EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 

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 (BFO) in midwestern 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. 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 supersede previous decisions; 

• Changing user demands and activities; 

• Changing acceptance of impacts; and 

• Changes in the BFO 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 BFO. The plan provides objectives, land use allocations, and management direction 

to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and 

to support 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. 

DECISIONS FROM THIS PLAN 

This RMP will provide the basis for two types of decisions. Land Use Plan decisions will be those associated 

with management prescriptions and activities tied to the 

various Resource and Resource Use visions, desired 

future conditions, and goals in the plan. Management, 

such as the range of acres for vegetation treatments by 

alternative, Fire Management Unit designations, and 

whether or not to implement Riparian Management 

Zones are examples of Land Use Plan Decisions. The 

only implementation decisions to be made from this 

document will be associated with five site-specific travel 

plan areas (Helena, East Helena, Lewis and Clark 

County Northwest, Upper Big Hole, and Boulder/Jefferson City) where travel route-specific management decisions will be made. 

ISSUES 

PLANNING ISSUES 

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. 

Issue 1: Vegetation Communities 

How will vegetation on BLM lands be managed to 

achieve healthy ecosystems while providing for a broad 

range of multiple uses? 

Issue 2: Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, 

Special Status and Priority Plant and 

Animal Species 

How will BLM lands be managed to provide wildlife 

and fish habitat, and to conserve, and recover special 

status and priority species? 

Issue 3: Travel Management and Access 

How should the BLM manage motorized public travel 

to meet the needs for public access and resource uses 

while minimizing user conflicts and impacts to air, soil, 

watershed, vegetation, wildlife, and other resource 

values? 

 Butte Draft RMP/EIS S-1 
Executive Summary 

Issue 4: Recreation 

How should recreation be managed to accommodate 

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

Issue 5: Special Designations including 

ACECs, National Trails, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, and WSAs 

Which areas, if any, should be managed as special 

designations? How should they be managed to protect 

values that warrant their special designation status? 

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 

generate different RMP alternatives to address them. 

While these concerns are addressed in the plan, management related to them may or may not change by 

alternative. 

Management concerns included: 

• Air Quality; 

• Soil Resources; 

• Water Resources; 

• Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural Properties 

and Paleontological Resources; 

• Visual Resources; 

• Lands and Realty; 

• Minerals and Energy; 

• Abandoned Mine Lands; 

• Hazardous Materials; 

• Social and Economic Environment; 

• Prime or Unique Farm Land; 

• Environmental Justice; and 

• Tribal Treaty Rights including Native American 

Religious Concerns. 

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS 

The overall vision for the Decision Area is expressed in 

the desired future conditions and management goals 

summarized below. 

Issue 1: Vegetation Communities 

The desired future condition is for vegetation to fall 

within the historic range of variability, with diverse, siteappropriate plant communities that contain healthy 

populations for native species. 

• Forests and Woodland - Maintain or restore 

healthy stands of site appropriate species with a diversity of age classes and structure for wildlife habitat, soil stability, and wood products for present and 

future generations. 

• Upland and Riparian Resources - Provide a sustained level of livestock grazing while maintaining 

healthy public land resources. 

• Wildland Fire Management - Protect public 

health, safety, and property. 

Issue 2: Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat, 

Special Status and Priority Plant and 

Animal Species 

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. 

Issue 4: Recreation 

The vision is to provide a range of quality recreation 

opportunities, services, and appropriate facilities for 

public use and enjoyment. 

Issue 5: Special Designations including 

ACECs, National Trails, Wild and 

Scenic Rivers and Wilderness Study 

Areas 

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 Concerns 

Air Quality 

Air resources are maintained to protect human health 

and the environment. 

Soil Resources 

Stable soils contribute to properly functioning watersheds and support productive plant communities consistent with site potential. 

S-2 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Executive Summary 

Water Resources 

Water bodies have sufficient water quality to meet state 

and federal standards, and support designated beneficial 

uses. 

Cultural Resources, Traditional Cultural 

Properties and Paleontological Resources 

There is a minimal loss or degradation of cultural resources, traditional cultural properties, and paleontological resources within the BFO. 

Visual Resources 

A spectrum of visual qualities are provided and protected for the public. RMP alternatives 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 

The needs of the public are met and support for all BLM 

resource programs is provided. 

Minerals and Energy 

Use of geologic resources recognizes the need for domestic sources of energy and minerals. 

Abandoned Mine Lands 

Threats to human health and the environment from historic mining activities on public land are reduced. 

Hazardous Materials 

Employees, the public, and the environment are protected from exposure to hazardous materials in public 

facilities or on public land. 

Social and Economic Environment 

Conservation, stewardship, and partnerships on public 

land are cultivated for the use and enjoyment of present 

and future generations. 

OVERVIEW OF THE 

ALTERNATIVES 

There are four alternatives considered in detail. This 

section provides a brief overview of each of those alternatives. Alternatives considered in detail include one 

“No Action” Alternative (Alternative A), and three “action” alternatives (Alternatives B-D) that would reflect 

various levels of change from the existing Headwaters 

RMP and Dillon MFP direction. 

All alternatives include management direction that is not 

being revised. This direction is presented in the section 

“Management Common to All Alternatives” and is not 

described in this overview. Continued management 

direction reflects the following categories: 

1. Management Direction from legal statute, regulation, or manual direction. This management direction may not have been specifically included in 

the Headwaters RMP or Dillon MFP but includes 

management direction for things such as restricted 

uses near bald eagle nests or current regional decisions on noxious weed abatement techniques. 

2. Management Direction from the Headwaters 

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

are not being revised by the Butte RMP. 

Some potential management options identified early in 

this planning process were resolved using one approach 

in the “action alternatives”. These are identified under 

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

This management guidance represents areas where there 

was generally little controversy over that particular aspect of management. One example of this approach is 

the common management direction for the “action” 

alternatives to maintain or improve habitat conditions for 

special-status plant species by altering or removing trees 

and shrubs, prescriptive livestock grazing, prescribed 

and managed wildland fire, and planting. These components are not included in this overview. 

ALTERNATIVE A – NO ACTION 

Alternative A is the continuation of present management, referred to as “No Action”. This alternative would 

continue present management practices based on existing land use plans and other management decision 

documents. Direction contained in the Headwaters RMP 

and the Dillon Management Framework Plan would 

continue to be implemented. Direction contained in 

existing laws, regulations, and policies would also continue. The current levels, methods, and mix of multiple 

use management would continue, and resource values 

would receive attention at present levels. Motorized 

access and motorized recreational opportunities would 

not change from the current condition. Eligible Wild and 

Scenic River segments would continue to be managed to 

protect the values that make them eligible. 

ALTERNATIVE B – PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVE 

This alternative emphasizes moderate levels of resource 

protection, use, and restoration. Alternative B places a 

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

activities would be similar to Alternative A, greater than 

in Alternative C, but less than in Alternative D. Projectlevel wildlife habitat and riparian management measures 

would be greater than in Alternatives A and D, but less 

than in Alternative C. 

Alternative B emphasizes a balance of motorized and 

non-motorized recreation and access opportunities comButte Draft RMP/EIS S-3 
Executive Summary 

pared to the other action alternatives (C and D). Two 

rivers would be recommended as “suitable” for Wild and 

Scenic River designation. There would be more oil and 

gas leasing management measures than in Alternatives A 

and D, but less than in Alternative C. 

Alternative B represents the mix and variety of actions 

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

management concerns and is therefore considered 

BLM’s Preferred Alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE C 

Alternative C emphasizes a lesser degree of vegetative 

restoration than any of the other alternatives. Production 

of forest-based commodity resources from vegetation 

restoration activities would be lowest of all alternatives. 

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

than in any other alternative. 

Alternative C emphasizes non-motorized recreation 

opportunities more than the other alternatives. All potential Areas of Critical Environmental Concern would be 

designated with this alternative. All four river segments 

eligible for Wild and Scenic status would be found suitable and recommended for Wild and Scenic designation. 

Alternative C provides for the most oil and gas leasing 

management measures of any alternative. 

ALTERNATIVE D 

Alternative D emphasizes the greatest degree of active 

management to restore vegetative communities and 

would produce the greatest quantities of forest products 

from vegetation restoration activities of all alternatives. 

Alternative D features fewer wildlife habitat and riparian 

management measures than Alternatives B and C, but 

more than Alternative A. 

This alternative emphasizes motorized access and recreation opportunities more than Alternatives B and C. 

No river segments eligible for Wild and Scenic status 

would be recommended as suitable for Wild and Scenic 

designation with this alternative. Alternative D would 

have the fewest oil and gas leasing management measures of all the alternatives. 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES 

Effects on all resources from all actions are described in 

detail in Chapter 4. This section contains a summary of 

the effects by alternative as related to the Planning Issues. 

ISSUE 1: VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 

Grassland and Shrubland 

In Alternative A, vegetation treatments would occur on 

5,250 acres of grasslands and shrublands per decade. 

Because conifer encroachment into these habitats is 

occurring at a rate of approximately 6,411 acres per 

decade, conifer encroachment would continue to increase at a net rate of 1,161 acres per decade under Alternative A. Alternative B would restore up to 15,450 

acres per decade of grassland and shrubland communities for a net increase in restored grassland/shrubland 

habitat on 9,039 acres per decade. Alternative C would 

treat up to 2,700 acres per decade resulting in a net increase in conifer encroachment (3,711 acres per decade) 

rather than an increase in restored habitat. Alternative D 

would treat up to 25,900 acres per decade resulting in a 

greater net increase in restored habitat (19,489 acres per 

decade) than under any other alternative. 

In Alternative A, prescribed fire would reduce fuel loading and remove encroaching conifers and there would be 

no timing restrictions for prescribed burning. Under 

Alternative B prescribed burns would be planned to burn 

80 percent by area (on average) of planned burn units, 

leaving conifers in a mosaic of unburned patches within 

units. Soil, grasses, and forbs would be protected from 

fire-related mortality during hotter drier months by imposed burning restrictions May-August. Prescribed 

burns to treat conifer encroachment in Alternative C 

would be planned to burn 60 percent by area (on average) of each unit (leaving more conifers in unburned 

patches than Alternative B) and would have the same 

seasonal restriction as Alternative B. These prescribed 

burns in Alternative D would be planned to burn 90 

percent of each unit without the seasonal restriction 

described above. 

Alternative A would include no conversion of nonnative grassland vegetation to native grasslands at 

McMasters Hills and Ward Ranch. Alternatives B, C, 

and D would convert up to 850 acres in these areas to 

native grasslands, which would provide benefits to 

grassland habitat in this area that would not occur with 

Alternative A. 

Forests and Woodlands 

In dry forest types, Alternative A would treat the least 

acres per decade (5,100 acres) to help restore historic 

conditions and still exceed the rate of decline in forest 

health, as well as the least acres of cool, moist forest 

(2,400 acres) to help restore historic conditions and still 

exceed the rate of decline in forest health. Alternative B 

would treat the second most acres of dry forest treated 

per decade (up to 14,750 acres) and cool, moist forest 

treated per decade (up to 3,750 acres). Alternative C 

treats the least acreage (up to 4,800 and 500 respectively), and vegetation would not be restored at a rate 

exceeding the rate of decline in forest health. Alternative 

D would treat the most acres of each (up to 18,200 and 

5,050 respectively) and would move the greatest number 

of forested acres back toward historic condition of all 

alternatives. 

S-4 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Executive Summary 

Under all action alternatives, timber harvest is considered a tool for meeting forest health and restoration 

goals. The following levels of forest product removal are 

directly related to the amount of forest health and ecosystem restoration proposed as follows. Alternative A 

would result in a Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) of 12 to 

27 Million Board Feet (MMBF) (40,000 to 97,000 Hundred Cubic Feet (CCF)) per decade. Alternative B would 

result in a PSQ of 9 to 25 MMBF (33,000 to 91,000 

CCF) per decade. Alternative C would result in a PSQ of 

5 to 12 MMBF (19,000 to 41,000 CCF) per decade. 

And, Alternative D would result in a PSQ of 10 to 30 

MMBF (36,000 to 107,000 CCF) per decade. 

Noxious Weeds 

Proposed noxious weed treatments vary across the alternatives, mainly dependent on the amount of disturbance 

proposed by other management actions as well as the 

number of designated open roads. Alternative A would 

treat a minimum of 20,000 acres per decade, with Alternative B slightly higher at a minimum of 21,000 acres of 

treatment per decade. Management under Alternative C 

would result in the least amount of treatment at a minimum of 16,000 acres per decade, with the greatest 

amount of treatment in Alternative D at a minimum of 

25,000 acres per decade. Even with continued or increased noxious weed treatments, all alternatives would 

result in a projected increase of noxious weeds infestations on public lands in the BFO by 2015. Infestations 

are projected to spread to 43,000 acres under Alternative 

A management, 48,000 acres under Alternative B, 

51,000 acres under Alternative C, and 47,000 acres 

under Alternative D. Alternative A would have the 

greatest amount of weed infestation associated with open 

roads at 67 acres, with Alternative B at 46 acres, Alternative C at 42 acres, and Alternative D at 52 acres. 

Riparian 

Alternative A would manage 3,270 acres of riparian and 

associated upland vegetation in Streamside Management 

Zones (SMZs) and mechanically treat or prescribe burn 

30 acres of riparian vegetation per decade to restore 

communities to properly functioning condition. (This 

treatment figure is a continuation of what has occurred, 

however the Headwaters RMP allows treatment in all 

riparian areas subject to other management constraints.) 

Alternatives B and C would both include the concept of 

Riparian Management Zones (RMZs) where riparian 

ecological health would be the primary focus. Alternative B would manage 10,461 acres of riparian and associated upland vegetation in RMZs and mechanically 

treat or prescribe burn up to 700 acres per decade to 

improve vegetative conditions. Alternative C would 

manage 19,620 acres in RMZs and mechanically treat or 

prescribe burn up to 200 acres per decade. Alternative D 

would manage the same amount of acres in SMZs as 

Alternative A. By mechanically treating or burning up to 

1,700 acres per decade to meet site-specific riparian 

objectives, Alternative D would provide the shortest 

period required to restore riparian vegetation communities to proper functioning condition. Additional acres of 

riparian communities would be restored through implementation of livestock grazing guidelines and AML 

reclamation under all alternatives. 

Wildland Fire Management 

Alternative A provides for 7,300 acres of Category A 

fire management in which wildland fire is not desired 

and prescribed fire cannot be used as a fuels reduction 

tool. It treats the second least acres (12,780 

acres/decade) for fuel reduction of all alternatives. 

Lower fuel levels would result in a reduced potential for 

high-severity fires. Alternative A provides the most 

opportunities for human caused wildland fire due to it 

having the greatest number of open road miles of all 

alternatives. 

Alternative B provides more flexibility to manage fires 

since there would be no Category A designations. It 

treats the second most acres for fuels reduction (up to 

34,650 acres/decade) and would reduce fire intensity and 

behavior, improve fire fighter safety, and move towards 

historic fire regime more than Alternatives A and C. 

Extent of motorized access for fire suppression and fuel 

reduction treatments would be the second lowest of the 

alternatives. However, this also provides the second least 

amount of opportunity for human-caused fire ignitions 

of all alternatives. 

Alternative C would be the most restrictive fire management with most acres (41,000) of Category A fire 

management. The least acres would be treated for fuels 

reduction (up to 8,200 acres/decade), which would do 

the least of all alternatives to reduce fire intensity and 

behavior, improve wildland fire fighter safety and move 

toward historic fire regimes. It provides the least motorized access for fire suppression and fuel treatments and 

the fewest opportunities for human-caused wildland fire 

associated with road access. 

Alternative D allows the greatest flexibility in fire management. It treats the most acres for fuels reduction (up 

to 50,850 acres/decade) and would do the most of any 

alternative to reduce fire intensity and behavior, improve 

wildland fire fighter safety, and move toward historic 

fire regimes. The second highest level of motorized 

access for fire suppression and fuel reduction treatments 

would be provided of all the alternatives, along with the 

second greatest opportunity for human-caused fire ignitions. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS S-5 
Executive Summary 

ISSUE 2: WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE 

HABITAT, SPECIAL STATUS AND 

PRIORITY PLANT AND ANIMAL SPECIES 

Wildlife 

In all vegetation types, vegetation treatments in Alternative A would provide less restoration of habitat than 

Alternatives B and D. Alternative C would provide the 

least vegetation restoration of all alternatives. Alternative D would treat and restore more habitat than all other 

alternatives but would also have the most short-term 

adverse effects from treatments and temporary road 

construction than all other alternatives. 

Alternative A would have the greatest miles of open 

road (471.8 miles open yearlong) and would have the 

least amount of road restrictions of all alternatives. This 

would cause the most negative impacts on wildlife and 

habitat from disturbance, road kill, habitat alteration and 

loss (from weeds, firewood cutting and trespass), and 

habitat fragmentation of all alternatives. Alternative B 

would have fewer open roads (261 miles open yearlong) 

than Alternatives A and D but 7 percent more then Alternative C. The benefits to wildlife from fewer open 

roads would be the greatest in Alternative C (244.3 

miles open yearlong). Alternative D (304.8 miles open 

yearlong) would have 17 percent more open roads than 

Alternative B, 25 percent more than Alternative C, but 

55 percent less than Alternative A. 

Bighorn Sheep Management 

Domestic sheep and goat grazing can detrimentally 

affect native bighorn sheep by creating competition for 

resources and allowing for introduction of diseases into 

bighorn sheep populations. Alternatives A and D provide the least amount of protection of wild sheep from 

the effects of domestic sheep and goat allotments and 

from weed control using domestic sheep and goats because they lack specific buffers between domestic 

sheep/goat grazing and occupied bighorn sheep habitat. 

Alternative B would allow no new sheep/goat allotments 

in occupied bighorn sheep habitat or within a five-mile 

buffer. Under Alternative B, sheep and goats could not 

be used for weed control within 2 miles of occupied 

native sheep habitat. Alternative C offers the greatest 

protection from disease and competition for resources 

due to the largest mandatory buffer (nine miles) between 

bighorn sheep and domestic sheep/goat allotments. Under Alternative C, sheep and goats could not be used for 

weed control within 4 miles of occupied native sheep 

habitat. 

Big Game Management 

Alternative A contains little direction related to road 

density within important big game areas. No unroaded 

blocks would be protected as security habitat. 

Alternative B would protect more winter range than 

Alternatives A and D by managing to reduce the road 

density to 1.0 mile/mi2

 or less in the five site-specific 

travel plan areas and by allowing no net increase in 

permanent roads where current road densities are 1 

mi/mi2

 or less in winter range. Alternative B would also 

provide more security habitat by protecting 250-acre 

blocks of forested habitat as unroaded during hunting 

season. It provides more wildlife corridor in low road 

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

Alternative C would have the most improvement to big 

game winter range by having the lowest road density 

(road densities in winter range would be 0.8 mi/mi2

 or 

less in the five site-specific travel plan areas) and by 

allowing no net increase in permanent roads where road 

densities are 1.5 mi/mi2 or less in winter range. Alternative C would also improve more big game security habitat by closing more roads within 500 acre blocks of 

forested habitat during the hunting season. It would also 

provide the most connectivity and least fragmentation of 

habitat because it provides for the most acres of low 

road density in wildlife movement corridors. 

Alternative D would provide less protection to winter 

range because more roads would be allowed to remain 

open in winter range (road densities in winter range 

would be 1.2 mi/mi2

 or less in the five site-specific 

travel plan areas) than in Alternatives B and C, but less 

than in Alternative A. Under Alternative D, winter range 

would continue to be degraded or lost because net increases in permanent road mileage would be allowed in 

areas where road densities exceed 0.5 mi/mi2

. Alternative D would provide less connectivity and more fragmentation than Alternatives B and C due to fewer acres 

of low road density in wildlife movement corridors. 

Fish 

Alternatives A and D provide some protection for fish 

and aquatic and riparian habitats through Streamside 

Management Zones (SMZs). Alternative B provides 

more protection with Riparian Management Zones 

(RMZs) where management would be focused primarily 

on meeting site-specific riparian objectives, including 

aquatic resource objectives. RMZs under Alternative B 

would be an average of 160 feet wide for fish bearing 

streams (either side of stream), compared to generally 50 

foot widths of SMZs in Alternatives A and D. RMZs are 

the widest in Alternative C (300 feet on either side of 

fish-bearing streams), providing the most protection to 

aquatic and riparian habitats for a diversity of species. 

RMZ widths on perennial non fish-bearing streams 

would be 80 feet in Alternative B and 150 feet in Alternative C. RMZ widths on intermittent streams would be 

50 feet in both Alternatives B and C. 

RMZs (Alternatives B and C) would reduce sediment 

inputs in streams, and provide for more long-term large 

wood recruitment, more streamside shade and nutrient 

S-6 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Executive Summary 

inputs, and better long-term riparian vegetation health 

compared to SMZs (Alternatives A and D). 

Roads in riparian areas can have effects on fish and 

aquatic habitat including sedimentation; loss of shade, 

ground cover, and large wood recruitment due to preclusion of riparian vegetation; and alteration of stream 

channel morphology due to roads impacting stream 

channel or floodplain function. Miles of open road 

within 300 feet of streams were used as an indicator to 

assess the relative degrees to which these direct and 

indirect impacts may occur by alternative. Alternative A 

would likely have the greatest degree of these negative 

impacts with 87.7 miles of open road within 300 feet of 

streams. These effects would be less under Alternative B 

with 70.8 miles of road and less still under Alternative C 

with 67.1 miles of open road. Alternative D would have 

the second greatest degree of impact due to its 74.6 

miles of open road within 300 feet of streams. Under 

Alternative A there would be 17.1 miles of closed roads 

within 300 feet of streams. Alternatives B, C, and D 

would all reduce these impacts to varying degrees by 

closing or decommissioning 33.9, 37.6, and 30.2 miles 

of road within 300 feet of streams, respectively. 

Special Status and Priority Wildlife, 

Fish, and Plants 

Wildlife 

Alternative A would provide no seasonal buffers for 

noise/human activity disturbance to raptor nests, or bald 

eagle roost and nest trees and would have the greatest 

disturbance due to motorized access. Alternative B 

would provide a seasonal buffer (from noise and human 

activity) to occupied (1⁄2 mile) raptor nests (1⁄4 mile) and 

reduce motorized disturbance to occupied nest sites 

more than Alternatives A and D. Alternative C would 

provide the greatest protection for raptor nests with a 1 

mile buffer around occupied nests to protect nests from 

disturbance and loss of habitat. The buffers would be the 

smallest (1⁄4 mile for occupied nests) and motorized 

access reduced the least of the action alternatives in 

Alternative D. 

Alternative A protects the least amount of habitat for 

grizzly bear by allowing the highest density of open 

roads within the distribution of grizzly bear and by not 

limiting the miles of road that could be built in grizzly 

bear habitat. Alternative B provides more protection for 

grizzly bears by providing for lower road densities in 

their habitat (0.8 mi/mi2

 in distribution zone) than Alternatives A and D and reduces the potential for human– 

bear conflicts. Alternative B also improves and increases 

habitat for grizzly bear by allowing no net increase in 

permanent roads in grizzly habitat where the road density is 1 mi/mi2

 or less. Alternative C would protect the 

most habitat for grizzly bear from loss of habitat and 

disturbance from open roads by allowing no net increase 

in permanent roads in grizzly bear distribution area 

where open road densities are 1.5 mi/mi2 or less. Alternative C has the most acres benefiting from low road 

densities, the fewest acres impacted by high road densities and provides the greatest benefit to grizzly bear 

habitat by reducing fragmentation, protecting larger 

blocks of habitat and reducing disturbance (road density 

of 0.6 mi/mi2

 in distribution zone). Of the action alternatives, Alternative D would restore and protect the fewest 

acres of habitat within the distribution of grizzly bear by 

allowing more open roads (1.3 mi/mi2

 in distribution 

zone). 

There would be approximately 49,000 acres unavailable 

for oil and gas leasing under Alternative A. This is more 

than under Alternatives B and D (28,777 acres) but less 

than Alternative C (600,650 acres). Alternative A would 

have No Surface Occupancy on 265,296 acres, which is 

less than Alternative B (292,171 acres) but more than 

Alternative C (26,109 acres) and D (104,069 acres). 

Alternative A would have fewer acres protected with 

timing limitations and controlled surface use (325,164 

acres) than Alternative B (337,389 acres) and Alternative D (468,547 acres) but more than Alternative C 

(32,504 acres). Alternative B would protect the most 

acres with timing limitations for big game, sage grouse, 

and raptors and would have more acres under No Surface Occupancy (292,171) than any other alternative. 

Alternative C would protect the most habitats for all 

species by not allowing oil and gas leasing on over 

600,000 acres. Alternative D would protect most species 

with controlled surface use and timing limitations. 

There would be eight sensitive species given protection 

under all alternatives with oil and gas stipulations; prairie dog, sage grouse, ferruginous hawks, peregrine falcons, raptor breeding territories, westslope cutthroat 

trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, and arctic grayling. 

Under Alternative A, all sensitive species could be protected with a No Surface Occupancy (NSO) stipulation 

up to 1⁄4 mile with the exception of sage grouse which 

would have a smaller area protected around leks and 

timing restrictions in winter/spring habitat. 

Alternatives B and D would have similar stipulations for 

sensitive species with only four stipulations that differ. 

Under Alternative D there would be Standard Lease 

Terms for raptor breeding territories compared to timing 

restrictions under Alternative B. Ferruginous hawks 

would be given a timing restriction under Alternative D 

but a NSO under Alternative B and westslope cutthroat 

trout, Yellowstone cutthroat trout and arctic grayling 

would have a Controlled Surface Use (CSU) stipulation 

within 1⁄2 mile of their habitats with Alternative D but a 

NSO within 1⁄2 mile of their habitats under Alternative B. 

Alternative C would provide the most protection of all 

alternatives to sensitive species with either No Leasing 

or NSO stipulations throughout most of their habitats. 

All federally listed species would be protected in habitats where they are found with a CSU stipulation under 

all alternatives. The action alternatives would provide 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS S-7 
Executive Summary 

additional protection for four currently listed species 

(grizzly bear, gray wolf, bald eagle, and bull trout) 

through the use of NSO, timing restrictions or No Leasing. Of the action alternatives, Alternative C would 

provide the most protection to currently listed species 

and Alternative B would provide more protection than 

Alternatives A and D. 

Big game habitat and state wildlife management areas 

would also be protected through the use of oil and gas 

stipulations. The stipulation for wildlife management 

areas would be more restrictive under Alternative A than 

Alternatives B or D but less restrictive than C. Alternatives A, B and C would have the same stipulation for big 

game winter/spring range (Timing Limitation) but Alternative C would be more restrictive with No Leasing. 

For elk calving areas, Alternative D would be the least 

restrictive (Standard Lease Terms) with the stipulation 

being a Timing Limitation for Alternatives A and B, 

while Alternative C would be most protective with No 

Lease in these areas. For bighorn sheep habitat, Alternative C is the most protective (No Lease) of all alternatives while Alternative B (Timing Limitation in Yearlong Range, NSO in Core Areas) is more protective than 

Alternatives A (Timing Limitation in Yearlong Range) 

and D (Timing Limitation in Yearlong Range). 

Fish 

Effects and relative degrees of protection for special 

status fish would generally be similar to those described 

in the general Fish section above. Bull trout habitat 

would be managed under the Interim Bull Trout Habitat 

Conservation Strategy (USDI BLM 1996a). 

Alternatives B and C would protect habitat of genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout and other aquatic 

and riparian dependant species along approximately 2 

miles of stream in the Muskrat Creek drainage through a 

proposed 180-acre locatable mineral withdrawal. This 

habitat would not be subject to direct effects from mineral exploration and development in these alternatives. 

This protection would not be in place as there would be 

no mineral withdrawal of these riparian areas in Alternatives A and D. 

Oil and gas stipulations would protect special status fish 

species in affected streams by NSO within 1⁄2 mile of 

streams in Alternative B. Alternative C would have the 

greatest amount of protection with NSO or No Lease 

within 1⁄2 mile of streams affected for various species. 

Alternative D would be less protective than either Alternative B or C with a CSU stipulation within 1⁄2 mile of 

most special status fish species. 

Plants 

Vegetation treatments in Alternative A would provide 

less restoration and maintenance of special status plant 

habitat than Alternatives B and D because fewer acres 

would be treated. Alternative D would treat the most 

acres whereas Alternative C would treat the fewest with 

corresponding effects on habitat. Potential short-term 

adverse impacts from vegetation treatments due to disturbance or crushing of special status plants would vary 

similarly to long-term potential benefits by alternative. 

Off highway vehicle (OHV) use potentially affects special status plants and habitat through ground disturbance. 

More OHV use causes greater ground disturbance which 

can cause direct destruction of plants, and degradation or 

fragmentation of habitat. Motorized vehicle use can also 

facilitate increased noxious weed spread, potentially 

leading to special status plants being outcompeted by 

noxious weeds. The greatest amount of motorized vehicle use would be with Alternative A while the least 

amount of motorized use is proposed for Alternative C. 

Potential impacts on special status plant populations and 

habitat from motorized vehicle use would be the least for 

Alternative C and the most for Alternative A while Alternatives B and D fall in between with B having fewer 

potential impacts than Alternative D. 

ISSUE 3: TRAVEL MANAGEMENT AND 

ACCESS 

Travel Management 

Alternative A has the greatest number of motorized 

opportunities and the most acres open to cross-country 

snowmobile use. User conflicts and the potential for 

accidents/injuries would be the greatest of all alternatives because motorized and non-motorized users would 

share the same routes. Road development associated 

with forest product removal could increase road density. 

Wildlife closures would have the fewest short-term 

impacts on travel and access due to fewer seasonal wildlife closures than other alternatives. Establishment of 

new permanent roads increasing public access is likely 

to be more widespread than with any other alternative. 

Disallowing competitive motorized events under all 

action alternatives (B, C, and D) could cause long-term 

adverse effects on users who prefer these activities. 

Alternative B (417 miles open yearlong or open 

w/restrictions) would have less motorized route use 

opportunities than Alternatives A (629 miles open yearlong or open w/restrictions) and D (479 miles open yearlong or open w/restrictions), but more than with Alternative C (372 miles open yearlong or open w/restrictions). 

Non-motorized opportunities under Alternative B would 

be greater than with Alternatives A and D but less than 

with Alternative C. Cross-country snowmobile use 

would be less with Alternative B than with either Alternative A or D, but would be greater than with Alternative C. User conflicts, accidents, and injuries would be 

reduced under Alternative B compared to Alternatives A 

and D due to more dispersed recreational opportunities. 

Illegal activities due to the size of the motorized route 

network may be less under Alternative B than Alternatives A and D, but may still occur more than Alternative 

C. 

S-8 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Executive Summary 

Route closures in Alternative C would result in the 

greatest decrease in motorized use opportunities and 

highest level of non-motorized opportunities of all alternatives. Cross-country snowmobile use would be the 

most limited of all alternatives. Potential user conflicts, 

accidents, and injuries would likely be the least of all 

alternatives due to the greatest opportunities for motorized and non-motorized uses to be separated. Due to 

greatest extent of route closures, Alternative C would 

likely have the least amount of illegal activity of all 

alternatives. 

Alternative D provides the greatest motorized use opportunities and the least non-motorized opportunities of the 

action alternatives. Non-motorized opportunities would 

be more than Alternative A but less than Alternatives B 

and C. Cross-country snowmobile use would be slightly 

less than with Alternative A but greater than with either 

Alternatives B or C. Potential user conflicts, accidents, 

and injuries would likely be greater than with Alternatives B or C, but less than with Alternative A. Illegal 

activities would likely be less with Alternative D than 

with Alternative A, but may still occur more than with 

Alternatives B and C. 

Helena Travel Planning Area 

In Alternative A (52.2 road miles open yearlong), no 

non-motorized trails would be designated. Alternative B 

(13.6 road miles open yearlong) would have decreased 

opportunities for motorized users and increased opportunities for non-motorized users since motorized access 

would be restricted to routes leading to existing trailheads and one loop route in Scratchgravel Hills. Alternative C (7 road miles open yearlong) would provide 15 

percent more non-motorized only route opportunities 

than Alternative B and 85 percent fewer motorized route 

opportunities than Alternative A. Alternative D (21.9 

road miles open yearlong) would have greater opportunities for motorized users than with the other action alternatives because new loop routes would be created in 

Scratchgravel Hills. 

Management costs under Alternative A would be mixed. 

Less personnel time would be required to monitor user 

compliance compared to other alternatives; however 

more effort would be required for signing designated 

routes than with any other alternative. Alternatives B 

and C would have increased costs for trailhead maintenance, gates, and signage associated with restricted 

motorized access, and compliance costs associated with 

dawn to dusk use of the Scratchgravel Hills. Alternative 

D would have higher costs than the other action alternatives due to costs for signage and maintenance of more 

open routes as well as costs associated with constructing 

new connector routes and reconstructing existing routes. 

Under Alternative A, transportation facility costs would 

be higher than under the action alternatives. Alternative 

B would cost 74 percent less than Alternative A, Alternative C would cost 87 percent less, and Alternative D 

would cost 58 percent less. 

East Helena Travel Planning Area 

Alternative A (36.6 road miles open yearlong, 7.7 miles 

open w/restrictions) would provide 60 percent more 

motorized opportunities than Alternatives B (13.7 miles 

open yearlong) and C (12 miles open yearlong), and 15 

percent more than Alternative D (36 miles open yearlong). Non-motorized only opportunities would increase 

under Alternative B compared to Alternatives A and D. 

Alternative B would also provide increased opportunities for disabled hunters. Alternative C would provide 

the least amount of motorized opportunities of all alternatives while providing the most non-motorized opportunities. Alternative D would provide over 55 percent 

more motorized opportunities than either Alternatives B 

or C. There would be fewer non-motorized dispersed 

opportunities with Alternative D than with Alternatives 

B or C. 

Management costs under Alternative A would be mixed. 

Less personnel time would be required to monitor user 

compliance than with other alternatives; however more 

effort would be required for signing designated routes. 

Costs would increase under Alternatives B and C for 

new trailhead development, initial signing, and longterm compliance efforts. Costs with Alternative D would 

be less than with Alternative A, but more than with 

Alternatives B and C due to initial signing and long-term 

maintenance and compliance efforts. 

Transportation facility maintenance, monitoring, compliance, and weed control costs would be 17 to 269 

percent higher under Alternative A than under the action 

alternatives. Due to the overall reduction in maintained 

routes, transportation facility costs under Alternative B 

would cost 62 percent less than Alternative A, Alternative C would cost 73 percent less, and Alternative D 

would cost 14 percent less. 

Lewis and Clark County NW Travel Planning 

Area 

Alternative A (57.5 road miles open yearlong, 6.7 miles 

open w/restrictions) would provide 47 percent more 

motorized routes than the action alternatives. Nonmotorized users would have fewer opportunities under 

Alternative A. Under Alternative B (13.8 road miles 

open yearlong, 14.3 miles open w/restrictions) opportunities for non-motorized users would be greater than 

under Alternatives A and D (19.6 miles open yearlong, 

14.5 miles open w/restrictions). Alternative C (8 miles 

open yearlong, 11.7 miles open w/restrictions) would 

provide the least opportunities for motorized users and 

the greatest for non-motorized users. Closure of routes in 

the northwest corner of TPA would result in enhanced 

non-motorized opportunities. Alternative D would provide more motorized opportunities than other action 

alternatives. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS S-9 
Executive Summary 

Management costs under Alternative A would be mixed. 

Less personnel time would be required to monitor user 

compliance than with other alternatives; however more 

effort would be required for signing designated routes. 

Costs would increase under Alternatives B and C, for 

initial signing and long-term compliance efforts. Costs 

under Alternative D would increase as well due to initial 

signing and long-term maintenance and compliance 

efforts. 

Transportation facility maintenance, monitoring, compliance, and weed control costs would be 88 to 128 

percent higher under Alternative A than under the action 

alternatives. Due to the overall reduction in maintained 

routes, transportation facility costs under Alternative B 

would be 56 percent less than Alternative A, Alternative 

C would cost 69 percent less, and Alternative D would 

cost 47 percent less than Alternative A. 

Boulder-Jefferson City Travel Planning Area 

Alternative A (60.5 road miles open yearlong) would 

have 37 percent more routes open to motorized use than 

Alternative D (5.3 miles open yearlong, 32.8 miles open 

w/restrictions) and approximately 60 percent more than 

Alternatives B (3.7 miles open yearlong, 23.6 miles open 

w/restrictions) and C (3 miles open yearlong, 20.5 miles 

open w/restrictions). In addition, Alternative A would 

have no designated non-motorized routes, and fewer 

recreation opportunities for non-motorized users. Alternative B would provide more opportunities for nonmotorized users than Alternative A. Alternative C would 

provide the fewest opportunities for motorized users 

since it has the least number of open routes. Opportunities for motorized users under Alternative D would be 

greater than under Alternatives B and C but less than 

under Alternative A. 

Management costs under Alternative A would be mixed. 

Less personnel time would be required to monitor user 

compliance than with the other alternatives; however 

more effort would be required for signing designated 

routes. Costs would increase under Alternatives B and C 

for initial signing and long-term compliance efforts. 

Costs under Alternative D would be less than Alternative A, but more than under Alternatives B and C due to 

initial signing and long-term maintenance and compliance efforts. 

Under Alternative A, transportation facility maintenance, monitoring, compliance and weed control costs 

would be 59 to 122 percent higher than under the action 

alternatives. Due to the overall reduction in maintained 

routes, transportation facility costs under Alternative B 

would be 55 percent less than with Alternative A, Alternative C would cost 61 percent less and Alternative D 

would cost 37 percent less than Alternative A. 

Upper Big Hole River Travel Planning Area 

Alternative A (70.6 road miles open yearlong, 88 miles 

open w/restrictions) would have at least 38 percent more 

motorized routes than the other alternatives. Alternative 

A has the fewest non-motorized opportunities. Alternative B (21.1 miles open yearlong, 59.8 miles open 

w/restrictions) would reduce by half the motorized opportunities due to seasonal restrictions or road closures 

and non-motorized opportunities would be enhanced. 

Alternative C (19.2 miles open yearlong, 40.8 miles 

open w/restrictions) would provide the fewest opportunities for motorized users and the greatest opportunities 

for non-motorized users. Alternative D (26.8 miles open 

yearlong, 70.6 miles open w/restrictions) would provide 

fewer opportunities for motorized use than Alternative 

C, but more than Alternatives A and B. 

Management costs under Alternative A would be mixed. 

Less personnel time would be required to monitor user 

compliance than under the other alternatives; however 

more effort would be required for signing designated 

routes. Costs would increase under Alternatives B and C 

for initial signing and long-term compliance efforts. 

Costs under Alternative D would be less than under 

Alternative A, but more than under Alternatives B and C 

due to initial signing and long-term maintenance and 

compliance efforts. 

Under Alternative A transportation facility maintenance, 

monitoring, compliance, and weed control costs would 

be 62 to 163 percent higher than under the action alternatives. Due to the overall reduction in available routes, 

transportation facility costs under Alternative B would 

be 49 percent less than under Alternative A, Alternative 

C would cost 62 percent less, and Alternative D would 

cost 38 percent less than under Alternative A. 

ISSUE 4: RECREATION 

User Opportunities 

Alternative A provides the most opportunities for motorized users, organized motorized events, boat-in camping, 

and snowmobile use. Alternative A also provides the 

fewest non-motorized use opportunities. 

Alternative B provides more opportunities than Alternatives A and D for non-motorized users due to its greater 

number of closed roads. Under Alternative B there 

would be a reduction in boat-in camping opportunities as 

these would be limited to developed and designated 

undeveloped dispersed recreation sites along the Holter 

and Hauser Lake shorelines. 

Alternative C would provide the most opportunities for 

non-motorized users and the least opportunities for motorized users due to its greatest number of closed roads 

of all alternatives. Opportunities for organized motorized 

events would be eliminated under Alternative C. Dispersed camping at Holter and Hauser Lakes would be 

reduced to the greatest extent due to closing of the entire 

shorelines to boat-in camping except at developed sites. 

Alternative D would provide greater motorized and 

lower non-motorized use opportunities than either AlterS-10 Butte Draft RMP/EIS 
Executive Summary 

native B or C. Alternative D would limit organized motorized events to non-competitive activities in the Pipestone area only. Boat-in camping opportunities would be 

the same as Alternative A. 

User Conflicts and Violations 

Alternative A would impose the fewest restrictions on 

motorized and non-motorized users within the Scratchgravel Hills and therefore motorized travel violations, 

user conflicts and illegal activities would likely be 

greater than with any other alternative. Alternatives B 

and C would have the greatest potential to reduce conflicts and violations compared to Alternatives A and D 

in the Scratchgravel Hills due to restricted motorized 

access and dusk to dawn closure. These effects under 

Alternative D would likely be slightly less than under 

Alternative A but greater than under Alternatives B and 

C. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Alternative A could have negative impacts on recreation 

uses and experiences because there would be no ROS 

classifications. Management would be reactive rather 

than proactive. Alternative B would provide a balanced 

approach for managing recreation settings, opportunities 

and experiences compared to Alternatives C and D. 

Alternative C would provide the most acreage designated as ROS Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized creating 

the greatest non-motorized and the least motorized opportunities. Alternative D would manage 90 percent of 

the Decision Area under ROS settings allowing varying 

degrees of motorized activity. 

ISSUE 5: SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS 

INCLUDING ACEC, NATIONAL TRAILS, 

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS AND WSAS 

Areas of Critical Environmental 

Concern 

Under Alternative A the existing ACEC (Sleeping Giant) would be the only area managed as an ACEC. In 

Alternative B, all five potential areas would be managed 

as ACECs, the same number as Alternative C however a 

smaller portion of the Elkhorns would be designated in 

Alternative B. Alternative D would manage the least 

amount of acreage as ACECs of the action alternatives. 

National Trails 

The Continental Divide Trail (CDT) and the Lewis and 

Clark Historic Trail (L&CHT) would be managed cooperatively with the USFS and the NPS respectively, in 

accordance with national policy guidelines under all 

alternatives. BLM would also continue managing the 

L&CHT with other established partners to promote 

collaborative planning under the Missouri/Madison 

Comprehensive Recreation Plan. Under the action alternatives, the two trails would be managed in accordance 

with final ROS, VRM, travel plan and other resource/resource use decisions. In addition BLM would 

coordinate with the FS to evaluate opportunities to reroute the CDT segment to enhance user experiences and 

reduce future needs for easements and/or acquisitions. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Suitability studies for the four eligible river segments 

(Upper Big Hole River – 2.3 miles, Upper Missouri 

River – 3.1 miles, Moose Creek – 4.0 miles and Muskrat 

Creek – 2.6 miles) would not be completed and protective management would continue indefinitely for these 

segments under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, 

Muskrat Creek would be recommended as suitable and 

the Upper Missouri River segment would be recommended preliminarily suitable pending concurrence by 

the USFS (Helena National Forest) for inclusion in the 

NWSRS; interim protective management would continue for these two segments. The remaining segments, 

Upper Big Hole River and Moose Creek, would be identified as non-suitable. Alternative C provides the greatest 

protection for the four eligible river segments as they 

would all be recommended as suitable for Congressional 

designation. Alternative D provides the least protection 

for these eligible segments as all would be identified as 

non-suitable, and interim protective management would 

be discontinued. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

Under all alternatives, all six WSAs (Humbug Spires, 

Sleeping Giant, Sheep Creek, Black Sage, Elkhorn 

Tack-on, and the Yellowstone River Island) would continue to be managed under the Interim Management 

Policy and Guidelines for Lands under Wilderness Review until Congress either designates them as wilderness 

or releases them from further review. Under the action 

alternatives, Sleeping Giant, Sheep Creek, Humbug 

Spires and the Elkhorns Tack-on WSAs would be managed as ACECs should Congress release them from 

wilderness consideration. Should Congress release Black 

Sage and the Yellowstone River Island then they would 

be managed under the general guidelines established 

under each alternative. 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

At the time of publication, Alternative B is the preferred 

alternative. 

Butte Draft RMP/EIS S-11