or interests in land. Utility corridors would 

be designated where placement of future utility facilities 

would be encouraged. Another concern is the need to 

develop criteria to assess the impacts of land disposal 

and acquisition when considering land tenure adjustments. 

Minerals and Energy 

Management concerns associated with minerals and 

energy include development of a consistent approach to 

recognition of mineral rights under the General Mining 

Law and mineral leasing acts to identify the need for 

environmentally acceptable exploration, development, 

and production. 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. The RMP 

alternatives provide management options for leasable, 

saleable, and locatable minerals. These management 

policies will ensure that federal minerals are available 

for national economic and energy needs. 

Abandoned Mine Lands 

Management concerns associated with Abandoned Mine 

Lands (AML) sites include: the threats posed to human 

health and the environment from contaminated water, 

acid rock drainage, or airborne contamination from mine 

or smelter sites; and public safety issues related to hazardous mine openings such as adits, shafts, open pits, 

and subsidence over buried mine openings. 

RMP alternatives incorporate information in accordance 

with bureau policy to guide the elimination or reduction 

of physical hazards and safety issues on public lands. 

Hazardous Material Management 

Management concerns associated with hazardous material management consist of the need to protect employ8 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Purpose and Need 

ees, the public, and the environment from exposure to 

hazardous materials in public facilities or on public land. 

The RMP alternatives comply with all appropriate laws 

and regulations regarding hazardous material management. 

Social and Economic Environment 

The Planning Area includes land within eight counties, 

and near many communities ranging from small cities 

like Butte and Helena to towns such as Townsend, 

Whitehall, and Boulder. The concerns among residents 

and the impacts to communities from public land management decisions vary. 

Management concerns associated with the social and 

economic environment focus on changes to recreation, 

forestry, mining, livestock grazing, and other land-uses 

as a result of increased population, economic growth and 

continuing development in the Planning Area. 

Environmental Justice 

Management concerns associated with environmental 

justice focus on the requirement that BLM evaluate and 

disclose whether actions would place a disproportionate 

share of negative environmental consequence on populations covered by Executive Order 12898. 

Tribal Treaty Rights including Native American 

Religious Concerns 

Management concerns focus on the requirement to notify and consult with appropriate Native American tribes 

on BLM authorized actions. 

Table 1-5 

Description of Planning Issues/Management Concerns, 

their Desired Future Conditions/Visions, and Management Goals 

Issue or 

Management 

Concern 

Description of Desired Future Conditions/Visions and Management Goals 

Issue 1: 

Vegetation 

Communities 

The desired future condition is for vegetation to fall within the historic range of variability, with diverse, site-appropriate plant communities that contain healthy populations for native species. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) maintain and/or improve ecological health of woodland communities for sustainability and diversity; 2) manage dry forest types to contain healthy stands of siteappropriate species; 3) manage moist forest types to contain healthy stands that combine into a diversity of age classes and structure; 4) manage old forest structures in a sustainable manner; 5) minimize 

infestations of invasive plants and noxious weeds; 6) manage upland vegetation communities by including a full range of herbaceous and shrub species; 7) maintain or enhance communities in priority 

habitats to provide desired ecological functions and values; 8) manage riparian and wetland communities for the appropriate composition, density and age structure; and, 9) manage wetland and riparian 

habitats to support healthy, diverse and abundant populations of fish and associated aquatic and riparian dependent species. 

Management direction for forests and woodlands is needed to: 1) 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; and, 2) manage forestry resources to provide a sustained flow of local 

economic benefits and protect non-market economic values. 

Management direction for livestock grazing is needed to: 1) maintain, restore, or enhance BLM rangelands to meet the Land Health Standards; and, 2) manage livestock grazing to provide a sustained level 

of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic values. 

Direction for wildland fire management is needed to: 1) provide an appropriate management response 

to all wildland fires, emphasizing firefighter and public safety; 2) move toward restoring and maintaining desired ecological conditions consistent with appropriate fire regimes; 3) minimize the adverse 

effects of fire on resources, resource uses and Wildland Urban Interface areas; 4) promote seamless 

fire management planning across jurisdictions within the boundaries of the Butte Field Office; and, 5) 

protect life and property by treating hazardous fuels on BLM lands near Wildland Urban Interface 

areas. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 9 
Chapter 1 

Table 1-5 

Description of Planning Issues/Management Concerns, 

their Desired Future Conditions/Visions, and Management Goals 

Issue or 

Management 

Concern 

Description of Desired Future Conditions/Visions and Management Goals 

Issue 2: 

The desired future condition is for BLM lands to provide a diverse landscape with native vegetation 

communities that provide suitable habitat to maintain viable and well distributed populations of native 

wildlife species on public land. 

Issue 3: 

Travel Management and 

Access 

The vision is to provide a range of quality motorized and non-motorized opportunities, and reasonable 

access for management while protecting natural resources, now and in the future. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) provide a balanced approach to travel management that provides a sustained flow of local economic benefits, minimizes or mitigates user conflicts, safety concerns, and resource impacts while taking into consideration the unique attributes of the various travel 

management Planning Areas; and, 2) maintain facilities, roads and trails to provide for public and/or 

administrative use and safety while mitigating impacts to resources. 

Issue 4: 

Recreation 

The vision is to provide a range of quality recreation opportunities, services and appropriate facilities 

for public use and enjoyment. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) provide a diverse array of recreational opportunities while 

maintaining healthy public land resources; 2) establish, manage and maintain quality recreation sites 

and facilities to meet a broad range of public needs subject to resource constraints; 3) manage commercial, competitive or special events with special recreation permits that eliminate or mitigate impacts to resources and conflicts with other users; and, 4) manage recreation opportunities to provide a 

sustained flow of local economic benefits and protect non-market economic values. 

Issue 5: 

Special Designations including ACEC, 

National Trails, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers and 

WSAs 

The vision is to protect relevant and important ACEC values and manage for appropriate uses; protect 

established National Trail values and manage for appropriate uses; protect Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values in Wild and Scenic River-eligible river segments and manage for appropriate uses; protect 

wilderness characteristics in Wilderness Study Areas. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) designate ACECs where special management attention is required to protect relevant and important values; 2) manage National Trails to promote public enjoyment and protect their designated values; 3) manage preliminarily eligible river segments so that their 

suitability for potential National Wild and Scenic Rivers System designation is not impaired; and 4) 

manage WSAs so that their suitability for potential wilderness designation is not impaired. 

Air Quality 

The desired future condition is for air quality to be maintained in a condition that protects human 

health and the environment. 

Management direction is needed to 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. 

10 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Purpose and Need 

Table 1-5 

Description of Planning Issues/Management Concerns, 

their Desired Future Conditions/Visions, and Management Goals 

Issue or 

Management 

Concern 

Description of Desired Future Conditions/Visions and Management Goals 

Soils 

The desired future condition is for stable soils to contribute to properly functioning watersheds and 

support productive plant communities consistent with site potential. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) manage uses to minimize accelerated soil erosion and compaction and maintain surface soil water infiltration based on site-specific conditions; and, 2) maintain or 

improve soil health and fertility, prevent or minimize erosion and compaction while supporting multiple use management. 

Water 

Resources 

The desired future condition is for water bodies to have sufficient water quality to meet state and federal standards, and support designated beneficial uses. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) maintain or improve the chemical, physical and biological 

integrity of water resources to protect designated beneficial uses and achieve water quality standards; 

2) maintain existing or acquire new water rights on BLM land to ensure water availability for multiple-use management; 3) minimize erosion and accelerated runoff to streams to improve watershed 

function; and, 4) protect water quality for municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreation, and residential 

purposes by adopting protective measures to meet tribal, state, and local water quality requirements. 

Cultural 

Resources/ 

The desired future condition is for there to be a minimal loss or degradation of cultural resources and 

traditional cultural properties within the Butte Field Office. 

Traditional Management direction is needed to: 1) preserve and protect eligible cultural resources, and traditional 

Cultural cultural properties within the Butte Field Office; 2) identify cultural resource sites and traditional 

Properties/ cultural properties and mitigate impacts when necessary, from natural or human-caused deterioration; 

Paleontological and, 3) preserve and protect eligible cultural resources to ensure that they are available for appropriate 

Resources uses by present and future generations. 

Visual 

Resources 

The vision is that a spectrum of visual qualities are provided and protected for the public. 

Management direction is needed to manage visual resources in accordance with VRM classifications 

described in Appendix B – Visual Resource Management Classes. 

Lands and 

Realty 

The vision is for the needs of the public to be met and support for all BLM resource programs is provided. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) look for opportunities to acquire non-federal land or interest in 

non-federal land with important resources and resource uses; and, 2) 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. 

Minerals and 

Energy 

The vision is for the use of geologic resources to recognize the need for domestic sources of energy 

and minerals. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) ensure that federal minerals are available for energy and mineral exploration and development; 2) manage exploration and development of mineral resources and 

ensure they are conducted in an environmentally sound manner; and, 3) where possible, conserve 

significant or unique geological features. 

Abandoned 

Mine Lands 

The vision is for threats to human health and the environment from historic mining activities on public 

land to be reduced. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) reclaim AML sites on public land to improve water quality, 

plant communities, and diverse fish and wildlife habitat; 2) reduce and/or eliminate risks to human 

health from hazardous mine openings; and, 3) protect historic resources and wildlife habitat commonly 

associated with AML sites. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 11 
Chapter 1 

Table 1-5 

Description of Planning Issues/Management Concerns, 

their Desired Future Conditions/Visions, and Management Goals 

Issue or 

Management 

Concern 

Description of Desired Future Conditions/Visions and Management Goals 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Management 

The vision is for employees, the public, and the environment to be protected from exposure to hazardous materials in public facilities or on public land. 

Management direction is needed to mitigate threats and reduce risks to the public and environment 

from hazardous materials. 

Social and 

Economic 

Environment 

The vision is for conservation, stewardship, and partnerships on public land are cultivated for the use 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. 

Management direction is needed to: 1) provide opportunities for economic benefits while minimizing 

adverse impacts to resources and resource uses; 2) 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; 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; 4) protect visual quality, wildlife habitats, 

and recreation opportunities on BLM lands to sustain non-market economic values; and, 5) make 

resource commodities available to provide a sustainable flow of economic benefits within the capability of the ecosystem. 

Environmental 

Justice 

Management direction is needed to identify and remediate to the extent possible disproportionate 

negative effects to minority or low income populations per Executive Order 12898. 

Tribal Treaty 

Rights 

Management direction is needed to accommodate treaty and legal rights of appropriate Native American groups in management of public lands. 

Note: Unnumbered items are management concerns. 

ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT 

FURTHER ANALYZED 

During scoping, several concerns were raised that are 

beyond the scope of this planning effort or that represented questions on how the BLM would go about the 

planning process and implementation. There are several 

issues raised in scoping that are clearly of concern to the 

public but which are governed by existing laws and 

regulations (for example, water quality). Where certain 

management is already dictated by law or regulation, 

alternatives have not been developed; rather, management will instead be applied as “Management Common 

to All Alternatives.” 

The Scoping Report (USDI-BLM 2005a) and the BLM 

Final Surface Management Regulations EIS (USDIBLM 2000a) provides a comprehensive list of issues 

outside the scope of the RMP or issues addressed 

through administrative or policy action. Some major 

issues were considered but not analyzed further because 

they are inconsistent with existing laws or higher level 

management direction, or because they are beyond the 

scope of the RMP purpose and goals. These issues are 

listed below. 

• It would be useful if the EIS discussed the Hard 

Rock Mining Act of 1872, its benefits and impacts, 

and potential conflicts with the Clean Water Act, 

Clean Air Act, and Endangered Species Act. 

• Minerals management should be greatly restricted. 

• OHV recreationists in Montana generate total State 

and Federal annual gas tax revenue on the order of 

$8 million. A Federal excise tax refund program for 

gasoline used for off-road purposes does not exist at 

this time. Excise tax on gasoline used for off-road 

fuel use should either be refunded to off-highway 

recreationists or used to fund programs that benefit 

off-highway recreationists. 

• OHV recreation and tourism has not been promoted 

or supported by Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

(MFWP) as aggressively as other recreation and 

tourism associated with fish and wildlife programs. 

OHV users request that MFWP actively promote 

OHV recreation and tourism. 

• OHV use should be eliminated from BLM lands. 

• Commercial use of public lands should be encouraged and promoted over all other considerations. 

12 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Purpose and Need 

PLANNING CRITERIA AND 

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 

FLPMA is the primary authority for BLM’s management of public lands. This law provides the overarching 

policy by which public lands will be managed and establishes provisions for land use planning, land acquisition 

and disposition, administration, range management, 

rights-of-way, designated management areas, and the 

repeal of certain laws and statutes. 

NEPA requires the consideration and public availability 

of information regarding the environmental impacts of 

major federal actions significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment. 

BLM planning regulations (43CFR1600, Subpart 1610) 

require preparation of planning criteria to guide development of all resource management plans. Planning 

criteria guide the development of the plan and determine 

the approach to developing alternatives, and ultimately, 

the selection of a Preferred Alternative. The criteria 

serve to help ensure that plans are tailored to the identified issues and avoid unnecessary data collection and 

analyses. 

Preliminary planning criteria were developed prior to 

public scoping meetings to set the side boards for focused planning and to guide decision making by topic. 

These criteria were introduced to the public for review in 

January 2004 at all scoping meetings. The public was 

encouraged to comment on, and suggest additions to, 

these criteria at the meetings, and through written correspondence. Final planning criteria included: 

• The plan will comply with FLPMA and all other 

applicable laws. 

• The planning process will include an EIS that will 

comply with NEPA standards. 

• The plan will establish new guidance and identify 

existing guidance upon which the BLM will rely in 

managing public lands within the Decision Area. 

• The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference the 

Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management; the Montana/Dakotas Statewide Fire Management Plan; OffHighway Vehicle EIS and Plan Amendment for 

Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South Dakota; the Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment 

of the Powder River and Billings Resource Management Plans; and Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Wind Energy Development on BLM-Administered Lands in the Western United States. 

• The RMP/EIS will incorporate by reference all prior 

Wilderness Study Area findings, suitability studies, 

and reports that affect public lands. 

• The plan will result in determinations as required by 

special program and resource specific guidance in 

Appendix C of the BLM’s Planning Handbook. 

• The plan will recognize the state’s responsibility to 

manage wildlife populations, including uses such as 

hunting and fishing, within the Planning Area. 

• Decisions in the plan will strive to be compatible 

with the existing plans and policies of adjacent local, state, tribal, and federal agencies as long as the 

decisions are in conformance with legal mandates 

on management of public lands. 

• The scope of analysis will be consistent with the 

level of analysis in approved plans and in accordance with Bureau-wide standards and program 

guidance. 

• Geospatial data will be automated within a Geographic Information System (GIS) to facilitate discussions of the affected environment, alternative 

formulation, effects analysis, and displaying the results. 

• Resource allocations must be reasonable and 

achievable within available technological and budgetary constraints. 

• The RMP will consider conservation and management strategies developed for protection, conservation, and restoration of Yellowstone and westslope 

cutthroat trout, bull trout, fluvial Arctic grayling and 

sage grouse. 

• The RMP will incorporate existing recovery plans 

and management strategies and guidelines for federally listed threatened and endangered species, including Ute Ladies’-tresses, bald eagle, grizzly bear, 

wolf, and lynx (the Lynx Conservation Assessment 

and Strategy). State management plans will be considered for delisted species including the peregrine 

falcon. 

• The RMP will recognize the State of Montana’s 

authority on Montana water law and water rights. 

• The RMP will recognize federal land management 

agency obligations under tribal treaties and laws or 

executive orders on Native American reserved 

rights, religious freedoms, and traditional use areas. 

RELATIONSHIP TO BLM 

POLICIES, PLANS, AND 

PROGRAMS 

A number of plans have been developed by the BLM 

that relate to or otherwise govern management in the 

Planning Area. Some of these plans amended the Dillon 

MFP and Headwaters RMP while others, though they 

have not been formally adopted through the land use 

planning process, are considered by BLM when implementation level planning is conducted or other specific 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS 13 
Chapter 1 

actions are analyzed. These major plans and other major 

management guidance are listed below and provide a 

perspective of the many management considerations 

pertinent to the Planning Area. 

LAND USE PLANS AND AMENDMENTS 

• Dillon Management Framework Plan (USDI-BLM 

1979). 

• Mountain Foothills Rangeland Management Program Document (USDI-BLM 1981a). 

• Headwaters Resource Management Plan (USDIBLM 1984a). 

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for 

Livestock Grazing Management for Montana, North 

Dakota and South Dakota ROD (USDI-BLM 1997). 

• Elkhorns Travel Management Plan/Amendment 

(USDI-BLM et al. 1995). 

• Off-Highway Vehicle ROD and Plan Amendment 

for Montana, North Dakota, and Portions of South 

Dakota (USDI-BLM 2003c). 

• Clancy-Unionville Travel Management Plan/ 

Amendment (USDI-BLM 2000b). 

• Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Management Plan/ 

Amendment (USDI-BLM 2003b). 

• Suitability Report and EIS for Wilderness Designation of Humbug Spires Instant Study Area (USDIBLM 1980). 

• Sleeping Giant and Sheep Creek Wilderness Study 

Areas EIS (USDI-BLM 1991a). 

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

Dakotas (USDI-BLM 2003a). 

OTHER NATIONAL, STATEWIDE, AND 

FIELD OFFICE PLANS 

• Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen 

Western States (USDI-BLM 1991c). 

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

• The Montana Weed Management Plan (Duncan 

2005). 

• Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (USDI-BLM 

1985). 

• Montana Statewide Wilderness Study Report 

(USDI-BLM 1991d). 

• National Fire Plan and 2001 Federal Fire Policy. 

• Oil and Gas Environmental Assessment of BLM 

Leasing Program, Butte District (USDI-BLM 

1981b). 

• Draft National BLM Sage Grouse Habitat 

Conservation Strategy (USDI-BLM 2003e). 

• Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 

• Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy 

and Implementation (USDI-BLM 1996a). 

RELATED PLANS 

BLM planning regulations require that BLM plans be 

consistent with officially approved or adopted resource 

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

governments to the extent those plans are consistent with 

federal laws and regulations applicable to public lands. 

Plans formulated by federal, state, local, and tribal governments that relate to the RMP have been reviewed and 

considered including: 

• Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (Ruediger et al. 2000). 

• Forest Plan – Helena National Forest (USDA-FS 

1986a). 

• Forest Plan – Beaverhead National Forest (USDAFS 1986b). 

• Forest Plan – Deerlodge National Forest (USDA-FS 

1987). 

• Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993). 

• Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1987). 

• Montana Bald Eagle Management Plan (USBOR 

1994). 

• Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986). 

• Final PEIS on Wind Energy Development on BLM 

Administered Lands in the Western US, June 2005. 

POLICY 

No proclamations or legislative designations that would 

influence decisions or constrain the alternatives have 

been issued within the Planning Area. 

Implementing the RMP begins when the Montana BLM 

State Director signs the ROD for the RMP. Decisions in 

the RMP would be implemented tied to the BLM budgeting process. An implementation schedule would be 

developed, providing for the systematic accomplishment 

of decisions in the approved RMP. 

COLLABORATION 

There are no formally designated cooperating agencies 

for the Butte RMP planning process. Collaboration and 

consultation with federal, state, and local agencies, and 

tribal governments is discussed further in Chapter 5. 

14 Butte Draft RMP/EIS