U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management 

Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement - Volume II

Missoula Field Office 
Bureau of Land Management Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. The BLM’s 

mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment 

of present and future generations. 

 BLM/MT/PL-19/002+1610
Bureau of Land Management Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Draft Resource Management Plan and 

Environmental Impact Statement – Volume II 

For the Missoula Field Office 

May 2019

Lead Agency: Bureau of Land Management 

Responsible Official: Montana/Dakotas State Director

For Information Contact: Maggie Ward, RMP Team Leader 

Missoula Field Office 

3255 Fort Missoula Road 

Missoula, MT 59804-7204 

(406) 329-3914

https://go.usa.gov/xmyyG

Estimated agency total costs associated 

with developing and producing this 

EIS: $2.7 million 
Bureau of Land Management Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Bureau of Land Management Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Contents 

Appendix A. Air Quality and Climate .........................................................................................................A-1 

Appendix B. Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Conservation Strategy ...........................................................B-1 

Appendix C. Forest Vegetation..................................................................................................................C-1 

Appendix D. Impaired Waters.................................................................................................................. D-1 

Appendix E. Locatable Minerals Reasonable Foreseeable Development Scenario.................................. E-1 

Appendix F. Major Laws ............................................................................................................................F-1 

Appendix G. Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report.............................................................................. G-1 

Appendix H. Maps................................................................................................................................. H-1 

Appendix I. Noxious and Invasive Species List ...........................................................................................I-1 

Appendix J. Post-Wildfire Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Procedures..................................J-1 

Appendix K. Probable Sale Quantity Determinations and Calculations....................................................K-1 

Appendix L. Recreation Management Areas............................................................................................. L-1 

Appendix M. Socioeconomic Report ........................................................................................................M-1 

Appendix N. Summary of No-action Alternative Management............................................................... N-1 

Appendix O. Supplemental Rules............................................................................................................. O-1 

Appendix P. Design Features and Best Management Practices................................................................P-1 

Appendix Q. Lands and Realty.................................................................................................................. Q-1 

Appendix R. Rangeland Health Assessment.............................................................................................. R-1 

Degrees F Degrees F 

+'> VI u, u, VI u, O'> O'> w w -1:> -1:> -1:> -1:> -1:> u, 00 c:, ~ _.,. O'> 00 c:, N a, 00 0 N _.,. a, 00 0 

1948 1948 

1950 1950 1952 1952 

1954 1954 

1956 I 1956 1958 1958 

)> 1960 l> 1960 ::, 1962 ::l 1962 ::, ::l C: 1964 C 1964 OJ )> 1966 l> 1966 < < ct> 1968 (I) 1968 ., cJ OJ 1970 1970 OQ ClO ct> (I) 1972 1972 

1974 1974 1976 1976 

1978 1978 

....... 1980 I-" 1980 U1 u, 

-0 1982 -0 1982 ct> (I) ;-, 1984 ;-s 1984 

1986 1986 0 0 :0::: 1988 < 1988 )> 1990 l> 1990 < < OQ ClO 

 

1992 

 

1992 

::, 1994 ::l 1994 ::, ::l C: 1996 C 1996 OJ 

)> 1998 l> 1998 < 2000 < 2000 ct> (I) .... 

...... OJ 2002 Q.) 2002 OQ ClO ct> 2004 (I) 2004 

2006 2006 2008 2008 2010 2010 2012 2012 2014 2014 2016 2016 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix A: Air Quality and Climate 

The following figures are from the climate change section. 

Figure 1. Average Annual Temperatures 1948 to 2016 (Missoula International Airport weather station, 

Western Regional Climate Center, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mt5745)

Figure 2. Average Maximum Temperatures 1948 to 2016 (Missoula International Airport weather station, 

Western Regional Climate Center, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mt5745) 

A-1 
Inches Degrees F 

.... .... IV IV IV IV IV w w w w w 

0 u, 0 u, 0 u, u, -..J \.0 .... w u, -..J \.0 

1948 1948 1950 1950 1952 1952 1954 1954 1956 I 1956 1958 1958 1960 )> 1960 

1962 ::::, 1962  ::::, ::::, 1964 C 1964 ::::, QJ 

C: -

1966 )> 1966 

 < 1968 ro 1968 < .... 

1970 QJ 1970 "' (JQ OQ ro 

(1) 1972 1972 

1974 1974 1976 1976 1978 1978 

.... 

1980 ,_. 1980 

V, u, 1982 1982 -0 "O 

(1) 1984 (D 1984 .... .... 

s: 1986 s 1986 0 0 ::: 1988 ::: 1988 

 )> < 1990 1990 (!Q < (JQ 

1992 1992 

::::, 1994 1994 ::::, ::::, 

C: ::::, 

1996 C 1996 

 1998 1998 < )> 

2000 < 2000 "' (D OQ .... 2002 QJ 2002 (JQ 2004 .!E., 2004 

2006 2006 2008 2008 2010 2010 2012 2012 2014 2014 2016 2016 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 3. Average Minimum Temperatures 1948 to 2016 (Missoula International Airport weather station, 

Western Regional Climate Center, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mt5745)

Figure 4. Total Annual Precipitation 1948 to 2016 (Missoula International Airport weather station, Western

Regional Climate Center, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mt5745) 

A-2 
Inches 

.... ,_. 

N .,. Ol 00 0 N 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 

 1962 :, 

:, 1964 C: 

1966 1968 

OJ 1970 (IQ 

11> 1972 

1974 1976 1978 

,_. 1980 

u, 

"O 1982 

11> 

:, 1984 

1986 0 

::: 1988  < 1990 (!ti 

 1992 :, 1994 :, C: 

1996 

 1998 < 

OJ 2000 (IQ 

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 5. Total Annual Snowfall 1948 to 2016 (Missoula International Airport weather station, Western

Regional Climate Center, https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?mt5745)

Emissions from Prescribed Fire and Wildfire 

The following tables, and figures are in support of the emissions discussion in the air quality section. 

The First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) developed by Intermountain Fire Sciences Lab was used to 

estimate emissions from wildland and prescribed fire. The FOFEM results for smoke emissions by 

Society of American Foresters (SAF) forest type. For mixed-severity prescribed fires and wildfires the 

average emissions from five SAF forest types common across BLM lands were applied. For the lower 

elevation thin and underburn, we used the FOFEM results for SRM 110 - Ponderosa Pine Grasslands. 

Table 1 shows the acreages of the three alternatives for both categories, Underburn-low elevation and 

mixed severity. The average emissions of the mixed severity and the underburn-low elevation were 

applied to prescribed acreages. Table 2 compares the resulting emissions from prescribed fires for each 

alternative per decade. 

Table 1. Comparison of Prescribed Fire by Alternative 

Type of Prescribed Fire Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Underburn-low elevation 2,500 5,250 3,500 

Mixed severity 1,000 2,250 1,500 

Table 2. Smoke Emissions (tons) per Decade by Alternative for Prescribed Fires 

Metric Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Consumption 54,597 118,152 78,768 

CO2 80,157 173,195 115,464 

CO 9,443 20,581 13,721 

CH4 443 965 643 

NOx 76 162 108 

SO2 55 118 79 

PM 2.5 759 1,652 1,101 

PM 10 895 1,949 1,299 

A-3 
2,000,000 

1,800,000 

1,600,000 

0 1,400,000 

~ 1,200,000 (l) 

.... 

u 1,000,000 

<( 

....._ 

V, 800,000 

.I .I .I .I .I C: 

0 600,000 I-

-J 400,000 J I I 200,000 

I  I 

 BLM  Analysis Area 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 6 presents the CO2 emissions from wildfires across the period of records and presents projected 

levels for five decades into the future for Alternative B. 

Figure 6. Wildfire CO2 Emissions from 1889 to 2017 and Projected Emissions for the Next Five Decades under 

Alternative B 

Table 3 compares the projected average wildfire acreage and the resulting CO2 emissions (in tons) 

between the three alternatives (on BLM land only). As with prescribed fires, emission estimates are based 

on values from the following table. 

Table 3. Comparison of Projected Average Decadal Wildfire Acres and Emissions for the Next Five Decades 

Modeled Decade Alt A 

Acres 

Alt A 

Tons CO2 

Alt B 

Acres 

Alt B 

Tons CO2 

Alt C 

Acres 

Alt C 

Tons CO2 

Decade 1 2,697 87,470 3,101 100,573 2,952 95,740 

Decade 2 2,394 77,643 2,600 84,324 2,495 80,919 

Decade 3 2,932 95,092 2,091 67,816 2,571 83,384 

Decade 4 2,313 75,016 1,956 63,438 1,970 63,892 

Decade 5 2,170 70,378 2,020 65,513 2,210 71,676 

Averages 2,501 81,120 2,354 76,333 2,440 79,122 

A-4 
I I I I I I I I 

I I I I 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 4. FOFEM Modeled Emissions for the Six SAF Forest 

SAF Forest Type Consumption CO2 CO CH4 NOX SO2 PM 

2.5 

PM 

10 

T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac 

SAF 237 - Interior Ponderosa 

Pine 12.39 18.88 1.78 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.17 

SAF 210 - Interior Douglas-fir 17.52 25.22 3.30 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.31 

SAF 218 - Lodgepole Pine 26.39 36.46 5.79 0.27 0.02 0.03 0.45 0.53 

SAF 212 - Western Larch 17.52 25.22 3.30 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.26 0.31 

SAF 206 - Engelmann Spruce -

Subalpine Fir 42.79 56.38 10.86 0.50 0.02 0.04 0.83 0.98 

Average 23.32 32.43 5.00 0.23 0.02 0.02 0.39 0.46 

https://www.firelab.org/project/fofem 

2 Table 60C - SAF Western Forest Cover Types Forest Cover Types of the United States and Canada, F. H. Eyre, editor, Society of 

American Foresters (SAF), 1980. 

Table 5. FOFEM Modeled Emissions for the SAF Forest Type Used to Approximate Low Elevation

Underburns 

SAF Forest Type Consumption CO2 CO CH4 NOX SO2 PM 

2.5 

PM 

10 

T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac T/ac 

SRM 110 - Ponderosa Pine 

Grasslands 12.51 19.09 1.78 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.17 

The following table presents the type of prescribed fire by alternative. 

Table 6. Comparison of Prescribed Fire by Alternative 

Type of Prescribed Fire Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Underburn-low elevation (acres) 2,500 5,250 3,500 

Mixed severity (acres) 1,000 2,250 1,500 

A-5 
350,000 

300,000 

250,000 

N 

0 200,000 ~ 

V\ 

c:: 150,000 0 

I100,000 

50,000 

I I II •• II I •• II 

M inimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum 

Alt A 

Decade 1 

Alt B 

Decade 2  Decade 3  Decade 4  Decade 5 

Alt C 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 7. Comparison of Minimum, Average, and Maximum Levels of Projected Wildfire over the Next Five 

Decades 

The analysis started with the USFS Region 1 fire history datasets (fire_history_nrocky_1889_2003 and 

FireHistory1985_2015). In GIS, these datasets were merged with a selection on the 

fire_history_nrocky_1889_2003 of "FIRE_YEAR < 2003" to avoid double counting fires. Using MODIS 

fire detection datasets for 2016 and 2017, additional fires were identified in the three-county planning 

area. Using the National Interagency Fire Center's NIFC FTP Server added perimeters for the following 

2017 large fires intersecting the three-county planning area: 

• Lolo Peak 

• Liberty 

• Black 

• Sapphire Complex 

• Meyers 

• Rice Ridge 

• Alice 

• Arrastra 

• Whetstone Ridge 

Sequestration via Silviculture 

The following volumes per treatment type were averaged from 17 past projects on BLM land. These 

volumes are presented in thousands of board feet (MBF). 

• Clear Cut: 12.6 MBF/ac. 

• Commercial Thinning: 3.4 MBF/ac. 

• Group Selection: 15.5 MBF/ac. 

• Overstory Removal: 4.1 MBF/ac. 

• Salvage: 11.7 MBF/ac. 

• Single Tree Selection: 5.7 MBF/ac. 

• Seed Tree: 11 MBF/ac. 

A-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

• Shelter Wood: 7.9 MBF/ac. 

Table 7 presents the volume (MBF) of carbon sequestered via silvicultural treatments by decade by 

Alternative. MBF was used as a surrogate for carbon sequestered because it takes into account the final 

merchantable volume that will go into lumber after limbs, bark, and other non-merchantable portions are 

removed. 

Table 7. Acres and Volumes Removed by Decade by Alternative 

Timber Harvest Alt A 

Acres 

Alt A 

MBF 

Removed 

Alt B 

Acres 

Alt B 

MBF 

Removed 

Alt C 

Acres 

Alt C 

MBF 

Removed 

Clearcut with reserves 2,000 25,200 1,000 12,600 500 6,300 

Group selection 1,000 15,500 2,000 31,000 1,250 19,375 

Commercial thinning 1,000 3,400 1,000 3,400 750 2,550 

Totals 4,000 44,100 4,000 47,000 2,500 28,225 

A-7 
--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

Bureau of Land Management 

FOFEM Model Results 

The following are raw model results from FOFEM used in support of the emissions discussion in the air 

quality section. 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SAF 237 - Interior Ponderosa Pine 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 011 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

Flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 23659 14095 37754 

CO 87 3463 3550 

CH 4 11 158 168 

NOX 43 0 43 

SO2 13 11 25 

PM 2.5 35 260 295 

PM 10 41 307 348 

Consumption Duration 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 6.65 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 5.74 00:29:30 

Total: 12.39 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:01:00 60 

1 Hour 00:01:30 90 

10 Hour 00:06:45 405 

100 Hour 00:26:00 1560 

1000 Hour 00:29:15 1755 

Duff 00:19:30 1170 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SAF 210 - Interior Douglas-fir 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 031 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 23978 26469 50448 

CO 88 6503 6591 

CH 4 11 296 307 

NOX 43 0 43 

SO2 13 22 35 

PM 2.5 35 488 523 

PM 10 41 576 617 

Consumption Duration 

A-8 
--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 6.74 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 10.77 00:46:30 

Total: 17.52 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:01:00 60 

1 Hour 00:01:30 90 

10 Hour 00:06:30 390 

100 Hour 00:38:15 2295 

1000 Hour 00:46:15 2775 

Duff 00:39:00 2340 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SAF 218 - Lodgepole Pine 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 091 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 26168 46747 72916 

CO 96 11485 11581 

CH 4 12 524 535 

NOX 47 0 47 

SO2 15 38 53 

PM 2.5 38 862 900 

PM 10 45 1017 1062 

Consumption Duration 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 7.36 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 19.03 01:08:45 

Total: 26.39 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:01:00 60 

1 Hour 00:01:30 90 

10 Hour 00:06:15 375 

100 Hour 00:33:15 1995 

1000 Hour 01:08:30 4110 

Duff 00:58:15 3495 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SAF 212 - Western Larch 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 031 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 23978 26469 50448 

A-9
--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

Bureau of Land Management 

CO 88 6503 6591 

CH 4 11 296 307 

NOX 43 0 43 

SO2 13 22 35 

PM 2.5 35 488 523 

PM 10 41 576 617 

Consumption Duration 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 6.74 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 10.77 00:46:30 

Total: 17.52 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:01:00 60 

1 Hour 00:01:30 90 

10 Hour 00:06:30 390 

100 Hour 00:38:15 2295 

1000 Hour 00:46:15 2775 

Duff 00:39:00 2340 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SAF 206 - Engelmann Spruce - Subalpine Fir 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 061 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 24681 88077 112758 

CO 91 21639 21729 

CH 4 11 987 998 

NOX 44 0 44 

SO2 14 72 86 

PM 2.5 36 1624 1660 

PM 10 43 1916 1959 

Consumption Duration 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 6.94 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 35.85 02:01:30 

Total: 42.79 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:01:00 60 

1 Hour 00:01:30 90 

10 Hour 00:06:00 360 

100 Hour 00:30:45 1845 

1000 Hour 02:01:15 7275 

Duff 01:56:30 6990 

A-10 
--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SRM 110 - Ponderosa Pine Grasslands 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 011 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 24085 14095 38180 

CO 88 3463 3551 

CH 4 11 158 169 

NOX 43 0 43 

SO2 14 11 25 

PM 2.5 35 260 295 

PM 10 42 307 348 

Consumption Duration 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 6.77 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 5.74 00:29:30 

Total: 12.51 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:01:00 60 

1 Hour 00:01:30 90 

10 Hour 00:06:45 405 

100 Hour 00:26:00 1560 

1000 Hour 00:29:15 1755 

Duff 00:19:30 1170 

TITLE: Results of FOFEM model execution on date: 5/22/2018 

FUEL EMISSIONS CALCULATIONS 

Region: InteriorWest 

Cover Type: SRM 304 - Idaho Fescue - Bluebunch Wheatgrass 

Fuel Type: Natural 

Fuel Reference: FOFEM 281 

Emissions -- lb/ac 

flaming smoldering total 

CO 2 3379 0 3379 

CO 12 0 12 

CH 4 2 0 2 

NOX 6 0 6 

SO2 2 0 2 

PM 2.5 5 0 5 

PM 10 6 0 6 

Consumption Duration 

T/ac hour:min:sec 

flaming & short term smoldering: 0.95 00:01:00 

residual smoldering: 0.00 00:00:00 

Total: 0.95 

A-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

Burnout Time 

Component hour:min:sec total seconds 

Litter 00:00:00 0 

1 Hour 00:00:00 0 

10 Hour 00:00:00 0 

100 Hour 00:00:00 0 

1000 Hour 00:00:00 0 

Duff 00:00:00 0 

Grazing Related Emissions 

Methane is the by-product of enteric fermentation, which is a process that occurs in the digestive system 

of ruminant animals. Cattle, along with buffalo, sheep, and goats, are ruminant animals and therefore 

produce methane through enteric fermentation (EPA 2009). Calculations for GHG used the EPA’s 

Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (EPA 2009) equation that quantifies methane emissions 

from cattle. This equation takes into account cattle type and region. The baseline emissions considered the 

domestic livestock for the three-county area and are reported in Table 8. Inventory values were provided 

by the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Table 8. Cattle Inventories and Associated Emissions for Missoula, Powell, and Granite Counties as of 

1/1/2018 

County Cattle (Animal Unit) Animal Unit Month Emissions 

(kg CH4/year) 

Missoula 10,400.00a 124,800.00 716,560.00b 

Powell 38,000.00a 456,000.00 2,618,200.00b 

Granite 18,800.00a 225,600.00 1,295,320.00b 

Total 67,200.00 806,400.00 4,630,080.00 

a Inventory value includes calves 

b Emissions calculated using equation EF = N * F 

EF = CH4 emission factor for a livestock operation 

N = Number of animals of the operation (head) 

F = Individual methane emission factor (68.9 kg CH4/head/year or 152.0 lbs. CH4/head/year), based on Mature Cows cattle type and 

West region. 

The incremental differences in domestic livestock GHG as a function of this RMP include Alternative A, 

the continuation of current management. Under Alternative A, the stocking rate is 6,292 Animal Unit 

Months (AUMs). Alternative B includes a stocking rate of 6,600 AUMs. Alternative C includes a stocking 

rate of 6,014 AUMs. Table 9 summarizes resulting Methane emissions for each alternative, based on the 

emission factor and AUMs above. 

Table 9. Total Estimated Methane Emissions from cattle on BLM land in Missoula, Powell, and Granite 

Counties, per year 

Metric Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

AUM 6,292.00c 6,600.00c 6,014.00c 

Cattle (AU) 524.33 550.00 501.17 

Emissions (kg CH4/year) 36,126.57d 37,895.00d 34,530.38d 

c Animal Unit Months based on 12 month period 

d Emissions calculated using equation EF = N * F 

EF = CH4 emission factor for a livestock operation 

N = Number of animals of the operation (head) 

F = Individual methane emission factor (68.9 kg CH4/head/year or 152.0 lbs. CH4/head/year), based on Mature Cows cattle type and 

West region. 

A-12 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Emissions from each alternative make up less than 1% of the total emissions from the three counties 

combined (Table 10). Methane emissions on BLM land increase from Alternative C to Alternative A and 

from Alternative A to Alternative B in response to rising stocking rates. 

Table 10. Percentage of Total Methane Emissions in Missoula, Powell, and Granite Counties Generated from 

each Alternative 

Alternative % of Total Methane Emissions 

Alternative A 0.78% 

Alternative B 0.82% 

Alternative C 0.75% 

A-13 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix B: Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

Conservation Strategy 

This Strategy consolidates programmatic direction and guidance for riparian and aquatic conservation and 

restoration and conforms to the direction issued on April 18, 2014, for implementation of the Aquatic and 

Riparian Habitat component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy and Aquatic Framework (USFS et al. 

2014). Conservation of aquatic wildlife, plants, and habitats are considered together with broader-scale 

ecosystem components including landscape dynamics, terrestrial source habitats, and riparian and 

hydrologic processes. The proposed Resource Management Plan balances short-term risks with long-term 

benefits through goals, objectives, and management actions designed to move aquatic resources toward 

desired conditions. “A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat Component of the 

Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revision” (USFS et al. 2014) 

provided the basis for this strategy. 

This strategy contains the following key components: 

• utilizing Riparian Conservation Areas and Riparian Management Objectives 

• Specific goals, objectives and standards 

• protection for population strongholds of aquatic Special Status Species and their habitat; 

• provisions for multi-scale analysis and how it will be used in project-level decisions; 

• identification of priority restoration of aquatic and riparian habitats 

• monitoring and adaptive management for determining if the plan is being implemented and is 

achieving desired results 

The BLM adopted the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) (USDA, 1995) in bull trout occupied 

watersheds in an Instruction Memorandum (IM-ID-96-010). The justification for BLM to apply the 

strategy to watersheds containing other special status aquatic species, such as westslope cutthroat trout 

and western toad, is included in BLM Policy Manual 6840 and the BLM Land Use Planning Handbook 

(H-1610-1, Appendix C). 

Riparian Conservations Areas (RCAs) and Riparian Management 

Objectives (RMOs) 

RCAs are portions of watersheds where localized processes influence aquatic habitat condition and where 

proper ecological function is essential for maintenance. RCAs are defined for all permanent and 

intermittent flowing streams, lakes, wetlands, seeps, springs and unstable sites that may influence these 

areas. RCAs may extend into tributaries that contain special status species or habitat, and may also extend 

outside the actual riparian zone when considering sources of stream shading, woody debris and organic 

matter, and delivery paths of sediment and nutrients. Riparian-dependent resources receive management 

emphasis within RCAs. RCA management aims to maintain and restore riparian structure and function, 

benefit fish and other aquatic species, enhance conservation of organisms dependent on the transition 

zone between upslope and instream habitats, and improve connectivity of travel and dispersal corridors 

for terrestrial animals, plants, and aquatic organisms. 

A key aspect of RCA management is the development of RMOs, using watershed or site-specific analyses 

at a site-specific scale, in response to project-specific concerns, and in consideration of: (1) inherent site 

B-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

capability, (2) specific circumstances such as spawning or overwintering habitat, and (3) the condition and 

trend of the riparian area and instream habitat. Establishing RMOs based on site-specific conditions and 

desired ecological characteristics replaces the default numeric standards of INFISH and allows for the 

incorporation of additional indicators, such as those defined in the USFWS bull trout matrix (1998). 

Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) provide criteria to measure the attainment of, or progress 

toward attainment of, riparian goals. These indicators represent standards for ecosystem health and are a 

good starting point to describe the desired condition for fish habitat. RMOs described by INFISH are pool 

frequency, water temperature, large woody debris, bank stability, lower bank angle, and width/depth 

ratio. These RMOs apply when watershed analysis has not been completed. Components of good habitat 

can vary across geographic area and land managers are encouraged to establish site specific RMOs 

through watershed analysis or site-specific analysis. Furthermore, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

developed a matrix describing RMOs for bull trout (USFWS 1998). The indicators used to assess bull 

trout habitat include: water temperature, sediment, chemical contaminants and nutrients, physical barriers, 

substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency and quality, large pools, off-channel habitat, 

refugia, stream channel width/maximum depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, 

change in peak/base flow, increases in drainage networks, road density and location, disturbance history, 

riparian conservation areas and disturbance regimes 

RCAs are not regarded as “no management zones.” Some treatments to vegetation or soils may be 

essential to achieving or maintaining desired RMOs and riparian conditions. 

Determination of RCA widths is made at an appropriate scale determined by project-specific planning and 

analysis, and in response to proposed or ongoing management activities that may affect attainment of 

desired conditions. Determination is supported by knowledge of riparian and aquatic ecology, geomorphic 

processes, resource values, cause-effect relationships, and the hazard-risk scenario of proposed activities. 

RCA widths are to be adequate to provide stream shade and streambank stability, protect the stream from 

non-channelized sediment inputs, and provide organic matter and woody debris. Therefore, RMOs are 

developed to focus on those key elements. 

In the absence of a watershed or site-specific analysis to develop RMOs and specific RCA widths, the 

‘default’ widths recommended in INFISH (USDA 1995) and the Interior Columbia Basin Science 

Assessment or as amended, and literature review (Quigley and Arbelbide 1997) would be applied as 

follows: 

Fish-bearing streams: RCAs shall consist of the stream and the area on each side of the stream 

extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer 

edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian vegetation, or to a distance 

equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet including both 

sides of the stream), whichever is greatest. 

Permanently flowing, non-fish-bearing streams: RCAs shall consist of the stream and the area on 

each side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the 

inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to the outer edges of riparian 

vegetation, or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance 

(600 feet including both sides of the stream), whichever is greatest. 

Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, and landslideprone areas: RCAs shall consist of the body of water or wetland and the area to the outer edges of 

B-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

the riparian vegetation, or to the extent of seasonally saturated soil, or the extent unstable areas, 

or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, Or 150 feet slope distance from the 

edge of the maximum pool elevation of constructed ponds and reservoirs or from the edge of the 

stream channel, wetland, pond or lake, whichever is greatest. 

Specific Goals, Objectives and Standards 

This plan incorporates the riparian goals of INFISH. Standards and guidelines have also been developed 

based on those defined by INFISH. Any modifications to standards and guidelines are intended to help 

clarify the intent of INFISH. Standards and guidelines apply to all RCAs and projects and activities in 

areas outside of RCAs that are identified through NEPA analysis as potentially degrading to RCAs. 

Standards and guidelines for RCAs are used in combination with BMPs, design features, and other 

management actions to achieve desired outcomes for the conservation of aquatic and riparian resources. 

Management goals, objectives and actions can be found in Appendix G (abbreviations in parenthesis 

indicate INFISH standards and guidelines carried forward in this plan). Design features and best 

management practices are in Appendix P. 

B-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

Protecting Aquatic Special Status Species Population Strongholds 

Fish key watersheds are listed and depicted in the table and figure below. Key watersheds emphasize 

protection of imperiled aquatic species populations, and identify habitat networks of existing strongholds 

with robust populations and high quality habitat that will support expansion and recolonization to 

adjacent watersheds. Key watersheds may receive priority over non-key watersheds for restoration work. 

Fish Key

Watershed 

Aquatic resource 

values 

BT prob.

Occur 2040 

(0 EBT) 

Geographical 

area 

Comments 

Arrastra Creek BT, WCT 86% Marcum Flows directly into BTCH (Blackfoot R) 

and one of the main WCT spawning 

areas in this reach of the Blackfoot R 

Middle Upper 

Willow Creek 

BT, WCT, WPM 16-46% Pburg West BT and WPM in Upper Willow Cr. And 

WCT in Scotchman and Miner gulches; 

very small reach of UWC is BLM 

Wales Creek WCT, WPM 19% North Garnets Very strong population of WPM and 

solid ownership of upper portion of 

watershed 

Chamberlain 

Creek 

BT, WCT, WPM 14% North Garnets solid ownership of upper portion of 

watershed; BT and WPM (translocated) 

just downstream from BLM, WCT 97% 

in 1998 

Belmont BT, BTCH, WCT <3% on blm; 

6% way up 

LBC solid ownership of lower portion of 

watershed 

Blackfoot 

River-Buck 

Creek 

BT, BTCH, WCT <3% LBC solid ownership of portion of watershed 

Cottonwood 

Creek 

WCT 27% Hoodoos solid ownership of upper portion of 

watershed 

BT= bull trout; BTCH=bull trout critical habitat; WCT=westslope cutthroat trout; WPM=western pearlshell mussel 

B-4 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Aquatics 

Alternative: All 

State ~ Interstate 

n State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park l_J TNC 

~ StateHwy 

Service 

• County Seat n Private 

Town 

' ' US FWS l I County Boundary 

- l ___ _l WSA 

• W. Pearlshell 

• W. Toad 

--- Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

--- Sufi Trout Critical Habitat 

Miles 

25 

N Coorcl;nate Sysl&m: NAO 1983 Aib&rs + ProJection: Albers 

W E Dat~m.· North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S July. 2018 

Montana / Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

 Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

LJ Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 1 BLM fish key watersheds 

B-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

Methods for selecting Fish Key Watersheds 

Management of Fish Key Watersheds emphasizes conservation of westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, 

and western pearlshell mussel by providing quality habitat, and focusing on the strongest populations 

across the Analysis Area. The primary indicator for population strength was the length of stream occupied 

by a population. Higher consideration was given to watersheds with cutthroat populations which are (or 

nearly) genetically pure. Some key watersheds have less robust populations than others, but were selected 

in order to achieve an adequate distribution and maintaining migratory life histories and connectivity. 

Management considerations for Fish Key Watersheds 

• Coordination with adjacent land managers in describing the strongholds and management 

objectives for their riparian areas and streams. 

• Fish key watersheds may be added or deleted based on new information. 

• Management activities should emphasize achieving or maintaining riparian and aquatic habitat 

values and processes. 

Multi-Scale Analysis 

Generally, no single assessment will adequately address the complex issues facing resource managers 

today. Fine-scale assessments provide context for management and project planning, but they cannot 

adequately address broad patterns and processes, such as habitat conditions for wide-ranging species. 

Broad-scale assessments provide context for policy formulation and for mid- and fine-scale assessment, 

but they cannot by themselves provide detailed information, such as site-specific habitat conditions. 

Together, multi-scale assessments provide comprehensive information for land management. 

Multiple scales of review and assessment provide the context to implement broad-scale decisions within 

individual BLM District and Field Offices. As needed, multi-scale analysis may be used for future plan 

amendments or revisions and for subsequent project-level decisions. Analysis at the appropriate scale is 

generally recognized to provide the needed context for decision making. The four levels of review or 

assessment that may be used for multi-scale analysis are: 

• Broad-scale (e.g., analysis at the basin scale, such as the Interior Columbia River Basin); 

• Mid-scale (e.g., analysis at the subbasin scale, such as the Snake River subbasin); 

• Fine-scale (e.g., analysis at the watershed scale, such as the Salmon Falls Creek Watershed); and 

• Site-scale (e.g., analysis at the stream reach or project scale, such as China Creek). 

Management considerations for multi-scale analysis include the following: 

• Land Use Plans are generally developed and analyzed at the scale of the land management unit, 

normally analogous to a subbasin (or group of subbasins) scale. 

• Subsequent finer-scale analysis, such as to support restoration prioritization and monitoring strategy 

development, should include interagency coordination. 

• Assessments should include evaluation of existing conditions, factors limiting aquatic species 

populations, resource risks, management needs, and restoration opportunities. 

• Information developed at the finer scale should be considered in implementing aquatic conservation 

or restoration measures and used to make adjustments or modifications to appropriate management 

actions, as warranted. 

B-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

• Multi-scale analysis provides a basis for integrating and prioritizing conservation measures for wide 

ranging species. 

Bull Trout 

In July 1998, bull trout was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In 1999, the listing 

was applied to one distinct population segment (DPS) of bull trout within the coterminous United States 

by including bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound populations and Saint Mary-Belly River populations 

with previous listings of three separate distinct population segments of bull trout in the Columbia River, 

Klamath River, and Jarbidge River basins. In 2015, the USFWS published the Recovery Plan for the 

Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (USFWS 2015). The Recovery Plan is organized 

with multi-scale analysis in mind. 

In the Recovery Plan, the scale of the entire DPS for bull trout is discussed, and the ultimate goal of the 

recovery strategy is to manage threats and ensure sufficient distribution and abundance to improve the 

status of bull trout throughout their extant range in the coterminous United States. The distinct population 

segment covers parts of 5 western states. The Plan then tiers down to six recovery units. Each recovery 

unit has its own recovery unit implementation plan. This is analogous to broad-scale analysis at the basin 

scale. 

The recovery unit scale is approximate to the basin scale, such as the upper Columbia River Recovery 

Unit. This is larger than a typical Field Office within a BLM district, as such multiple BLM resource 

management plans could fall under one recovery unit. Within each recovery unit are multiple core areas. 

There are 35 within the Columbia Headwaters Recovery Unit. The Blackfoot River, the Upper Clark Fork 

River, and Rock Creek are core areas with Missoula Field Office BLM managed lands within the 

recovery unit. 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

On January 14, 2010, the USFWS revised its 2005 designation of critical habitat for bull trout (USFWS 

2010). The designation of critical habitat intends to provide sufficient habitat to allow for genetic and life 

history diversity, ensure bull trout are well distributed across habitats, ensure sufficient connectivity 

among populations, and allow for the ability to address threats facing the species. In the planning area, 

critical habitat includes the Upper Clark Fork River, Flint Creek, Rock Creek, and the Blackfoot River (to 

include the lower portions of Belmont and Gold creeks). 

An interagency Memorandum of Understanding for westslope cutthroat trout management (MCTSC 

2007) and the bull trout recovery plan (USFWS 2015) have been developed for the coordinated 

management of these aquatic special-status species. 

Monitoring and Adaptive Management 

Implementation and effectiveness monitoring, in addition to current scientific information such as stream 

temperature modeling, will be used to determine if the RMP is achieving desired watershed, riparian and 

aquatic conditions. Monitoring efforts and data sharing is coordinated with federal, state and tribal 

agencies when possible. Current/relevant monitoring programs are summarized below. Additional 

monitoring will be conducted on a project level/site specific basis as needed to inform decision making 

and allow adjustments to the plan. 

B-7 
Bureau of Land Management 

Special Status Fish Species Habitat Monitoring 

Areas considered high priority for current status and trend monitoring include fish key watersheds and 

fish bearing stream reaches accessible by livestock. Habitat conditions are determined by monitoring the 

most appropriate of the INFISH RMOs and/or the 18 in-channel indicators identified in the NMFS matrix 

of pathways and indicators (1996) and the USFWS bull trout matrix (1998). Of these, 4 main indicators 

(pools, barriers, temperature and sediment), are deemed most important for assessing habitat condition for 

bull trout other sensitive aquatic species. The Conservation Strategy for Bull Trout on USFS lands in 

Western Montana (USDA 2013) provides baseline data for these 4 indicators in bull trout core areas 

adjacent to lands managed by the Missoula BLM. Though the BLM manages a small land base compared 

to adjacent USFS lands, there is a need to compile baseline data for local populations within the Blackfoot 

River, the Upper Clark Fork River, and Rock Creek core areas that align with Missoula Field Office BLM 

managed lands. Baseline data will give the Missoula BLM a better understanding of the current status of 

aquatic resources and provide for a detailed restoration strategy. 

PACFISH/INFISH/Biological Opinions (PIBO) Effectiveness and

Implementation Monitoring 

The Missoula BLM has 8 designated monitoring areas (DMAs) which are sampled using the Multiple 

Indicator Monitoring (MIM) protocol to gauge implementation of management actions. These sites are 

located where stream reaches are accessible by livestock and are monitored annually for grazing 

indicators (streambank alteration, stubble height, streambank stability and cover and woody browse) and 

every 5 years for long term indicators (greenline composition, greenline-to-greenline width, woody 

species height and age class, substrate, residual pool depth and pool frequency, streambank stability and 

cover). There are also 2 reference DMAs that are sampled once every 5 years. MIM monitoring is used to 

identify non-compliance with livestock grazing standards and adjust grazing use. Additional DMAs will 

be established as needed. 

There are two PIBO effectiveness monitoring sites on Missoula BLM lands (Chamberlain and McElwain 

Creeks). These sites are sampled every 5 years by PIBO personnel. Continued PIBO effectiveness 

monitoring is used to evaluate effectiveness of objective implementation in achieving or maintaining 

desired riparian conditions. The PIBO monitoring protocol uses many of the indicators identified in the 

USFWS bull trout matrix (1998b), including data collected on the 4 important indicators mentioned 

above. Further, the PIBO database is expansive and can be used to compare managed and referenced 

conditions in the same geophysical area. This is of particular importance to the Missoula BLM in 

evaluation of broad scale priority watershed monitoring because of the small percent of BLM land 

ownership in the Upper Clark Fork, Flint-Rock and Blackfoot 8-digit HUCs. 

Amphibian Monitoring 

The 1986 Garnet RMP did not include mention of amphibians or aquatic reptiles, so a new list of 

attributes important in defining habitat conditions for these species reflecting recent science and current 

agency guidelines must be developed. In general, amphibians have complex life cycles with life history 

stages that require specific breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitats that may be spatially separate 

(Maxell 2000). Loss or degradation of any one of these components is could result in the decline or local 

extirpation of a species. Impacts for these species will be addressed as appropriate through examining 

changes to the environment that fulfill the habitat needs for each life stage. 

Breeding, foraging, and aquatic overwintering habitat requirements and known migration distances are 

summarized for each of Montana’s amphibian species in Maxell (2000). Thus, regular monitoring of 

amphibian populations on Missoula BLM lands and the habitat requirements summarized in Maxell 

B-8 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

(2000) can be used to identify likely impacts from a variety of anthropogenic activities so that appropriate 

measures can be taken to ensure the persistence of species in this region. Specifically, analysis of these 

impacts need to be included during project level planning. 

In 2005, a report, in conjunction with other federal and private entities in the region, inventorying on the 

herpetofauna in the Missoula BLM planning area was completed (Maxell 2005). This report provides 

important baseline amphibian presence data as well as surveying methods and habitat measurements. In 

addition, the Montana Heritage Program’s Point Observation Database is a great resource for baseline 

amphibian presence data across Montana. It is important that the BLM continue monitoring known 

amphibian sites on Missoula BLM lands in regular intervals and survey new sites as they become known 

to determine trends in amphibian populations. Observations are uploaded to the Montana Heritage 

Database to assist regional land managers and contribute to regional population data. 

B-9 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix C: Forest Vegetation 

Table of Contents 

Chapter 2. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................4 

1.1 SIMPPLLE Modeled Resource Management Plan Alternatives ..................................................................4 

Chapter 2. Forest Vegetation Analysis Area .............................................................................................................5 

2.1 Natural Disturbances...................................................................................................................................6 

2.1.1 Wildfire....................................................................................................................................................6 

2.1.1 Insects ......................................................................................................................................................8 

2.1.2 Root Disease ............................................................................................................................................9 

Chapter 3. Methods .....................................................................................................................................................9 

3.1 Data Sources................................................................................................................................................9 

3.2 SIMPPLLE Modeling.................................................................................................................................10 

3.2.1 AREA File and Logic Adjustments .......................................................................................................11 

3.2.2 Identifying Inherent Error in Remotely Sensed Data Using Ground Surveyed Data.............................12 

3.2.3 Modeling of Natural Range of Variability.............................................................................................12 

3.2.4 Modeling of Alternatives .......................................................................................................................13 

3.3 Comparison of Remotely Sensed Data versus Ground-Surveyed Data......................................................14 

3.4 Vegetative and Disturbance Query Design ................................................................................................15 

3.5 Wildlife Query Design................................................................................................................................19 

3.5.1 American Marten Habitat ......................................................................................................................21 

3.5.2 Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat .......................................................................................................21 

3.5.3 Canada Lynx Multi-Storied Habitat.......................................................................................................22 

3.5.4 Canada Lynx Stand Initiation Habitat....................................................................................................22 

3.5.5 Elk Summer Forage Habitat...................................................................................................................23 

3.5.6 Flammulated Owl Habitat......................................................................................................................24 

3.5.7 Northern Goshawk Habitat ....................................................................................................................24 

Chapter 4. Results......................................................................................................................................................25 

4.1 Existing Condition and Comparison to Natural Range of Variability .......................................................25 

4.1.1 Natural Disturbances..............................................................................................................................25 

4.1.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................27 

4.1.3 Wildlife..................................................................................................................................................29 

4.2 Comparison between Alternatives and Natural Range of Variability ........................................................30 

4.2.1 Natural Disturbances..............................................................................................................................30 

4.2.2 Vegetation..............................................................................................................................................33 

4.2.3 Wildlife..................................................................................................................................................38 

Chapter 5. Validation of Results ..............................................................................................................................50 

Chapter 6. Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................51 

C-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

6.1 Alternative Preference ...............................................................................................................................51 

6.2 Effects of Natural versus Human-Caused Disturbances............................................................................51 

6.3 Effects of Warmer, Drier Climate Conditions............................................................................................52 

6.4 Could Alternatives be Modified to Improve Overall Wildlife Habitat .......................................................52 

References ..................................................................................................................................................................53 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Vicinity............................................................................................................................................6 

Figure 2. Fire History for the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area and Planning Area.............................................7 

Figure 3. Amount of Recent Insect Damage for the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area and BLM Lands.............9 

Figure 4. Smoothed Palmer Drought Severity Index Values to Represent Historic Climate .............................13 

Figure 5. Comparison of Decadal Treatments by Alternative...............................................................................14 

Figure 6. Comparison of Tree Size Data Summarized in VMap versus Field Collected Data............................15 

Figure 7. Comparison of Canopy Cover Data Summarized in VMap versus Field Collected Data...................15 

Figure 8. BLM Habitat Type Groups across the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area.............................................17 

Figure 9. BLM Habitat Type Groups as a Percent of the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area and BLM.............18 

Figure 10. Comparison of NRV and Actual Acres Burned Since the 1880s for BLM Lands Only ....................26 

Figure 11. Comparison of NRV and Actual Acres Burned Since the 1880s for the Forest Vegetation Analysis 

Area....................................................................................................................................................................26 

Figure 12. NRV Levels of Douglas-fir Beetle, Mountain Pine Beetle, and Root Disease on BLM Lands..........27 

Figure 13. Comparison of Size and Canopy Cover Categories between Existing Conditions and NRV for all 

Habitat Type Groups on BLM Lands.............................................................................................................28 

Figure 14. Comparison of Size and Canopy Cover Categories between Existing Conditions and NRV for 

Habitat Type Group 2 (Douglas-fir) on BLM lands ......................................................................................28 

Figure 15. Comparison of Current Levels of Wildlife Habitats against NRV for BLM Lands..........................29 

Figure 16. Comparison of Current Levels of Goshawk Habitat against NRV for BLM Lands .........................30 

Figure 17. Average Levels of Stand-Replacing Fire across Alternatives for Five Decades on BLM Lands......31 

Figure 18. Average Levels of Stand-Replacing Fire across Alternatives for Five Decades for the Forest 

Vegetation Analysis Area .................................................................................................................................31 

Figure 19. All Fire Severities (Minimum/Average/Maximum) Between Alternatives across Five Decades on 

BLM Lands........................................................................................................................................................32 

Figure 20. Average Levels of Douglas-fir Beetle across Alternatives for Five Decades on BLM Lands............33 

Figure 21. Average Levels of Mountain Pine Beetle across Alternatives for Five Decades on BLM Lands......33 

Figure 22. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands ...............................................34 

Figure 23. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-1.............................35 

Figure 24. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-2.............................35 

Figure 25. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-4.............................36 

Figure 26. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-6.............................36 

Figure 27. Successional Classes for Alternative B for Five Decades on BLM Lands and Comparison to 

NRV....................................................................................................................................................................37 

Figure 28. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for the Entire Forest Vegetation Analysis Area.38 

Figure 30. American Marten Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation 

Figure 29. American Marten Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands........................39 

Analysis Area.....................................................................................................................................................39 

Figure 31. Black Backed Woodpecker Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives on BLM Lands........40 

Figure 32. Black Backed Woodpecker Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest 

Vegetation Analysis Area .................................................................................................................................41 

Figure 33. Canada Lynx Multi-Storied Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands.......42 

Figure 34. Lynx Multi-Story Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation 

Analysis Area.....................................................................................................................................................42 

Figure 35. Canada Lynx Stand Initiation Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands ...43 

C-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 36. Lynx Stand Initiation Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation 

Analysis Area.....................................................................................................................................................44 

Figure 37. Elk Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives for BLM Lands ...............................................45 

Figure 38. Elk Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area ......45 

Figure 39. Forested and Non-Forest across the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area...............................................47 

Figure 40. Flammulated Owl Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands........................48 

Figure 41. Flammulated Owl Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation 

Analysis Area.....................................................................................................................................................48 

Figure 42. Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives for the Forest 

Vegetation Analysis Area .................................................................................................................................49 

Figure 43. Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands........50 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Decadal Treatment Activity by Alternative................................................................................................5 

Table 2. Historic Fire Analysis for the Top Forested Biophysical Settings ............................................................7 

Table 3. BLM Habitat Groups .................................................................................................................................16 

Table 4. Successional Classes....................................................................................................................................18 

Table 5. Disturbance Processes Simulated in SIMPPLLE.....................................................................................18 

Table 6. Model Query Design for Wildlife Habitats...............................................................................................20 

Table 7. Non-Forest Distribution by Elevation and Aspect ...................................................................................46 

C-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

Chapter 1. Introduction 

Ecosystem Research Group (ERG) was contracted by the Missoula Field Office (MiFO) of the Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM) to analyze current and future vegetation conditions as affected by three 

proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) alternatives. This analysis utilized geographic information 

systems (GIS) to evaluate vegetation conditions for the MiFO by using U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Region 1 

Vegetation Mapping Program (R1 VMap) data and the USFS SIMPPLLE (SIMulating Patterns and 

Processes at Landscape scaLEs) model. ERG has modeled millions of acres in the Northern Rockies and 

have been involved in modeling in support of five forest plan revisions across the USFS Northern Region. 

A modeling landscape (forest vegetation analysis area) was selected to cover a majority of BLM lands 

across a subset of the Three-County Planning Area. A modeling file was created to approximate the 

vegetation across the landscape and the SIMPPLLE model was utilized to project how forest stands are 

affected by variables such as forest cover type, tree size class, stand density, insect attacks, and risk of 

wildfire. Thus, the model generates a landscape-scale distribution of vegetation communities and the 

amount and severity of natural disturbances over time. This understanding of current and future 

vegetation patterns allows for the identification and distribution of habitats for various wildlife species 

based on known habitat parameters. The model also generates outputs to enable a landscape-scale 

comparison of conditions between RMP management alternatives and mean historic conditions 

characterized by the Natural Range of Variability (NRV). NRV allows for a useful comparison of current 

and future conditions to identify major departures from mean historic conditions. Historic conditions can 

be used as a baseline to identify what a natural range of variability looks like given changing climactic 

conditions. 

Numerous questions are addressed in this analysis including: 

1) What is the current vegetation condition of habitats for six highly specialized wildlife species? 

2) How do existing levels of habitat compare to the natural range of variability conditions? 

3) What is the trend of those habitats over time as affected by RMP alternatives? 

4) Are changing trends in vegetation mostly attributable to natural or human-caused disturbances? 

5) Could the short and long-term conditions of wildlife habitats be improved by modifying RMP 

alternatives? 

6) Are warming, drying climate trends contributing to long-term changes in vegetation and wildlife 

habitats? 

1.1 SIMPPLLE Modeled Resource Management Plan Alternatives 

Forestry treatments proposed under RMP alternatives A, B, and C are shown in Table 1. Alternative A 

represents current management. Management options under each alternative are shown by number of 

acres treated by decade in the MiFO. The SIMPPLLE model was used to model the effects of these 

alternatives for 50 years into the future and to compare results across alternatives. 

C-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 1. Decadal Treatment Activity by Alternative 

Treatment Type Alternative A 

(current)

Acres/

Decade 

Alternative A 

(current)

% of BLM/

Decade 

Alternative 

B 

Acres/

Decade 

Alternative B 

% of BLM/

Decade 

Alternative 

C 

Acres/

Decade 

Alternative C 

% of BLM/

Decade 

Timber Harvests 4,000 2.5% 4,000 2.5% 2,500 1.6% 

Prescribed Fire 3,500 2.2% 7,500 4.7% 5,000 3.1% 

Precommercial Thinning 4,500 2.8% 3,500 2.2% 2,500 1.6% 

Total 12,000 7.5% 15,000 9.4% 10,000 6.3% 

The scientific understanding of how individual stands are affected by tree growth, vegetation succession, 

human or natural disturbance is extensive. Variables such as how tree growth rates are affected by 

stocking levels, or how forest cover types are affected by succession over time, are highly predictable 

when considered at the stand level as compared to the forest or landscape scale. The SIMPPLLE model 

takes those well-accepted individual variables and combines them in to a model that considers how the 

entire range of possible variables affects forest stands at a landscape scale. Whereas stand level variables 

have a small potential for error, when combined, those small errors can add up to a wide range of 

possible future outcomes at a landscape scale. 

When one management alternative is compared against another, the error which may be substantial at 

the landscape scale, is the same between alternatives. For that reason, the differences between 

alternatives modeled using SIMPPLLE can be considered to be a relatively accurate comparison. Simply 

stated, the SIMPPLLE model is best used to compare one alternative against another. Model projections 

should be considered “best guess” based on the best science, but with some uncertainty. 

Chapter 2. Forest Vegetation Analysis Area 

The forest vegetation analysis area used for modeling totals 1,309,250 acres. BLM ownership in the 

SIMPPLLE forest vegetation analysis area totals 159,910 acres (12 percent of the forest vegetation 

analysis area). As Figure 1 illustrates, BLM lands in the three-county Missoula Area Planning Unit occur 

both as large blocks as well as scattered parcels in Missoula, Powell, and Granite Counties. The BLMmanaged lands are arranged in five different geographic areas called Chamberlain, Hoodoos, Lower 

Blackfoot Corridor, Marcum, and Phillipsburg. 

C-5 
Legend 

c:J BLM MiFO Ownership 

D SIMPPLLE Analysis Area 

Three County Planning Area 

c::::J Granite 

-Missoula 

- Powell 

0 5 10 20 Miles 

I 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 1. Project Vicinity 

2.1 Natural Disturbances 

2.1.1 Wildfire 

In addition to predictable rates of tree growth and vegetative succession over time, the SIMPPLLE model 

evaluates the effect of disturbances as influenced by topography, vegetation, and adjacent forest stand 

conditions. Wildfire is the predominant disturbance in the Northern Rockies and wildfires burn at 

different severities and fire return intervals (Arno et al. 2000). Figure 2 shows the amount of wildfire by 

decade at the forest vegetation analysis area and planning area scales since the 1880s, and that there 

has been a substantial increase in acres burned since 2000. 

C-6 
60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

V, 

~ 30,000 

<x: 

20,000 

10,000 

I 

1880s 

_I • 

1910s 1920s 1930s 

 BLM 

_I I _I - I 

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 

 Forest Vegetation Analysis Area 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 2. Fire History for the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area and Planning Area 

Fire history in the planning area has been greatly influenced by wildfire suppression. Prior to suppression 

activities, fire played a much more significant role. There have been many attempts to try to characterize 

the historic fire regimes. (Fischer and Bradley 1987) categorized those different combinations of severity 

and fire return interval as fire regimes. More recently, LANDFIRE1 has created numerous models and 

spatial layers to describe natural ecosystems, also known as biophysical settings (BpS), as they existed 

before Euro-American settlement. Each BpS has a detailed description outlining the successional classes, 

the historic disturbance regimes, and fire return intervals. Using a spatial layer of BpS and corresponding 

descriptions, an assessment was conducted to show the historic fire regimes across the forest vegetation 

analysis area. Table 2 presents all forested BpS with more than 1,000 acres in the forest vegetation 

analysis area and provides the acres, the historic fire return interval (FRI), and the anticipated decadal 

wildfire acres. 

Table 2. Historic Fire Analysis for the Top Forested Biophysical Settings 

BpS Name Acres 

BLM 

Acres 

Analysis 

Area 

Average 

Fire Return 

Interval 

(years) 

Anticipated

Historic Fire 

per Decade

BLM 

Anticipated

Historic Fire 

per Decade

Analysis Area 

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane 

Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland 

53,906 265,605 31 17,389 85,679 

Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest - 

Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-fir 

23,137 169,407 21 11,017 80,670 

Northern Rocky Mountain Ponderosa 

Pine Woodland and Savanna 

24,582 165,425 13 18,909 127,250 

Rocky Mountain Montane Riparian 

Systems 

6,824 84,240 50 1,365 16,848 

1 https://www.landfire.gov/ 

C-7 
Bureau of Land Management 

BpS Name Acres 

BLM 

Acres 

Analysis 

Area 

Average 

Fire Return 

Interval 

(years) 

Anticipated

Historic Fire 

per Decade

BLM 

Anticipated

Historic Fire 

per Decade

Analysis Area 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Dry-Mesic 

Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

15,694 82,687 133 1,180 6,217 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine/Upper 

Montane Riparian Systems 

3,161 63,872 80 395 7,984 

Rocky Mountain Subalpine Mesic-Wet 

Spruce-Fir Forest and Woodland 

6,967 40,061 172 405 2,329 

Northern Rocky Mountain Subalpine 

Woodland and Parkland 

625 39,740 161 39 2,468 

Middle Rocky Mountain Montane 

Douglas-fir Forest and Woodland - Firemaintained Savanna 

3,583 30,734 19 1,886 16,176 

Northern Rocky Mountain Dry-Mesic 

Montane Mixed Conifer Forest - Larch 

4,427 30,323 40 1,107 7,581 

Northern Rocky Mountain Conifer 

Swamp 

437 3,218 400 11 80 

Rocky Mountain Aspen Forest and 

Woodland 

163 1,625 31 53 524 

Total - - - 53,756 353,806 

The BpS assessment shows that BLM lands experienced high levels of fire historically, with upwards of 

34 percent burning per decade. These fires were predominantly low severity (non-lethal) underburns 

that maintained open stands by removing understories periodically. The BpS, Northern Rocky Mountain 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland and Savanna, had a FRI of 13 years, which maintained 55 percent of this type 

in a late/open successional class (LANDFIRE 2008). Successful fire suppression during the 20th century 

resulted in these types missing several FRIs, which allowed fuels to accumulate and understories to 

develop and advance to a point where high-severity fire was likely. This is the situation for much of the 

forest vegetation analysis area, by the year 2000 this accumulation of fuels resulted in large high-severity 

fires because suppression efforts were unsuccessful. 

1.1.1 Insects 

Like wildfires, insect attacks substantially affect forest conditions in the Northern Rockies. In the forest 

vegetation analysis area, most of the effects occur from Douglas-fir beetles and mountain pine beetles. 

Douglas-fir beetles tend to attack and kill the largest trees from stands of Douglas-fir (Furniss and Kegley 

2014). Such attacks do not typically kill the entire stand, but mortality for scattered individual trees is 

common. The effect at the stand level is that the canopy may be opened sufficiently to encourage 

understory development, or if attacks persist over time, the mean size class of the stand may be 

reduced. Snags may be abundant in stands repeatedly attacked by Douglas-fir beetles. Conditions that 

precipitate Douglas-fir beetle attacks include over-stocked stand conditions, a typical condition resulting 

from long-term fire suppression, and prolonged warmer and drier weather (Furniss and Kegley 2014). 

Mountain pine beetles attack stands of lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, or whitebark pine. At endemic 

levels, mountain pine beetles tend to kill small patches of trees within stands. At epidemic levels, 

mountain pine beetles can kill entire stands or combinations of stands at landscape scales. 

C-8 
160,000 

140,000 

120,000 

100,000 

V) 

~ 80,000 u 

<I: 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 ___ 

I_ 

0 --• __ 

I 

Bark Beetles Defoliators Bark Beetles -Defoliators 

• 

BLM Analysis Area 

 1995  2000  2005  2010  2015 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Data on past and current insect activity was provided by USFS Region One Aerial Detection Surveys (ADS) 

(USDA Forest Service 2015). Data are summarized by acres attacked by species in 5-year intervals dating 

back to 1995 (Figure 3). For ease of display, we grouped western pine beetle, mountain pine beetle, 

Douglas-fir beetle, and spruce beetle into a category labeled bark beetles. The defoliators category is 

comprised entirely of western spruce budworm. The past two decades have seen bark beetle rise to 

epidemic levels, affecting 39 percent of BLM lands, and recently fall back to endemic levels. Currently, 

ADS data show that western spruce budworm damage is on the rise. 

Figure 3. Amount of Recent Insect Damage for the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area and BLM Lands 

1.1.2 Root Disease 

Root disease tends to attack and kill small patches of trees, of which Douglas-fir are most vulnerable 

(Wargo and Shaw III 1985). Patches of mortality tend to result in patches of snags surrounded by a circle 

of dense seedling-saplings that typically die from the pathogen before they reach maturity. These 

patches exhibit a “donut” appearance when viewed from the air (i.e., snags surrounded by dense, often 

dying seedling-saplings). Root disease in the forest vegetation analysis area is not a highly common 

disturbance, compared to wildfire or insects. 

Chapter 2. Methods 

2.1 Data Sources 

ERG was provided with a SIMPPLLE modeling file (.AREA) for the forest vegetation analysis area from the 

BLM. The AREA file was primarily attributed using the USFS Region 1 Vegetation VMap data. These data 

are provided Forest by Forest. The SIMPPLLE forest vegetation analysis area was almost completely 

covered by VMap products from the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bitterroot, Lolo, and the Helena-Lewis and 

Clark National Forests. The small portion not covered by VMap, which is predominantly rangeland, was 

C-9 
Bureau of Land Management 

attributed using a Satellite Imagery Landcover Classification, a spatial vegetation layer produced by the 

University of Montana’s Wildlife Spatial Analysis Lab. Elevation and ownership data were also included to 

attribute the AREA file. The BLM maintains a documentation of how the AREA file was attributed. 

2.2 SIMPPLLE Modeling 

SIMPPLLE was initially developed for USFS Region 1 as a management tool to integrate disturbance 

processes and vegetation conditions at a range of spatial scales. 

Specifically, SIMPPLLE’s purpose is to provide the user with the ability to: 

• Simulate ranges of conditions of plant communities and processes that can be expected for 

specific landscapes; 

• Provide a basis for identifying the probability of disturbance processes and vegetation conditions; 

• Simulate future vegetation changes caused by disturbance processes at multiple landscape scales; 

• Simulate how changes in vegetation patterns influence the activity of fire, insect, and disease 

processes; 

• Simulate management treatment alternatives for their impact on disturbance processes and the 

attainment of desired conditions at landscape scales and; 

• Identify areas of high priority for treatments that can help achieve and sustain desired conditions 

at landscape scales2

. 

The SIMPPLLE model was used in the BLM’s RMP revision for two purposes: to calculate NRV and to 

project the landscape conditions of the alternatives for analysis in the revised RMP. The SIMPPLLE model 

is a stochastic vegetation simulation model used to model vegetation conditions into the future. It takes 

a landscape condition at the beginning of a simulation (including past disturbances and treatments) and 

uses logic to grow the landscape through time, while simulating natural processes that might occur on 

that landscape during the simulation, accounting for the effects of those processes. Process occurrences 

in decadal timesteps are dependent on many factors, including the vegetation’s conditions at that 

decade, the occurrence of past disturbance processes at a site, and proximity to other areas 

experiencing a particular process. The logic assumptions in the model are set by the analyst, and come 

from a variety of sources, including expert opinion, empirical data, and modeled data from other forestry 

computer applications such as the Forest Vegetation Simulator. 

One of the main utilities of the model is its stochastic nature. The model is typically run for multiple 

iterations to allow the manager to see a variety of possible projections, look for patterns, and adjust 

management response accordingly. Managers cannot know with precision the specific types, locations, 

and extents of natural disturbances that will occur on the landscape. Therefore, the SIMPPLLE model 

randomly assigns wildfire, insect, and disease processes on the landscape in a manner consistent with 

what is known about the nature of these disturbances (e.g., insect-prone stands have a higher hazard 

and probability of getting an infestation, especially in a dry climate cycle). As with fire, estimates of 

insect and disease activity are modeled, based on our best available information, but associated with a 

2 https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr268.pdf 

C-10 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

moderate level of uncertainty. Though it is reasonable to assume that there will be an increase in insect 

and disease activity over the next five decades (Halofsky et al. 2018). 

The other main utility of the SIMPPLLE model is its spatially interactive nature. A process occurring on 

one site is dependent, to an extent, on the processes that are occurring on adjacent sites. Consider a fire 

event, for example, SIMPPLLE simulates fire by assigning fire starts with a probability consistent with 

what historic records indicate for the area and climate. Each start is then given the opportunity to grow. 

The size the fire grows to is dependent on the surrounding vegetation as well as the historic probability 

that it will end with a weather event (or, if simulating fire suppression, how fast fire line can be created 

by forest conditions). The type of fire that spreads (lethal, semi-lethal, and non-lethal or in SIMPPLLE 

stand replacing, mixed severity, and light severity) is dependent on the vegetation conditions of the site 

(including past disturbance or treatment), the climate assumption for the time step, its elevational 

position relative to the burning fire (uphill, downhill, etc.) and whether it is downwind or not. Again, the 

fire process will stop according to the probability of a weather ending event, successful fire suppression, 

or perhaps it runs up against a natural barrier such as the treeline or a lake. SIMPPLLE will then 

determine the effect of the fire by considering whether there are trees present capable of re-seeding/resprouting the site (in the case of a lethal fire), whether the stand’s fuel conditions have been reduced 

(for semi- or non-lethal fires), and if there has been a change in size and/or species on the site. 

2.2.1 AREA File and Logic Adjustments 

The preliminary review of the SIMPPLLE landscape file for current conditions identified inaccurate data 

that needed to be addressed prior to modeling, including: 

• Overestimation of large trees and underestimation of medium and pole size trees, when compared 

to VMap. 

• Almost all forested areas were characterized as being single-story stands at current condition. 

• All recently burned areas, characterized by VMap as transitional forest, were assigned a nonforested code in SIMPPLLE. 

These inaccuracies would have mischaracterized current forest conditions across the landscape, showing 

stands less prone to fire and insect activity and showing past fires as large expansive grasslands. A GIS 

exercise was conducted to address these concerns in consultation with the BLM Silviculturist and Fire 

Management Specialist for more information on the changes made see the appendix to this report. 

The BLM provided a set of SIMPPLLE logic (.SYSTEMKNOWLEDGE) for succession and disturbances. After 

correcting the SIMPPLLE landscape file to best approximate current conditions, test simulations were run 

and analyzed by the BLM Silviculturist and Fire Management Specialist. Some successional pathways 

were identified as not making sense ecologically. These successional pathways dealt with the time it 

takes a forest stand to move from size class to size class (pole to medium, medium to large) coupled with 

growing understories, and increasing canopy coverage. For example, the default SIMPPLLE logic 

simulated movement of trees in the cool Douglas-fir habitat type group mid-open successional class to a 

mid-closed successional class in one decade. 

These pathways were manually edited to increase the time it takes for some of the drier forest types to 

succeed to larger, denser, and more vertical layering based upon research about succession in similar 

habitat type groups (Arno et al. 1985). Shade intolerant species (ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine and 

C-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

western larch) grow more quickly from seedling/sapling to pole to medium sized trees because they 

have ecologically adapted to grow quickly in full sun. Shade intolerant and mid tolerant species (Douglasfir, subalpine fir) grow more slowly from seedling to pole to medium sized trees because they usually 

become established under an existing tree canopy and are competing for light, water and nutrients from 

the soil. More detail about these pathway adjustments is available in the appendix to this report. 

2.2.2 Identifying Inherent Error in Remotely Sensed Data Using Ground 

Surveyed Data 

Remotely sensed VMap data identifies vegetative attributes for each and every 10-acre cell within the 

planning unit. The obvious advantage of remotely-sensed data is that it provides spatially-explicit, “wallto-wall” data for the entire planning unit. This allows planners to identify “how much” of a given 

vegetative component is present (i.e., old growth) and how individual vegetative components are 

distributed across the planning unit (i.e., areas where insect outbreaks are likely or, where northern 

goshawk nesting habitat occurs). 

The disadvantage of remotely sensed data is that it usually has a certain degree of error. Bitterroot/Lolo 

National Forest VMap data (Ahl and Brown 2017) concluded, based on a comparison to 4.404 groundsurveyed data points, that the accuracy for canopy closure was 84 percent, whereas the accuracy for 

cover type was 71 percent, and the accuracy for size class was only 62 percent. The low level of accuracy 

for size class is of particular concern since many forest planning wildlife issues focus of on the availability 

of certain tree size classes. Based upon other comparable analyses on the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle 

National Forests (Ecosystem Research Group 2012) and Flathead National Forest (Ecosystem Research 

Group 2016) remotely-sensed data typically correctly identifies very young stands (0- to 5-inch DBH 

stands), or large and very large stands (15- to 21-inch DBH, and >21-inch DBH), but often misclassifies 

pole (5- to 9-inch DBH) and mature (9- to 15-inch DBH) stands. 

The BLM provided on-the-ground stand survey data from 2011 and 2012 for 60,810 acres in the 

Chamberlain area. We performed an analysis to compare VMap to the ground-surveyed data by 

intersecting the SIMPPLLE 10-acre cells, which were attributed by VMap, with the stand level BLM data 

using GIS. Based on this comparison, we concluded that VMap is overestimating size class in the large 

size class, but underestimating size class in the medium and very large size classes (Figure 6). We also 

concluded that VMap is underestimating canopy cover in open and moderately open forests (Figure 7). 

The Chamberlain Creek data comprises 39 percent of all BLM land in the analysis area, and thus 

represents a fairly large sample size. No attempt, however, was made to assess if vegetation in the 

Chamberlain Creek area adequately represents vegetative conditions in the other portions of the 

planning unit. Thus, the ground-collected data aren’t necessarily “correct” and the VMap data aren’t 

necessarily “incorrect.” That said, ground-collected data is typically considered more accurate than 

satellite-imagery based data when available. Therefore, these comparisons between satellite-imagery 

based data and ground-surveyed data allow us to identify possible “ranges of error” that will be used in 

the conclusions to qualitatively address the relative reliability of SIMPPLLE-generated outputs. 

2.2.3 Modeling of Natural Range of Variability 

Natural range of variability (NRV) is used as a basis from which to understand ecosystem integrity and 

establish desired future conditions that enhance the resiliency of the landscape. The USFS defines NRV 

as: “the variation of ecological characteristics and processes over scales of time and space that are 

C-12 
<- DRIER ---- WETTER -> 

conditions and processes that could occur in the modern climate regime (Calder et al. 2015). Based on 

past consultation with the Rocky Mountain Research Station (RMRS) in Missoula Montana, we 

determined that the appropriate indicator of past climate was the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) 

(Anderson and Thompson 2013). The PDSI data were translated into a SIMPPLLE input file that varied 

warmer/drier, normal, and cooler/wetter decades. 

Figure 4. Smoothed Palmer Drought Severity Index Values to Represent Historic Climate 

In order to calculate NRV, the current landscape was modeled for 50 decades with no wildfire 

suppression. This was done to overcome the effects of 100 years of fire suppression. Several simulations 

were analyzed to ensure that there was enough time modeled to develop a natural range that was 

reasonable given historic parameters. The resulting landscape at decade 50 was saved and used as the 

starting point for NRV simulations. NRV modeling consisted of 30 simulations for 116 decades each. 

Results were analyzed across all runs for all 116 decadal time steps. The purpose of running 30 

2.2.4 

simulations was to create a robust sample size which provide greater statistical reliability. 

Modeling of Alternatives 

Modeling for treatment alternatives was simulated 30 times for five decades with fire suppression. Three 

iterations of these simulations were made; continued management (alternative A), alternative B, and 

alternative C. Alternative-specific SIMPPLLE treatment schedules were created to apply the following 

levels of silvicultural and prescribed fire treatments for each of the five decades. 

C-13 
6,000 

5,000 

4,000 

Ill 

QI 

3,000 ... 

u 

<t 

2,000 

11. 

1,000 

0 

Clearcut With 

Reserves 

111 111 

Group Selection Commercial 

Thinning 

Timber Harvest 

Underburn Mixed Severity Precommercial 

Prescribed Fire 

Thinning 

Noncommercial 

 Alt A  Alt B  Alt C 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 5. Comparison of Decadal Treatments by Alternative 

Treatment types and amounts were used for purposes of comparing model outputs among alternatives. 

They are not absolute values that BLM is proposing to implement in a given alternative. Treatments were 

also modeled on State of Montana and USFS lands. These treatment types and levels were provided as 

estimates by the BLM. The estimates were based upon information obtained from the Helena-Lewis and 

Clark, Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Flathead National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plans and 

from personal communication with the Southwest Land Office of the Montana Department of Natural 

Resources. For State lands, treatments included 33,750 acres per decade of group selection harvests and 

5,000 acres per decade of precommercial thinning. For USFS lands the following treatments per decade 

were applied: 1,850 acres of group selection, 920 acres of commercial thinning, 920 acres of clearcutswith-reserves, 4,800 acres of low elevation underburns, 2,050 acres of mixed severity prescribed fire, 

and 3,150 acres of precommercial thinning. These State and USFS treatments were held constant 

between the three BLM alternatives. Modeling projected levels of forest management activities on 

adjacent state and federal lands allows managers to determine if BLM alternatives have unexpected 

cumulative impacts when BLM activities are combined with other agency activities on large landscapes 

over time. 

2.3 Comparison of Remotely Sensed Data versus GroundSurveyed Data 

The error inherent in remotely sensed data, discussed in Section 3.2.1, is illustrated in the following 

figures comparing remotely sensed data against filed collected data. 

C-14 
40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 V, 

2: 20,000 ~ 

15,000 

10,000 

_I I I 5,000 

-· 0 

ss Pole Medium Large 

-

Very Large 

-

Tree Size 

 Vmap (Remote Sensed Data)  BLM (Field Collected Data) 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 

25,000 V, 

2: 20,000 u 

<x: 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

- 0  

Non Forest 15-39% 40-69% 70%+ 

Canopy Cover 

 Vmap (Remote Sensed Data)  BLM (Field Collected Data) 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 6. Comparison of Tree Size Data Summarized in VMap versus Field Collected Data 

Figure 7. Comparison of Canopy Cover Data Summarized in VMap versus Field Collected Data 

2.4 Vegetative and Disturbance Query Design 

The BLM tracked six habitat groups for the RMP revision. Table 3 presents how SIMPPLLE’s habitat 

groups translate into BLM’s habitat groups (HTGs), as well as some broad level USFS vegetative groups or 

potential vegetation types (PVT) (Milburn et al. 2015). The BLM HTGs are presented spatially across the 

forest vegetation analysis area in Figure 8. The forest vegetation analysis area and the subset of BLM 

lands within are dominated with HTG-2, at 48 percent and 50 percent, respectively. The second most 

dominant type is HTG-1 comprising 20 percent of BLM lands and 19 percent of forest vegetation analysis 

area. These two HTGs comprise the warm/dry broad PVT and comprise over two thirds of the forest 

vegetation analysis area. Figure 9 presents the distribution of the HTG as a percent of forest vegetation 

analysis area and BLM lands. 

C-15 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 3. BLM Habitat Groups 

R1 Broad PVT 

(USFS 

R1_Broad_PVT) 

Broad Level Habitat Type 

Groups 

(USFS 

R1_Habitat_type_group) 

BLM Mid-Level Habitat 

Type Groups 

(SIMPPLLE HTGs) 

Habitat Type Code3 

Warm Dry Warm Dry Warm Douglas-fir 

(HTG-1) 

(A1, A2, B1) 

110, 130, 140, 141, 142, 160, 

161, 162 

210, 220, 230 

311 

321 

340, 350 

Warm Dry Moderately Warm Dry Cool Douglas-fir 

(HTG-2) 

(B2) 

260, 262, 282, 312, 313 

322, 324 

Warm Dry Moderately Warm Dry Moist Douglas-fir 

(HTG-3) 

(B3, C1, D2) 

220 

260, 261, 281, 283, 292 

360, 323, 330, 370 

Cool Moist Cool Moist Moist subalpine fir 

(HTG-4) 

(D3) 

620, 621, 624, 625, 660, 661, 

662, 670, 740 

Cool Moist Cool Mod Dry 

to Moist 

Cool Wet 

Cold subalpine fir 

(HTG-5) 

(F1) 

663 

640, 690, 691, 720 

Cold 

(capable of WBP) Cold 

Timberline 

Very cold subalpine fir 

(HTG-6) 

(G1, G2, F2) 

820, 830, 831, 832 

860 

850, 870 

3 Pfister, Robert D.; Kovalchik, Bernard L.; Arno, Stephen F.; Presby, Richard C. 1977. Forest habitat types of 

Montana. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-34. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest & Range Experiment Station. 174 p. 

C-16 
0 2.5 5 

I I I I 

10 Miles 

I I 

-• 

• 

Legend 

D BLM MiFO Ownership 

D SIM PPL LE Ana lysis Area 

BLM Habitat Type Groups 

- HTG-1 

HTG-2 

HTG-3 

HTG-4 

- HTG-5 

- HTG-6 

Non-Forest Types 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 8. BLM Habitat Type Groups across the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area 

C-17 
60% 

50% 

40% 

(1l 

Q) 

... 

<x: 

.... 30% 0 

~ 

20% II 10% 

0% 

HTG-1 HTG-2 

-HTG-3 ­ II 

HTG-4 

 BLM  Analysis Area 

·-

I 

HTG-5 HTG-6 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 9. BLM Habitat Type Groups as a Percent of the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area and BLM 

Five vegetative successional classes were selected for tracking vegetation by BLM habitat type group 

(early development, mid-development open canopy, mid-development closed canopy, late-development 

open canopy, and late-development closed canopy (Table 4). SIMPPLLE also simulates and creates 

outputs for several natural disturbances in simulations (Table 5). 

Table 4. Successional Classes 

Successional Class Size/Structure Canopy Cover 

(SIMPPLLE Density) 

Early SS or DEAD 2, 3, 4 

Mid Open Pole, Medium 2, 3 

Mid Open PTS, MTS 2, 3 

Mid Open PMU, MMU 2 

Mid Closed Pole, Medium 4 

Mid Closed PTS, MTS 4 

Mid Closed PMU, MMU 3, 4 

Late Open Large, Very-Large 2, 3 

Late Open LTS, VLTS 2, 3 

Late Open LMU, VLU 2 

Late Closed Large, Very-Large 4 

Late Closed LTS, VLTS 4 

Late Closed LMU, VLMU 3, 4 

Table 5. Disturbance Processes Simulated in SIMPPLLE 

Disturbance Process Description 

LSF Light severity fire 

MSF Mixed severity fire 

SRF Stand replacing fire 

C-18 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Disturbance Process Description 

RD Root disease 

LIGHT-WSBW Light western spruce budworm 

SEVERE-WSBW Severe western spruce budworm 

PP-MPB Ponderosa pine mountain pine beetle 

LIGHT-LP-MPB Light lodgepole pine mountain pine beetle 

SEVERE-LP-MPB Severe lodgepole pine mountain pine beetle 

WP-MPB White pine mountain pine beetle 

WBP-MPB White bark pine mountain pine beetle 

DF-BEETLE Douglas-fir beetle 

SPRUCE BEETLE Spruce beetle 

2.5 Wildlife Query Design 

The distribution, frequency, and intensity of disturbances, vegetation treatments and succession 

modifies vegetative communities—which in turn determines the availability of wildlife habitats. Wildlife 

effects analyses performed at the local or project scale typically consider numerous variables such as 

slope, elevation, aspect, and documented observations. At larger scales, however, the status of many 

wide-ranging species can be effectively analyzed by identifying suitable habitat based on a combination 

of vegetative characteristics using the assumption that “if the habitat is there, the species is there.” For 

wide-ranging species that are reasonably abundant (i.e., not rare or critically imperiled), the research on 

individual species generally confirms that assumption. This approach works best for “specialists” rather 

than “generalists.” For instance, a highly specialized species like the black-backed woodpecker 

predictably occurs only in recent burns (Saab and Dudley 1998). Therefore, a habitat analysis that 

identifies recent wildfire can be said to accurately identify existing habitat. 

Habitats evaluated for specialized species include flammulated owl, black-backed woodpecker, northern 

goshawk nesting habitat, American marten, Canada lynx stand initiation habitat, and Canada lynx multistoried habitat. Rocky Mountain elk, although considered “generalists” (i.e., elk occur over a wide range 

of habitats), are also included because recent research (Proffitt et al. 2015) suggests that the availability 

of summer forage available within natural openings or following wildfires may be limiting elk populations 

as a result of long-term fire suppression, or secondarily a decline in regeneration logging. Thus, in 

densely forested northern Rockies forestlands, openings may represent an increasingly rare habitat 

component. For that reason, elk summer forage is addressed in this analysis. 

The wildlife habitats modeled for this analysis represent “guilds” of species occupying specific habitats 

that are often at risk from human-caused or natural disturbances. Assessing wildlife habitat availability 

for the aforementioned six species provides a good indicator of overall wildlife viability on the MiFO for 

several reasons. Habitat for flammulated owls, identified by large, open stands of ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir, not only supports other species like mountain bluebirds, but also recognizes likely 

declines in habitat availability from past logging and long-term fire suppression. Habitat for martens, 

northern goshawks, and lynx multi-storied also supports many large, dense forest-associated species, 

and recognizes an increasing trend in habitat loss due to high severity wildfires exacerbated by long-term 

fire suppression and warming climate trends (ERG 2016). Habitat for black-backed woodpeckers, 

identified by post-burned stands has undergone some huge shifts in availability in the last several 

decades. In the 1990s, post-burned forests were presumed to be substantially below NRV and at further 

risk from fire salvage logging. By the mid-2010s, post-burn habitat was higher than NRV and at no risk 

from modest levels of fire salvage (ERG 2012, 2016). Because of the uncertainty of future fires and the 

C-19 
Bureau of Land Management 

limited timeframe in which black-backs can utilize burned forests (six years), modeling habitat allows 

managers to determine if forest management strategies are meeting the needs of black-backed 

woodpeckers and other disturbance-dependent species. 

Modeling was not performed for species that are dependent upon dense, mid-seral forests. Other 

analyses (ERG 2012, 2016) have repeatedly shown that forests in the Northern Rockies have an 

overabundance of dense, mid-seral forests, and thus, no concern for species dependent upon this forest 

structure exists. 

While this analysis provides a good indication of how MiFO alternatives meet the needs of general forest 

species, it does not provide any information on how alternatives meet the needs of species that occupy 

micro-sites. Species in this category include the Coeur d’Alene salamander, a lung-less salamander that 

occupies waterfall splash zones, or harlequin ducks, a maritime species that nests in high gradient 

streams free from human disturbance. Broad resource management plan alternative strategies that 

address fire suppression, logging, and prescribed burning have little or no effect on microsite-associated 

species. Rather, those species are typically protected in management plans by site-specific standards 

that address those microsite-associated individual species and are thus outside the scope of this 

analysis. 

Current and historic levels of habitat were evaluated in order to compare how RMP management 

alternatives A, B, and C affect those habitats. Habitats for the aforementioned species are correlated to 

vegetation parameters as affected by forest succession and disturbances (including vegetation 

treatments) over time. These parameters were captured in remotely sensed images and classified using 

R1-VMap polygons. A literature search was conducted to find the best available science correlating 

vegetation characteristics to each wildlife species habitat requirements. Table 6 shows the SIMPPLLE 

parameters used to create model query requirements for each species. See the appendix to this report 

for additional details on the SIMPPLLE parameters presented below. 

Table 6. Model Query Design for Wildlife Habitats 

Species Habitat Type Groups Size Density Other 

American Marten B3, C1, D2, D3, F1, F2 LARGE, LMU, LTS, MEDIUM, MMU, 

MTS, VERY-LARGE, VLMU, VLTS 

3, 4 

Flammulated owl A2, B1, B2 LARGE, LMU, LTS, VERY-LARGE, 

VLMU, VLTS 

2 

Elk B1, B2, B3, C1, D2, D3, 

F1, F2, G1, NF1, NF2, 

NF3, NF4 

CLOSED-HERB, CLOSED-LOWSHRUB, CLUMPED, NF, OPEN-HERB, 

OPEN-LOW-SHRUB, OPEN-MIDSHRUB, OPEN-TALL-SHRUB, 

SCATTERED, SS, UNIFORM 

Black-Backed 

woodpecker 

A2, B1, B2, B3, C1, D2, 

D3, F1, F2, G1, G2 

LARGE, LMU, LTS, MEDIUM, MMU, 

MTS, VERY-LARGE, VLMU, VLTS 

All Burned 

MSF/SRF 

within past 

decade 

Northern 

Goshawk 

A2, B1, B2, B3, C1D2, 

D3, F1, F2 

LARGE, LMU, LTS, VERY-LARGE, 

VLMU, VLTS 

3, 4 

Canada Lynx 

Stand Initiation 

D2, D3, F1, F2, G1 SS 3, 4 >20 years 

old 

Canada Lynx 

Multi-Story 

D2, D3 F1, F2, G1 LARGE, LMU, LTS, MEDIUM, MMU, 

MTS, VERY-LARGE VLMU, VLTS 

3, 4 

C-20 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

2.5.1 American Marten Habitat 

American marten (Martes Americana) prefer moist, mid- to late-seral coniferous forests with moderateto high-canopy closure at mid-to-high elevations (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens are often labeled as an 

interior forest species since they prefer large patches of late-seral forest (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Marten 

prefer high densities of snags and coarse woody debris as complex physical structures near the ground 

provide refuge sites, access to prey, and a protective thermal environment (Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994). 

Martens are subnivean foragers and are thus well suited to deep snow conditions (Ruggiero et al. 1994). 

In the forest vegetation analysis area, all habitat groups, with the exception of warm, dry ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir, were included as potential marten habitat, consistent with locations of published 

research as well as numerous marten observations (Montana Natural Heritage Program 2013;Tomson 

1999;Wasserman et al. 2010). 

2.5.2 Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat 

Black-backed woodpeckers (Picoides arcticus) are associated with boreal and montane coniferous forests 

that have experienced recent burns. Black-backed woodpeckers are known to use three types of forested 

habitat. Primary habitat according to Saab and Dudley (1998) are post-fire areas that have burned within 

one to six years4

. As a secondary habitat, Goggans et al. (1987) found that areas with extensive bark 

beetle outbreaks that hadn’t burned had high densities of nesting black-backed woodpeckers. (Saab and 

Dudley 1998), however, found no comparable high-density nesting use in Montana in similar situations. 

A third category of habitat may include areas of smaller disturbances scattered throughout the forest 

caused by wind throw, ice damage, or other occurrences that produce small patches of dead trees. That 

latter category habitat is more hypothetical than the previous categories. In the absence of wildfire, 

black-backed woodpeckers largely “disappear” and are rarely observed. Biologists suggest that small, 

endemic insect outbreaks may allow black-backed woodpeckers to survive with low reproductive success 

until the next wildfire. Regardless of the woodpecker’s survival strategy during periods of low wildfire, 

the availability of periodic wildfire is essential to survival of the species (Hutto 1995). 

Within post-burned habitats, black-backed woodpeckers select a diverse mixture of conifer species for 

feeding and nesting, none of which are by themselves essential to the species. These include ponderosa 

pine, spruce, western larch, mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), Douglas-fir, and lodgepole pine 

(Dixon and Saab 2016). 

Black-backed woodpeckers nest in snags at high densities in burned areas and can colonize small, 

isolated burns (Hitchcox 1996). Saab and Dudley (1998) found black-backed woodpeckers in burns as 

small as 75 acres in size. Black-backed woodpeckers in the Northern Rockies have a high degree of 

relatedness and can colonize burns across a wide geographic range (Pierson 2009). Hoyt and Hannon 

(2002) concluded that black-backed woodpeckers can colonize new burns from up to 50 kilometers away. 

High-severity stand-replacing wildfires may be particularly important for this species (Hutto 1995), 

though the woodpeckers may also select lower-intensity fires such as controlled burns (Russell et al. 

2009). Black-backed woodpecker abundance was not correlated to burn size, but best correlated to the 

number of snags remaining after fire in the Northern Rockies (Hutto 1995). Forristal (2009) found that 

black-backed woodpeckers showed changing preferences for nest snag characteristics over time and 

4 4 Decadal timesteps in SIMPPLLE modeling of NRV forced the habitat query to look back 10 years instead of six. 

C-21 
Bureau of Land Management 

recommended that the full range of snag species and diameters should be a component of maintaining 

black-backed nest habitat. At the plot scale, snag density was the most important predictor of nest-site 

occurrence, with increasing snag numbers greater than 9 inches DBH associated with black-backed 

woodpecker nesting. In the Blue Mountains located in northeastern Oregon, mean DBH of nest trees was 

37 cm (14.6 in) (n = 15), and trees were generally recently dead (less than 5 years) (Bull et al. 1986). Hejl 

et al. (2000) concluded that salvage logging eliminated black-backed woodpecker habitat, even when 

some unburned trees were left. 

2.5.3 Canada Lynx Multi-Storied Habitat 

The Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Potential lynx habitat is generally described as moist, boreal coniferous vegetation with cold, 

snowy winters that provide a prey base of snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus). Additionally, sites that 

typically have deep snow depths provide lynx, with their big feet, a competitive advantage over other 

mid-sized predators (e.g., coyotes and bobcats) (Koehler and Aubry 1994). Primary vegetation in the 

Northern Rockies that provides for snowshoe hares, and thus lynx, includes subalpine fir and Engelmann 

spruce forest types as well as mesic lodgepole pine and aspen forests at mid to high elevations (Koehler 

and Aubry 1994). 

Lynx multi-storied hare habitat includes older forest stands that provide dense coniferous understories 

that maximize cover and browse for hares at varying snow depths throughout the winter. Only multistoried stands where tree limbs typically touch the snowline and where the understory is dense provide 

winter habitat for snowshoe hares. Horizontal cover found in multistory forest stands is a major factor 

affecting winter hare densities. 

During winter, lynx foraged primarily within a narrow elevation band composed of mature, large 

diameter trees greater than approximately 11 inches DBH with higher horizontal cover (Squires et al. 

2010), more abundant hares, and deeper snow than is available elsewhere. These preferred forests 

included spruce-fir in the overstory and midstory forming a multistory structure with high horizontal 

cover from conifer boughs touching the snow surface. During winter, the primary component of 

horizontal cover is subalpine fir followed by other sapling tree densities. Sapling and other tree densities 

in forests used by lynx during winter were about 1,000 stems per acre for saplings and about 280 stems 

per acre for other trees (Squires et al. 2010). 

Squires et al. (2008) identified two relatively high density reproducing lynx populations: one located in 

the Yaak drainage on the Kootenai National Forest, and one located in the Seeley-Swan area on the 

Flathead and Lolo National Forests. Within the forest vegetation analysis area, the Chamberlain subunits 

is an extension of the latter subpopulation. Both subunits have substantial percentages of high elevation, 

moist spruce-fir lynx habitat. Scattered individuals have been located over much of the remainder of 

northwestern Montana west of the continental divide, but at much lower densities and with little or no 

evidence of successful reproduction. 

2.5.4 Canada Lynx Stand Initiation Habitat 

Stand initiation lynx habitat is made up of young, dense stands of saplings and shrubs that have 

regenerated after a disturbance such as a timber harvest or stand-replacing wildfire. These stands 

provide adequate cover and browse for reproduction and survival of snowshoe hares. On average, forest 

stands begin to provide winter habitat for snowshoe hares 15 to 20 years after disturbance (Koehler and 

C-22 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Aubry 1994), once trees and shrubs are tall enough to extend above the snow (Koehler and Brittell 

1990), and will often continue to provide habitat for another 20 to 25 years unless they are thinned. That 

timeframe can vary depending upon local site productivity. On highly productive sites, that timeframe 

from seedlings to poles can be relatively short (i.e., less than 20 years). On high, dry relatively 

unproductive sites, that timeframe can be substantially longer. Denser stands appear to offer better 

habitat conditions for snowshoe hares; stands with less than 1,000 stems per acre are insufficiently 

dense to provide high quality habitat for hares (Griffin and Mills 2007). 

2.5.5 Elk Summer Forage Habitat 

A century of research on Rocky Mountain elk (Cervus canadensis) consistently concluded that the 

limiting factor on elk populations was access to winter ranges containing substantial amounts of forage 

(Toweill and Thomas 2002). Forage availability on summer range was considered abundant under all 

combinations of disturbance or lack thereof and not limiting to populations. Concerns regarding summer 

range were generally focused on retaining adequate security (Hillis et al. 1991) designed to slow the 

hunter harvest and retain branch-antlered bulls in the post-season population. 

In the 1970s, elk populations in the Selway herd unit of northern Idaho, an area characterized by dense 

coniferous forests mostly within a designated wilderness, began to decline. That decline has continued 

into the 2010s to the extent that populations today are only approximately 10 percent of what they were 

prior to the 1970s. Elk populations within other northern Idaho herd units have not shown declines; 

however, those herd units contained substantial amounts of natural openings, agricultural lands, or 

industrial forest lands. This suggested that within herd units dominated by dense forest and a lack of 

natural disturbance, limited summer range forage could be the cause of population declines. While elk 

populations in the forest vegetation analysis area have not suffered the declines that the Selway has, 

forest conditions are similar in some areas in that natural openings are scarce and coniferous forests are 

dense unless maintained by fire or timber harvest. 

Ongoing research (Proffitt et al. 2015) in the Bitterroot National Forest suggests forage availability on the 

summer range does affect elk populations, as much or greater than winter range forage availability. 

Other recent studies have also indicated that management can be improved by integrating nutritional 

ecology on elk summer range (Cook et al. 2001). For example, many of the important food plants, 

including shrubs such as varnishleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus), serviceberry (Amelanchier 

alnifolia), and Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), as well as grasses, grow only in forest openings or 

in forests with a more open canopy. Controlled burns or other vegetation management strategies aimed 

at creating a mosaic of forest conditions can be especially beneficial by providing abundant food 

resources in close proximity to cover. Furthermore, Proffitt et al. (2015) suggest that a lack of 

disturbance due to long-term wildfire suppression was largely responsible for population declines in 

some areas. Proffitt et al. (2015) also studied effects of elk calf survival from predation. Although wolf 

populations in their study area were high, they found substantially greater predation from mountain 

lions than from wolves. 

The BLM co-funded two elk studies in the Chamberlain Creek subunit including one in 1977 to 1983, and 

another in 1993 to 1996 (Burcham et al. 1999). Although the studies addressed multiple topics, they 

concluded that summer elk forage occurred within a small percentage of non-forest and in postdisturbance conditions within forested stands. They attributed much of that disturbance to wildfires that 

occurred 40 to 90 years earlier (1880s to the 1930s, based on the start of data collection in 1977). 

C-23 
Bureau of Land Management 

Current historical fire records suggest that although wildfires were common in the vicinity in the period 

described by Burcham et al. (1999), none of those fires burned on BLM lands. This suggests that summer 

forage as affected by disturbance in the Chamberlain subunit, is an important variable to assess in the 

planning process. 

2.5.6 Flammulated Owl Habitat 

Flammulated owls (Psiloscops flammeolus) are strongly associated with mature xeric ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir stands in montane forests with snags (Hays and Rodrick 2004;Hayward and Verner 

1994;Samson 2006b). While they prefer ponderosa pine forests, flammulated owls will also use open 

Douglas-fir forests (Marti 1997). Home ranges composed of at least 75 percent old ponderosa 

pine/Douglas-fir forest were occupied more continuously than home ranges consisting of less than 

75 percent in this forest type (Linkhart et al. 1998;Reynolds R.T. and Linkhart 1992). Within the forest 

vegetation analysis area, ponderosa pine-dominated forests are relatively abundant on the western 

portion (i.e., Lower Blackfoot corridor) but become uncommon on the central and eastern portions (i.e., 

Hoodoos and Philipsburg areas). 

Flammulated owls prefer open canopy (less than 40 percent cover) (Samson 2006a) and avoid dense 

young stands of Douglas-fir (Wright et al. 1997). Flammulated owls also avoid clear-cuts and intensively 

cutover areas, but will use thinned or selectively logged stands. Research (Hayward and Verner 1994) 

suggests that flammulated owls require open understories to successfully forage for moths and 

grasshoppers. Since few existing mature ponderosa pine stands are open (less than 40 percent crown 

closure) due to long-term fire exclusion, flammulated owls may be selecting dense stands simply 

because those are all that remain in most front country areas. 

Flammulated owls are secondary cavity nesters that often use abandoned pileated woodpecker 

(Dryocopus pileatus) or northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) cavities as nest sites. These may be reused for 

several years (McCallum 1994). These nest sites may have pockets of dense Douglas-fir near the nest 

that are used for roosting (Wright 1996). Some researchers suggest that this owl may be “semi-colonial,” 

based on observations of clusters of calling owls with large "silent" areas between them (McCallum 

1994); however, this may be a function of habitat patchiness (Howie and Ritcey 1987). Observations of 

clusters of breeding owls indicates that they may not reproduce if patches of suitable habitat are small 

and isolated or if open patches for feeding and dense young patches for roosting are not in close 

proximity to large snags for nesting (Wright 1996). 

The query for flammulated owls assumes that highly suitable nesting habitat is limited to forested stands 

with an average DBH greater than 15 inches and crown closures of less than 40 percent. Based upon 

adjacent Forest Service FIA data, forests with an average DBH greater than 15 inches contain sufficient 

snags to provide habitat for the species that excavate nesting cavities used by flammulated owls. 

2.5.7 Northern Goshawk Habitat 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) typically use mature 

forests or larger trees for nesting habitat; however, they are considered a forest habitat generalist at 

larger spatial scales (USDI 1998b). Northern goshawks typically select nest sites in mature coniferous 

forests with relatively closed canopies (50 to 90 percent) and open, multi-storied stands (Brewer et al. 

2007;Kennedy 2003;Reynolds Richard T. et al. 2008;Reynolds Richard T. et al. 1992) of at least 30 acres or 

greater (Reynolds Richard T. et al. 1994). However, northern goshawks are not limited to continuous 

C-24 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

mature stands (USDI 1998a). Greenwald et al. (2005) reviewed all telemetry-based studies of northern 

goshawks across North America, including a wide range of habitats across the U.S., and found that 

goshawks generally select stands based on structure, but that selection varied by forest type. For 

example, in lodgepole pine stands, canopy closure ranged from a mean of 34 to 80 percent and a size of 

9- to 15-inch DBH, whereas trees up to 20 inches DBH were selected in mixed species stands. Northern 

goshawks are adept at finding dense, multi-storied microsites suitable for nesting within dry, cold 

lodgepole pine-dominated stands that otherwise do not appear suitable for nesting (Squires and 

Ruggiero 1996). Fledgling success in Montana was higher in landscapes that contained a mix of open and 

dense forested stands than in landscapes with only dense stands (Clough 2000). Northern goshawks use 

all cover types and age classes for foraging habitat (Kennedy 2003). 

The data suggest that there is a preference for large (10 to 15-inch DBH and 15+-inch DBH), moderately 

dense (40 to 60 percent crown closure), and dense (60 percent plus crown closures) stands. Interestingly, 

a substantial percentage of nests occur in forest stands normally considered too small (less than 10-inch 

DBH) or in stands too open (less than 40 percent crown closure) for nesting northern goshawks. This 

phenomenon is typical for northern goshawk nest distribution and explains why McGrath et al. (2003) 

had difficulty in predicting suitable nest locations from random sites in a blind sample test. McGrath et 

al. (2003) concluded from data collected at the nest that such small stands (0- to 5-inch DBH) or very 

open stands (10 to 40 percent crown closure) often contain micro-sites of large, dense trees (resulting 

from past mixed-severity wildfires) that are undetectable at the stand scale. 

While research indicates the query design for northern goshawks could include stands as small as 

10 inches DBH, trees in the 10- to 15-inch DBH class were ignored as possible habitat in this analysis, 

simply to generate a more conservative estimate of nesting habitat. 

Chapter 3. Results 

SIMPPLLE modeling performed in support of the RMP revision analyzed the 1.3-million-acre forest 

vegetation analysis area to allow disturbance processes to spread across the landscape regardless of 

ownership and to enable assessment of cumulative environmental consequences. Results are primarily 

presented for the BLM ownership in order to compare the effects of the three alternatives analyzed in 

the RMP. 

3.1 Existing Condition and Comparison to Natural Range of 

Variability 

3.1.1 Natural Disturbances 

Figure 10 and Figure 11 show the comparison of SIMPPLLE-generated NRV for wildfire compared against 

actual acres burned since the 1880s at the BLM lands and forest vegetation analysis area scales. Prior to 

2000, only 1,612 (1 percent) acres of BLM lands burned, and from 2000 to 2017 that increased to 

4,804 acres burned. According to modeled NRV, fire return intervals were more frequent and a greater 

number of acres burned compared to recent years. It can be concluded that 100+ years of fire 

suppression has led to many areas missing one to several natural fire return intervals, resulting in 

increased stand densities and an increased risk of high-severity fire. Figure 10 shows how successful fire 

suppression has been on blocks of BLM lands—the forest vegetation analysis area has seen significantly 

C-25 
10,000 

9,000 

8,000 

7,000 

6,000 

V, 

~ 5,000 u 

<l: 

4,000 

3,000 

2,000 

1,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

V, 

~ 40,000 

<l: 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

73,230 acres 

- ---- -- --- ..J_ - - J_ 1880s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 

- Fire History - - NRV Min/Max - - NRV Mean 

273,460 acres 

.. -1-~ -1- -1- -1-

1880s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 

- Fire History - - NRV Min/Max - - NRV Mean 

Bureau of Land Management 

higher levels of wildfire when compared to BLM lands. Yet similar to BLM lands, the 2000s and 2010s 

stand out as decades with high levels of wildfire within the forest vegetation analysis area. 

Figure 10. Comparison of NRV and Actual Acres Burned Since the 1880s for BLM Lands Only 

Figure 11. Comparison of NRV and Actual Acres Burned Since the 1880s for the Forest Vegetation Analysis 

Area 

C-26 
VI 

QI 

... 

... 

ct 

60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

Decades in NRV 

--OF-BEETLE Average --ROOT-DISEASE Average - MPB Average 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 12 shows modeled levels of Douglas-fir beetle, mountain pine beetle, and root disease for BLM 

lands across all 116 decades of the modeled NRV. The periodic spikes in Douglas-fir beetle and mountain 

pine beetle correspond to a shift in climate settings from cooler wetter or normal to warmer drier. These 

spikes in bark beetle activity approximate and are corroborated by the levels of bark beetles mapped by 

ADS in 2010. 

Figure 12. NRV Levels of Douglas-fir Beetle, Mountain Pine Beetle, and Root Disease on BLM Lands 

3.1.2 Vegetation 

Existing forest successional classes were compared to NRV to investigate if any classes are presently 

outside of NRV (Figure 13 and Figure 14). Currently, all successional classes on BLM lands are within NRV 

with mid-open stands plotting near the minimum range of NRV and mid-closed and late-closed stands 

plotting in the higher range. 

Aforementioned data deficiencies (see Section 2.2.2) suggest we can qualitatively adjust the size class 

and canopy cover categories to more accurately compare current conditions to NRV. For instance, in 

HTG-2, the 22,000 acres of late open stands as derived from VMap data is in the high end of NRV yet the 

cross-check with the ground-based inventory suggest these late open stands could be closer to 

9,000 acres and toward the low end of NRV. Conversely, the current 42,000 acres of late closed stands as 

derived from VMap are at the low end of NRV and could actually be at the upper end of NRV. 

C-27 
70,000 

60,000 

50,000 

"' 40,000 

.. 

QI • ... 

<( 

30,000 

20,000 

~ 

+ 

II 

10,000 

0 

I • I 1 ... 

t=IJ===J ~ 

I 

Early Mid Open M id Closed Late Open Late Closed 

Tl NRV Max/Min D NRV Quarti les 2 & 3 • NRV Average  Current 

100,000 

90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 -

"' QI 

50,000 .. ... • ,,,, -

<( 

-  

40,000 -

II 

30,000 

20,000 I • I II 

I I 

10,000 I • I I • I J_ 

1 

0 

Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

l T NRV Max/Min D NRV Quartiles 2 & 3 • NRV Average Current 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 13. Comparison of Size and Canopy Cover Categories between Existing Conditions and NRV for all

Habitat Type Groups on BLM Lands5 

Figure 14. Comparison of Size and Canopy Cover Categories between Existing Conditions and NRV for 

Habitat Type Group 2 (Douglas-fir) on BLM lands 

5 NRV is shown for the average, the second and third quartiles, and the minimums and maximums across 30 

simulations for 116 timesteps 

C-28 
60,000 

50,000 

40,000 

"' QI 30,000 .. 

u 

<t 

l i 

I  I 

I • I I ... I 

20,000 

II 

~•- 10,000 I ~ I 

I • I l 

I I l 

0 • 

BBWP Elk Flam Lynx MS Lynx SI Marten 

T 1 NRV Max/Min D NRV Quartiles 2 & 3 • NRV Average  Current 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

3.1.3 Wildlife 

Current levels of habitat for black-backed woodpecker, elk summer forage, flammulated owl, lynx multistoried (MS), lynx stand initiation (SI), and marten habitat were compared against NRV for BLM lands 

(Figure 15). All habitats analyzed are within their respective NRV. 

Black-backed woodpecker habitat is at the low end of NRV due to low levels of recent stand replacing 

disturbances. On the other hand, this lack of stand replacing disturbances benefits Canada lynx multistory and marten habitats, both in the upper range of NRV. Flammulated owl habitat is currently shown 

to be in the upper range of NRV although this is most likely not the case on the ground (see Section 

3.2.3.6) due to the overestimation of late/open stands by VMap. 

Figure 16 presents the same results as Figure 15, but for northern goshawk habitat only. This was done 

because the high levels of habitat would have masked the detail in the results of the other species, each 

with habitat far below northern goshawk. Northern goshawk habitat is currently in the mid-range of 

NRV. 

Figure 15. Comparison of Current Levels of Wildlife Habitats against NRV for BLM Lands 

C-29 
100,000 

90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 ... Ill 

QI 50,000 ... .., 

<t  

40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 

Goshawk 

T 1 NRV Max/ Min  NRV Quartiles 2 & 3 • NRV Average  Current 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 16. Comparison of Current Levels of Goshawk Habitat against NRV for BLM Lands 

3.2 Comparison between Alternatives and Natural Range of 

Variability 

The following discussion compares natural disturbances, vegetative conditions, and wildlife habitats by 

alternative against NRV. 

3.2.1 Natural Disturbances 

The model projects a relatively small amount of stand replacing wildfire throughout the five-decade 

period on BLM lands — only about 10,000 acres are projected to burn at stand-replacing intensity during 

that period under any RMP alternative (Figure 17). This is unexpected since other modeling performed 

for neighboring areas, including the Kootenai National Forest, Idaho-Panhandle National Forests, and 

Flathead National Forest, all showed considerable increases in wildfire especially when the model was 

run with warmer, drier climate conditions over a period of 50 years (Ecosystem Research Group 2012, 

2016). No finer-scale modeling was performed that might explain this outcome. Without performing 

additional analysis, we suggest that this result has some uncertainty. The comparative results outweigh 

the predictive results from SIMPPLLE. 

Figure 19 presents a comparison of alternatives for all wildfire across five decades into the future. This 

figure shows minimum, average, and maximum wildfire acres across the 30 simulations for each 

alternative. Alternative B results in less wildfire on average, but also has single simulations that show 

more wildfire than alternatives A and C. Figure 18 presents average levels of stand replacing fire across 

alternatives for five decades for the entire forest vegetation analysis area. The reduced levels of fire on 

BLM lands under Alternative B are not noticeable at the forest vegetation analysis area scale. 

C-30 
3,000 

2,500 

2,000 

"' GI 

.. 

"" ct: 

1,500 

1,000 

500 

0 

Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 

 AltA  AltB  AltC 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decad,e 4 Decade 5 

 AltA  AltB  AltC 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 17. Average Levels of Stand-Replacing Fire across Alternatives for Five Decades on BLM Lands 

Figure 18. Average Levels of Stand-Replacing Fire across Alternatives for Five Decades for the Forest 

Vegetation Analysis Area 

C-31 
12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

V) 

~ 6,000 u 

<t: 

4,000 

2,000 

Ill Ill l  I Ill I I 11 Ill 

Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum Minimum Average Maximum 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Decade 1 Decade 2  Decade 3  Decade 4  Decade 5 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 19. All Fire Severities (Minimum/Average/Maximum) Between Alternatives across Five Decades on

BLM Lands 

The model projects that approximately 30,000 acres will be attacked by insects per decade across BLM 

ownership (Figure 20). While that rate of attacks stays relatively constant though the five-decade period, 

presumably a lot of those attacks will occur repeatedly on the same acre. Several variables suggest this 

modeled outcome could be plausible including the high percentage of Douglas-fir cover type in the 

forest vegetation analysis area, high stand densities, and the aforementioned “bubble” of pole/mature 

size classes which provide a substantial “food source” for sustained attacks, and the warmer, drier 

climate conditions used for modeling. That said, given the large number of variables that affect beetle 

epidemics (overwinter mortality, short-term climate perturbations, etc.), it is important to remember 

that modeled outputs are projections and there is a level of uncertainty that projections will become 

reality. 

Similar to Douglas-fir beetle, acres affected by mountain pine beetle increase when warmer, drier 

decades are modeled (Figure 21). After epidemic levels at decade one, the damage is reduced by over 

50 percent for the remainder of the modeling time period. Alternative B proposes more acres of forest 

treatment and therefore out performs the other alternatives at reducing the area affected by mountain 

pine beetle. 

C-32 
50,000 

45,000 

40,000 

35,000 

30,000 VI 

QI 

.. ... 25,000 

ct: 

20,000 

15,000 

10,000 

5,000 

0 

Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 

 Alt A  AltR  AltC 

25,000 

20,000 

15,000 VI 

(1) 

... 

u 

<t: 

10,000 

5,000 

0 I II I I 

Decade 1 Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 

AltA  AltB  AltC 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 20. Average Levels of Douglas-fir Beetle across Alternatives for Five Decades on BLM Lands 

Figure 21. Average Levels of Mountain Pine Beetle across Alternatives for Five Decades on BLM Lands 

3.2.2 Vegetation 

Figure 22 presents results for successional classes for all BLM lands across five decades under alternative 

B and provides a comparison to NRV. All of the charts in this section present results for alternative B 

because there is a lack of significant variation between alternatives. All successional classes are within 

NRV and no alternative moves any successional classes near the upper or lower limits of NRV. 

Throughout the 50-year period all successional classes move toward the midrange of NRV except for the 

C-33 
90,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 T 

I 

I I 

50,000 ~ 

f! 

~ 

I I I I - - --- - - - - - - - - - _l - - - - - 40,000 

T - -- - - - - - - -.. - - - - 1- - - - - 30,000 

20,000 

- - - . ~ 

1 

I I 

I I I 

1 1 - ,-- -----, - I .1 

- - - - - - - I I 

I I 

10,000 

- - _ ,!.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

T 1 Max/Min = Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Bureau of Land Management 

late closed habitat type group, which maintains at the lower end of NRV. Refer to Section 2.3 for a 

discussion of the potential overestimation of larger and more open stands embedded in these results. 

The four figures that follow Figure 22 present the same information but show results for the four 

predominant habitat type groups across BLM lands: HTG-1 (warm Douglas-fir), HTG-2 (cool Douglas-fir), 

HTG-4 (moist subalpine fir), and HTG-6 (very cold subalpine fir, capable of whitebark pine). These four 

groups combined represent 93 percent of all the BLM lands across the forest vegetation analysis area. 

HTG-2 is the largest habitat group for BLM lands and was used as a barometer for test simulations during 

logic adjustments. The following charts present the results across 30 simulations, for five decades, by 

alternative. The minimum, maximum, and average across 30 simulations are presented, as well as the 

second and third quartiles which contain 50 percent of the results closest to the mean by decade. 

Figure 22. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands 

C-34 
14,000 1<1,170 10,Gou ~z n-o---

12,000 

- - -- - - - 10,000 • 

- - - -- - - - - - - - - - 8,000 

"' !!! 

~ 

6,000 

T 

- - - .. - - - I - T -

T ~ I I 

I 

• 

- - - - - - - 1 

1 

4,000 ~ 

• 1 - - - - - - - 2,000 - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 

Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

Tl Max/Min c::::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/mn 

60,000 - - - - - --

50,000 

40,000 

T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "' !!! 30,000 

~ 

20,000 =l = - - - - - - - - - - --- - = = = = T 

- - - - - - -

10,000 

• 

-~ - I I - - • .L 

-~ 

~ 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 - - - - --- - - - - --- Early Mid Open M id Closed Late Open Late Closed 

Tl Max/Min c::::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 23. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-1 

Figure 24. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-2 

C-35 
12,000 ------- 1'1~16'0 i8~0T0 ___ 

-------

10,000 i 

I • I I I 

8,000 - - - r - - - .L 

- - - ... - - - "' 

~ 6,000 

~ 

4,000 

--- L- - -

-i- I I 

I ... I - - - - -1- _ .., - t - I I l I I I 

I ... I I • I 1 - - 2,000 l ------- ------- ------- 0 ------- ------- Early Mid Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

Tl Max/Min c==J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

5,000 ~-----<,,,79 ---- 0----------<5~5,eo,u"" ___________________________ ----- ls,220 ___ _ 

4,500 +---------------------------------------------+------

4,000 +---------------------------t--------------------+------

3,500 -l------------~ ----- -----f--~-7-------------l 

3,000 +-----+----------+--------ti-----~ 

"' f! 2,500 +-----+----------+--------I 

~ 

• • 

2,000 +-----+---------i 

1,500 ~ 

1---~. ----1 

----·--

• 

1,000 +-----+----------+------------t----------+-----~---~-----

500 -j-----T_----------------_--_- _-'--_ _- _- _------ -j- l -_--------------

O +------------------------------- -- - -- =~~~~-------------~ 

Early M id Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

Tl Max/Min c==J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 25. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-4 

Figure 26. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for All BLM Lands on HTG-6 

C-36 
90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 

V\ 50,000 

~ u 

<t: 40,000 

30,000 

20,000 

10,000 

0 --111. 

Early Dev Mid Closed 

NRV Min/Max 

-IU 

Mid Open Late Closed Late Open 

 TSO TS 1 TS 2  TS 3  TS 4  TS 5 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

A review of current successional classes compared to NRV by HTG offers some differing results between 

the warmer/drier and the colder/wetter HTGs. The warmer/drier HTGs (1 and 2) show the mid open 

stands are in the lower end of NRV currently, with an accumulation of mid and late closed stands. HTG-6 

shows that late closed stands are currently below the NRV and over five decades under alternative B late 

closed stands shift to within NRV. These colder/wetter HTGs would have historically had held a larger 

percent of the area in a late closed class due to the nature of the mix of shade tolerant species coupled 

with the infrequent fire return intervals (LF BpS Descriptions). The overall lack of late development 

currently in HTG-6 is most likely attributable to 1970 and 1980s era logging, which would also explain the 

abundance of mid development stands currently. Successional classes for HTGs 1, 2, and 4 are within 

NRV and no alternative moves any successional classes out of NRV. 

Figure 27 presents the successional classes for alternative B for all HTGs on BLM lands. This figure 

illustrates the trajectory of the successional classes across five decades, instead of combining all five 

decades similar to the figures above. Figure 28 presents the successional classes for the entire forest 

vegetation analysis area for all HTGs. Comparable to BLM lands, all successional classes are within their 

NRV and remain so across five decades. 

Figure 27. Successional Classes for Alternative B for Five Decades on BLM Lands and Comparison to NRV 

C-37 
450,000 ,34~40---

400,000 

350,000 I 

I • I - - 300,000 I 

1 

250,000 

"' f! 

~ 

200,000 

150,000 

------- T - T 

I --- ------- I • I I ------- - - 1 ___ "f ___ I I 

T I & I I 

I I - - - 't' - - - - - - 100,000 - • ------- - - 50,000 I -------

------- 0 

Early M id Open Mid Closed Late Open Late Closed 

T 1 Max/Min = Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 28. Current to NRV Successional Class Comparison for the Entire Forest Vegetation Analysis Area 

3.2.3 Wildlife 

The figures in this section represent wildlife habitat availability by species by alternative for both BLM 

lands, and for all lands within the forest vegetation analysis area. Comparisons between BLM lands and 

all lands can suggest, if major differences are present, if BLM management alternatives have some 

adverse cumulative effect on wildlife species viability at the forest vegetation analysis area scale. 

3.2.3.1 American Marten Habitat 

Modeled projections suggest American marten habitat is at the low to mid-level range of NRV and that 

habitat increases slightly over time regardless of alternative selected. The error inherent in V-Map data is 

likely inconsequential for martens; stands may be denser than the data reflects yet structurally complex 

marten habitat will remain abundant. The high projected levels of Douglas-fir beetle may provide an 

additional benefit to martens. Repeated attacks of Douglas-fir beetle will result in a continual 

recruitment of large snags and coarse, woody debris — both of which are important habitat 

requirements for martens. 

The levels of American marten habitat between BLM only and all lands within the forest vegetation 

analysis area are roughly comparable. This suggests that there is nothing in any of the BLM alternatives 

that would place martens at risk from cumulative activities on other federal or state land. 

C-38 
45,000 

40,000 

------------------------------------- 35,000 

30,000 -------------------------------------

Ill 25,000 QI 

... 

u 

~ 20,000 

- 'T' "'!=' 1=¥3 ~ Ej:3 ~ T T ~ t::t=J ~ .L 

~ 

.L 

~ 

J_ ~ ~ 

~ 

15,000 ------------------------------------- 10,000 

5,000 

0 M N M s:!" Lil M N M s:!" Lil M N M s:!" Lil 

Q} Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Q} Cl) Cl) Cl) Q} Q} Q} Cl) Q} 

"O "O "O "O "O "O "C "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Q} Cl) Cl) Q} Cl) Q} Q} Q} Cl) Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} 

0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

T 1 Max/Min c::::::::::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

250,000 - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

200,000 

150,000 Ill 

QI 

... 

- - - - -

---"'-

- - - - -...... - - - - - - --

- - - - -+ - - - - - - -........ - - - - ~ 

-+- - ..... ..... ...... _ -+- T _ .... - - - - - - - - - - ---- --- - - - - -

---- - - - - - - - - - u 

~ 

100,000 

50,000 

0 M N M s:!" Lil M N M s:!" Lil M N M s:!" Lil 

Cl) Q} Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Cl) Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} 

"O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "O ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u Cl) Q} Cl) Cl) Q} Cl) Cl) Cl) Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} Q} 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

T 1 Max/Min c=::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 29. American Marten Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands 

Figure 30. American Marten Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation

Analysis Area 

C-39 
12,000 

10,000 

NRV M ax 49,000 acres 

8,000 

<II 

QI 6,000 ... 

u 

ct 

4,000 

2,000 

0 ..-< N M ""'" "' ..-< N M ""'" "' ..-< N M 

QJ QJ QJ QJ (1) (1) QJ (1) (1) (1) QJ QJ QJ ""'" QJ "' QJ 

"C "C "C "C "O "O "O "O "O "O "O "C "O "C "C ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 ('0 

u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u QJ QJ (1) QJ (1) (1) QJ (1) (1) (1) QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ 

Cl Cl Cl Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 Cl Cl 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

Tl Max/Min c=::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Bureau of Land Management 

3.2.3.2 Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat 

Modeled projections for black-backed woodpecker shows that habitat will remain within but near the 

low end of NRV. This is clearly a result of past and future wildfire suppression. This is not unexpected 

since other modeled units (Ecosystem Research Group 2012, 2016) all indicate current black-backed 

woodpecker habitat is at or below the low end of NRV. This poses no risk to black-backed woodpecker 

viability at the Northern Rockies scale for several reasons — habitat generated by large fires since 1988 

all show high densities of nesting black-backed woodpeckers and wildfires are projected to increase on 

other units (contrary to projections for the Planning Area). Black-backed woodpeckers are highly mobile 

and exhibit a high level of relatedness across the Northern Rockies suggesting that no areas within the 

Northern Rockies are genetically isolated. 

The levels of black-backed woodpecker habitat are higher at the forest vegetation analysis area scale 

than on BLM only lands. This is a function of higher levels of wildfire on non-BLM lands within the forest 

vegetation analysis area. This could be a function of the isolated nature of many BLM parcels which 

might facilitate more rapid fire control. Or, it could be an anomaly of the model. Either way, habitat on 

BLM lands is within NRV, and thus BLM alternatives constitute no risk of black-backed woodpecker 

viability at either scale. 

Figure 31. Black Backed Woodpecker Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives on BLM Lands 

C-40 
25,000 

NRV Max 129,ll0acres 

20,000 

15,000 

"' QI 

.. 

u 

<t 

10,000 

5,000 

0 .-i N ('() "St" LI) .-i N ('() "St" LI) .-i N ('() "St" LI) 

a., a., a., a., CV a., a., a., a., a., a., a., a., a., a., 

"C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u 

a., a., a., a., CV a., a., a., a., a., a., a., a., a., a., 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 0 Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

T l Max/Min C=::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 32. Black Backed Woodpecker Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest

Vegetation Analysis Area 

3.2.3.3 Canada lynx Multi-Storied Habitat 

According to modeled projections, Canada lynx multi-storied habitat is at the low to mid-level range of 

NRV and habitat increases slightly over time regardless of alternative selected. The error inherent in 

VMap data is likely inconsequential for this species. For example, trees may be smaller than portrayed in 

VMap, but forest stands are likely denser than the data reflects and these dense, multi-storied stands 

will remain abundant. Any uncertainty is limited to the occurrence of large, future wildfires, which while 

not projected in this analysis, would result in substantial declines in Canada lynx multi-storied habitat. 

The levels of lynx multi-storied habitat on BLM only lands are higher than lands within the forest 

vegetation analysis area. This is a function of lower levels of projected wildfire on BLM lands (which 

reduces the loss of multi-storied habitat). This suggests that from a cumulative effects standpoint, BLM 

management plan alternatives are providing more habitat on a per acre basis than adjacent other 

federal and state lands within the forest vegetation analysis area. 

C-41 
-I 

Is: 

OJ 

s: 

:::, 

2 

cu 

2. 

ro 

V, 

N 

!20 

w 

• 

..., 

cu 

Otl 

(1) 

n 

C 

..., ..., 

(1) 

z 

;,::, 

< 

3 

cu 

3 

:::;· 

... 

V, 

_o 8 

0 8 

a 8 a 

Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;:::;: Decade 3 

)> 

Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;:::;: Decade 3 

OJ 

Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;:::;: Decade 3 

n 

Decade 4 Decade 5 

Acres 

... N N w 

V, 

0 

8 

8 

8 

V, 

0 

8 

8 

8 

a a a a 

+. I 

I I 

:+ I I 

I I I I I I 

:+ 

I I 

I 

I I 

+: 

I 

1+ 

I 

: 

I I I Ml I 

+: 

:+ 

I 

: i 

I I L 

Acres 

f--' ... N 

-I V, _o V, _o 

8 a 0 0 

I- 0 0 8 8 8 

s: 

OJ 

X Decade 1 

....... 

s: 

:::, Decade 2 

)> 

;:::;: 

)> 

Decade 3 

0 

Decade 4 C cu 

a-. 

ro 

Decade 5 I I l I~ V, N 

!20 

w Decade 1 

+ Decade 2 

)> )> rli ;:::;: Decade 3 

..., ['I] cu 

Otl 

(1) 

Decade 4 

I Decade 5 

n 

C 

..., DPcadP 1 ..., (1) 

::l 

,-+ 

Decade 2 

)> 

;:::;: Decade 3 

z n 

;,::, 

< 

3 Decade 4 

cu 

X 

....... 

3 Decade 5 :::;· 

Figure 34. Lynx Multi-Story Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation

Analysis Area 

C-42 
18,000 

16,000 -------------------------------------

14,000 

12,000 

Ill 10,000 QI 

... 

... 

ct 8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 ------------------------------------- 0 ....L i;;j;;i ~ ~ .....L. ~ ~ ..l. ~ ~ 

=-,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ N M ~ IJ'I ~ N M ~ IJ'I ~ N M ~ IJ'I 

(L) (L) (L) Q) Q) Q) (L) Q) Q) Q) (L) Q) (L) (L) Q) 

"C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u (L) Q) Q) (L) Q) (L) (L) (L) Q) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) (L) 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

T l Max/Min c:::::::::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

3.2.3.4 Canada lynx Stand Initiation Habitat 

Modeled projections suggest Canada lynx stand initiation habitat is at the extreme lower end of NRV and 

will remain at that level throughout the five-decade period. This is a function of limited past wildfire, 

very little projected future wildfire, continued fire suppression, and logging treatments that no longer 

emphasize regeneration. Alternative A, because it does emphasize a modest amount of regeneration 

logging provides the best future habitat, although the overall level remains only slight above minimum 

NRV. Canada lynx stand initiation habitat for decades 1 and 2 are low as a function of the model not 

being able to look to decades -1 and -2 for stand-replacing disturbances that create this habitat. 

The levels of lynx stand initiation habitat on BLM only lands are lower than lands within the forested 

vegetation analysis area. This is a function of higher levels of projected wildfire on non-BLM lands (which 

recruits more stand initiation habitat). Because of continued fire suppression, habitat will remain at 

slightly above NRV at both scales. 

Figure 35. Canada Lynx Stand Initiation Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands 

C-43 
<II 

QI 

.. 

u 

ct 

12,000 

10,000 

8,000 

6,000 

4,000 

2,000 

0 

T l 

NRV Max 71,490acres 

~ ~ .-i N m s:t LI) .-i N 

(I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) 

"C "C "C "C "C "C "C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 0 

Alt A 

Max/Min C=::J Quartiles 2 & 3 

$ m s:t LI) .-i N m s:t LI) 

(I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) 

"C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 

Alt B Alt C 

• Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 36. Lynx Stand Initiation Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation

Analysis Area 

3.2.3.5 Elk Summer Forage Habitat 

Modeled projections for elk summer forage suggests habitat will remain at the low to mid-level of NRV. 

Like black-backed woodpecker habitat, this is largely a function of past and future wildfire suppression. 

The amount of modeled logging and prescribed burning in all three alternatives will create more habitat 

than current conditions, especially in Alternative B which emphasizes prescribed burning over other 

alternatives. 

Table 7 presents the amount of non-forest cover types for BLM lands and the entire forest vegetation 

analysis area by elevation and aspect. The non-forested types are well distributed by both elevation and 

aspect (Figure 39). This distribution benefits elk by allowing for the selection of non-forest areas based 

on plant phenology and season. Moderate acreages of non-forest areas contribute somewhat to existing 

and future levels of habitat. 

The levels of elk summer forage on BLM only lands and all lands within the forest vegetation analysis 

area are comparable for decades one and two. The increases can largely be attributed to forage 

response from existing wildfires on non-BLM lands, and from alternative management activities on BLM 

lands. Habitat remains at mid NRV levels at both the BLM lands and forest vegetation analysis area 

scales. 

C-44 
-I 

IOJ 

z 

:::, 

0 

C: OJ 

a-. 

ro 

V) 

N 

RO 

w 

• 

""' <ll 

OQ 

(1) 

n 

C: 

""' ""' (1) 

:::, 

,.... 

z 

;;,:J 

< 

3 

<ll 

z 

3 

s· 

N N w 

8 V, 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 8 

0 0 0 

Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;::;: Decade 3 

)> 

Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;::;: Decade 3 

OJ 

Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;::;: Decade 3 

n 

Decade 4 Decade 5 

Acres 

w -/:> 

V, 

0 8 

8 0 0 

0 0 

+ 

3⁄4 

rffi 

1⁄4 

f 

t 

i H 

f-H 

+ 

t 

ii-

-/:> V, 

V, 0 0 0 

0 0 0 0 

0 0 

-I 

IOJ 

z 

::s 

2 

<ll a-. 

ro 

V) 

N 

RO 

w 

• 

""' <ll 

OQ 

(1) 

n 

C: 

""' ""' (1) 

:::, 

,.... 

z 

;;,:J 

< 

3 

<ll 

z 3 

s· 

Df'Cr!df' 1 

Decade 2 

)> 

;::;: Decade 3 

)> 

Decade 4 

Decades 

Decade 1 Decade 2 

)> 

;::;: Decade 3 

Cil 

Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 

Decade 2 

)> 

;::;: Decade 3 

n 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

D 

...... 

_o 

0 

8 

N 

_o 

0 

8 

Acres 

w 

_o 

0 

8 

Figure 38. Elk Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area 

C-45 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 7. Non-Forest Distribution by Elevation and Aspect 

Elevation Aspect BLM 

Acres 

BLM 

Percent 

Analysis Area 

Acres 

Analysis Area 

Percent 

3,000 to 4,000 Flat 11 0.2% 2,445 0.6% 

3,000 to 4,000 North 199 2.9% 7,968 2.1% 

3,000 to 4,000 East 220 3.2% 5,842 1.5% 

3,000 to 4,000 South 393 5.7% 9,475 2.5% 

3,000 to 4,000 West 235 3.4% 10,413 2.7% 

4,000 to 5,000 Flat 73 1.1% 6,242 1.6% 

4,000 to 5,000 North 358 5.2% 48,503 12.8% 

4,000 to 5,000 East 599 8.8% 55,307 14.6% 

4,000 to 5,000 South 970 14.2% 51,171 13.5% 

4,000 to 5,000 West 628 9.2% 47,320 12.5% 

5,000 to 6,000 Flat 1 0.0% 226 0.1% 

5,000 to 6,000 North 211 3.1% 19,187 5.1% 

5,000 to 6,000 East 468 6.8% 26,680 7.0% 

5,000 to 6,000 South 737 10.8% 29,115 7.7% 

5,000 to 6,000 West 741 10.8% 27,680 7.3% 

6,000 to 7,000 Flat 0 0.0% 5 0.0% 

6,000 to 7,000 North 110 1.6% 3,687 1.0% 

6,000 to 7,000 East 258 3.8% 6,167 1.6% 

6,000 to 7,000 South 366 5.4% 8,560 2.3% 

6,000 to 7,000 West 246 3.6% 6,138 1.6% 

7,000+ Flat 0.0% 63 0.0% 

7,000+ North 1 0.0% 1,526 0.4% 

7,000+ East 0.0% 3,049 0.8% 

7,000+ South 19 0.3% 2,200 0.6% 

7,000+ West 2 0.0% 677 0.2% 

Total Non-Forest = 6,847 100.0% 379,646 100.0% 

C-46 
= . 

Legend 

D BLM MiFO Ownership 

D SIMPPLLE Analysis Area 

Non-Forest 

/ "'i:J 

Forested 15-39% Canopy Cover 

- Forested 40-69% Canopy Cover 

- Forested 70+% Canopy Cover " 

o 2.5 5 10 Miles • I I I I I 

._. 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 39. Forested and Non-Forest across the Forest Vegetation Analysis Area 

3.2.3.6 Flammulated Owl Habitat 

Modeled projections suggest flammulated owl habitat is currently at the mid-range of NRV. The error 

inherent in V-Map data, as identified by comparing ground-surveyed data, is considerable for open, large 

stands. Ground-surveyed data suggest V-Map both underestimates canopy cover and overestimates size 

class and thus may provide an inflated projection for flammulated owl habitat. Consequently, it is likely 

that current levels of habitat are closer to the low end of NRV and high-quality habitat may be more 

limited in the forest vegetation analysis area than modeled. However, habitat improves under all 

alternatives due to activities that reduce stand stocking and promote the recruitment of large, open 

stands. 

C-47 
-l 

I2 

Q.) 

2. 

ro 

V, 

N 

12" 

w 

• 

n 

C 

""' ""' (1) ::::, 

z 

:,J 

< 

3 

Q.) 

z 3 

s· 

0 

Decade 1 Decade 2 

l> 

;::;-

Decade 3 

l> 

Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 Decade 2 

l> 

;::;- Decade 3 

co 

Decade 4 Decade 5 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 

l> 

;::;- Decade 3 

n 

Decade 4 Decade 5 

Acres 

N .is 01 00 

_a _a _a _a 

a 

8 

0 

8 

0 

8 

0 

8 

I I I I I 

,., ,., ,., ,., 

8 N .is 01 0 0 0 

8 8 8 8 

0 0 0 0 

I • I 

I I I 

+ 

I 

I 

~: 

I 

+: 

I 

+· 

• 

+ 

f 

+ 

i 

+ 

+ 

• 

t 

+ 

-l 

I0 

C 

Q.) 

2. 

ro 

V, 

N 

12" 

w 

• 

n 

C 

""' ""' (1) ::::, 

z 

:,J 

< 

3 

Q.) 

z 3 

s· 

l> 

;::;-

l> l> 

;::;-

co 

l> 

;::;-

n 

0 

Decade 1 

Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 

Decade 2 Decade 3 Decade 4 Decade 5 Decade 1 Decade 2 

Decade 3 

Decade 4 

Decade 5 

V, 

8 

0 

I I I 

,., 

_a 

0 

8 

Acres 

,., 

_v, 

0 

8 

N 

_a 

0 

8 

, i 

I 

fl 

ft 

f 

f 

f , 

I 

' I I 

+ I I 

ri 

I 

I 

N 

_v

0 

8 

Figure 41. Flammulated Owl Habitat for Five Decades Across all Alternatives for the Forest Vegetation

Analysis Area 

C-48 
100,000 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90,000 

80,000 

70,000 

60,000 Ill 

QI 50,000 ... 

... 

ct - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40,000 

30,000 

..... + + --+-- ~ .,,.,,,, ...... -y -

~ 

---y- ~ 

~ ~ 

-= ~ ~ -r _L 

20,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - -- - - -- - - 10,000 

0 .-1 N M <:t IJ') .-1 N M <:t IJ') .-1 N M <:t IJ') 

(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

"C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

T 1 Max/Min c::::::::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

3.2.3.7 Northern Goshawk 

Modeled projections suggest northern goshawk nesting habitat is at the low to mid-level of NRV and 

that habitat increases over time regardless of alternative selected. There are no measurable differences 

between alternatives at the forest vegetation analysis area scale. Similar to Canada lynx multi-storied 

habitat, the error inherent in V-Map data is likely inconsequential for northern goshawks. Northern 

goshawk nesting habitat remains at the lower end of NRV throughout the fifty-year period at the BLM 

lands and forest vegetation analysis area scales. Habitat is reduced by 30 percent by decade two and 

return to within 5 percent of current levels by the fifth decade. 

Figure 42. Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives for the Forest 

Vegetation Analysis Area 

C-49 
600,000 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 500,000 

400,000 

"' QI 300,000 ... 

... 

~ 

200,000 

- - - - - - - - - -...... - - - - - - - - - - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - - -:.,. - - ...... - - ...... - ...... ~ 

- _.....,._ - - - - - - - - - - _..,..._ - - - - - - - - - - _.....,._ - - - - - - 100,000 

0 ,-i N ('(') s:t LI') ,-i N ('(') s:t LI') ,-i N ('(') s:t LI') 

QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QI QI QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ 

"C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C "C ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro ro u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ QJ 

Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl C Cl C Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl Cl 

Alt A Alt B Alt C 

T 1 Max/Min C=:::J Quartiles 2 & 3 • Average - - - Current - - - NRV max/min 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 43. Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat for Five Decades across all Alternatives on BLM Lands 

Chapter 4. Validation of Results 

The biggest implication to the discrepancy between V-Map and ground-surveyed data is the distribution 

of size and structural vegetation classes (see Section 4.1.2). We attempted to qualitatively adjust those 

data to more accurately compare current conditions to NRV. Field based data suggests that the current 

level of late open stands as derived from VMap data may be overestimated by as much as 2.5 times. 

Thus, the current level of 22,000 acres of late open stands which are above NRV, could be closer to 

9,000 acres and below NRV. This potential range of error had obvious implications to flammulated owl 

habitat and is discussed in that section. 

Using the same logic, the current portrayal of 42,000 acres of late closed stands, which are within but at 

the low end of NRV, could actually be at the upper end of NRV. This potential range of error has obvious 

implications for American marten, Canada lynx multi-storied, and nesting northern goshawk habitats and 

is discussed in those sections. 

ADS data do not show a substantial upward trend in Douglas-fir beetle as might be expected with a 

recent warming, drying climatic trend. The factors that attribute to the modeled increase in Douglas-fir 

beetle activity (i.e., high proportion of Douglas-fir cover type, disproportionate percentage of 

pole/mature size class, overstocked stand conditions, and warmer, drier climate) all suggest that the 

Planning Area could exhibit a long-term Douglas-fir beetle epidemic. While highly plausible, that 

modeled output should be considered as having a moderate level of uncertainty. However, recent 

research asserts that projected changes in temperature and precipitation, in addition to a potential 

C-50 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

increase in extreme events such as windstorms, will significantly influence the spatial and temporal 

distribution of suitable host trees and beetle populations across future landscapes (Halofsky et al. 2018). 

Chapter 5. Conclusions 

Overall, this analysis found that the entire forest vegetation analysis area is within NRV although there 

are some habitats and successional classes nearing the high or low end of NRV. The need for 

reintroducing fire as the primary driver of ecological processes is one of the more important findings. 

Fire suppression throughout the 20th century has altered stands by skipping natural FRIs, allowing 

stands to accumulate fuels and understories of shade-tolerant species, especially at lower elevations. 

Eliminating fire suppression would not correct these issues in the short term, as stands would burn at 

higher than historic severities. Focusing on forest health treatments and the use of prescribed fire to 

help restore amounts and distribution of successional classes and cover types found in NRV will expedite 

the restoration of the landscape. The alternatives analyzed are designed to aid in this restoration but are 

not proposed at the magnitude needed to see significant improvements in 50 years. Still, the alternatives 

are placing the landscape on a path toward a closer approximation of NRV. 

5.1 Alternative Preference 

No alternatives place any modeled wildlife habitats at risk. The differences between alternatives are 

subtle, which is a function of the alternatives treating similar footprints. Alternative C treats the least 

(6.3 percent of BLM lands per decade), Alternative B treats the most (9.4 percent per decade), and 

alternative A falls in the middle treating 7.5 percent. A range of 3.1 percent in treatment levels doesn’t 

allow one alternative to significantly outperform another. Yet by comparing the types of treatments 

applied under each alternative there are measurable differences for some of the wildlife habitats 

analyzed. Alternative A is more beneficial for Canada lynx stand initiation habitat because of its emphasis 

on regeneration treatments. Alternative C is better for martens, northern goshawk, and Canada lynx 

multi-storied habitat because of its emphasis on thinning. Alternative B is better for elk summer forage 

because of its emphasis on prescribed burning. None of the alternatives are clearly preferable for 

flammulated owls or black-backed woodpeckers. For an alternative to substantially benefit flammulated 

owls or black-backed woodpeckers, it would have to include allowing wildfires to burn on substantial 

portions of the Planning Area and would also include aggressively thinning and under-burning stands of 

ponderosa pine. Alternative B is the most successful alternative in terms of improving wildlife habitats 

because its higher levels of treatment shift more habitats and successional classes closer to the midrange of NRV. 

5.2 Effects of Natural versus Human-Caused Disturbances 

The alternatives are projected to affect approximately 4 to 5 times as many acres as wildfires. The 

amounts of modeled wildfire are seemingly low, considering the large amounts of fire occurring since 

2000. Fire suppression in the simulations was extremely successful and reduced the number of 

landscape-scale wildfires that have become more common since 2000. We anticipate that the 

combination of critical fire weather, low fuel moistures, and firefighter safety concerns have a high 

probability of aligning in the near future, which could allow for more large fire events. 

Attacks by Douglas-fir beetle are projected to affect approximately 3.5 times as many acres as the 

combination of logging, prescribed burning, and thinning proposed by management alternatives. The 

C-51 
Bureau of Land Management 

implications of epidemic Doulas-fir beetle outbreaks are not all adverse. Continual snag and coarse, 

woody debris recruitment can benefit American martens. Where Douglas-fir cover types overlap with 

subalpine fir habitat groups, Douglas-fir beetle mortality could induce stand re-initiation of subalpine fir 

seedlings, thus improving Canada lynx multi-storied habitat. That increased vertical layering could also 

improve stand structure for nesting northern goshawks. 

5.3 Effects of Warmer, Drier Climate Conditions 

According to the model, warmer, drier climatic conditions are responsible for the extremely high levels 

of Douglas-fir and mountain pine beetle activity. No other obvious changes in tree growth, plant 

succession, wildfire, or vegetative conditions affecting wildlife habitats attributable to warmer, drier 

climatic conditions were detectable from modeled SIMPPLLE runs. 

5.4 Could Alternatives be Modified to Improve Overall Wildlife 

Habitat 

Some alternatives favor one species over another to a small degree. No alternative, however, places any 

of the habitats or species analyzed at risk. No single alternative can optimize habitat for all species on 

every acre. All three alternatives sustain a mix of vegetative conditions that are within the NRV. Douglasfir beetle increases to very high levels, but according to the model that is an unavoidable consequence of 

a warming climate. Other disturbances are projected to occur at levels near mean NRV levels. 

Consequently, there is nothing in the mix of alternatives A, B, and C that suggest any alternative would 

result in a problem regarding vegetative diversity, natural disturbances, or wildlife species viability. 

Additional treatments could provide further ecological benefits. Lands in the forest vegetation analysis 

area, especially BLM lands, need additional disturbance, or silvicultural prescription that mimic 

disturbance, to better align successional classes within NRV. With the mid and late development 

components intact on the landscape, the issue to deal with is an overabundance of closed stands, and 

forestry treatments and prescribed fire can be used to make the shift from mid and late closed to mid 

and late open. Having early development stands in the lower end of NRV means that managers can use 

thinning treatments to reduce fuels thus facilitating higher severity prescribed burns that better mimic 

historic stand structures. 

Additional treatments to promote mid and late/open stands in the warmer and drier HTGs 1 and 2 would 

benefit flammulated owls. Converting mid and late closed stands to open stands would also push these 

types closer to the midrange of NRV in these HTGs. 

C-52 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

References 

Ahl, Robert, and Steve Brown. 2017. The Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests Region 1 Existing 

Vegetation Database (VMap) revision of 2016. October 4. 

Anderson, Katherine H., and Robert S. Thompson. 2013. Historic variations in moisture availability. 

August. http://geoghange.er.usgs.gov/sw/changes/natural/pdsi/. 

Arno, Stephen F., David J. Parsons, and Robert E. Keane. USDA Forest Service. 2000. Mixed-severity fire 

regimes in the Northern Rocky Mountains: Consequences of fire exclusion and options for the 

future. 

Arno, Stephen F., Dennis G. Simmerman, and Robert E. Keane. 1985. Forest succession on four habitat 

types in Western Montana. March. 

Brewer, Lorraine T., Renate Bush, Jodie E. Canfield, and Alan R. Dohmen. 2007. Northern goshawk 

Northern Region overview: Key findings and project considerations. May. 

Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. 

Burcham, Milo, W.Daniel Edge, and C.Les Marcum. 1999. Elk use of private land refuges. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 27, (3): 833-39. 

Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggerio. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American 

Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. 

Calder, W. John, Dusty Parker, Cody J. Stopka, Gonzalo Jimenez-Moreno, and Bryan N. Shuman. 2015. 

Medieval warming initiated exceptionally large wildfire outbreaks in the Rocky Mountains. 

Madison, WI. October 5. 

Clough, Lorraine T. 2000. Nesting habitat selection and productivity of northern goshawks in westcentral Montana. Wildlife Biology M.S. thesis, The University of Montana, Missoula. December. 

Cook, J., G. Cook, D.L. Murry, P. Zager, B. Johnson, and M. Gratson. 2001. Development of predictive 

models of nutritional condition for Rocky Mountain elk. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 

973-87. 

Dixon, Rita D., and Victoria A. Saab. 2016. Black-backed woodpecker. In The birds of North America. 

Cornell, NY: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and the Academy of Natural Science. 

Ecosystem Research Group. 2012. Wildlife habitat assessment for the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle 

plan revision zone (KIPZ). December 19. 

Ecosystem Research Group. 2016. Modeled wildlife habitat assessment. In Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Volume 2: Revised Forest Plan. Kalispell, MT: USDA Forest Service. 

Fischer, William C., and Anne F. Bradley. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 1987. 

Fire ecology of western Montana forest habitat types. 

Forristal, Christopher David. 2009. Influence of postfire salvage logging on black-backed woodpecker 

nest-site selection and nest survival. Fish and Wildlife Management M.S. thesis, Montana State 

University, Bozeman. April. 

Furniss, Malcolm M. , and Sandra J. Kegley. 2014. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 5 Doulglas-fir Beetle. 

C-53 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Bureau of Land Management 

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and C. Seminara. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, USDA Deschutes 

National Forest. 1987. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers, Deshcutes 

National Forest, Oregon. Nongame Project Number 87-3-02. 

Greenwald, D.Noah, D.Coleman Crocker-Bedford, Len Broberg, Kieran F. Suckling, and Timothy Tibbitts. 

2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for 

forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, (1): 120-29. 

Griffin, Paul C., and L.Scott Mills. 2007. Precommercial thinning reduces snowshoe hare abundance in 

the short term. Journal of Wildlife Management 71, (2): 559-64. 

Halofsky, Jessica E. , David L. Peterson, S. Karen Dante-Wood, Linh Hoang, Joanne J. Ho, and Linda A. 

Joyce. 2018. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation in the Northern Rocky Mountains Part 

2. Fort Collins, CO. March. 

Hays, David W., and Elizabeth A. Rodrick. 2004. Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus). In Management 

recommendations for Washington's priority species.24-1 – 24-5. Olympia, WA: Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Hayward, Gregory D., and Jon Verner. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United 

States: A technical conservation assessment. September. 

Hejl, Sallie J., Mary McFadzen, and Thomas Martin. 2000. Maintaining fire-associated bird species across 

forest landscapes in the northern Rockies. August 4. 

Hillis, J.Michael, Michael J. Thompson, Jodie E. Canfield, L.Jack Lyon, C.Les Marcum, Patricia M. Dolan, 

and David W. McCleery. 1991. Defining elk security: The Hillis paradigm. In Proceedings of Elk 

Vulnerability Symposium. edited by A.G. Christensen, L.J. Lyon and T.N. Lonner. Bozeman, MT: 

Montana State University. 

Hitchcox, Susan M. 1996. Abundance and nesting success of cavity-nesting birds in unlogged and 

salvage-logged burned forest in northwestern Montana. M.S. thesis, The University of Montana, 

Missoula. 

Howie, R.R., and R. Ritcey. 1987. Distribution, habitat selection, and densities of Flammulated Owls in 

British Columbia. In Proceedings of a symposium on the biology and conservation of northern 

forest owls. edited by R.W. Nero, R.J. Clark, R.J. Knapton and R.H. Hames, 249-54. 

Hoyt, Jeff S., and Susan J. Hannon. 2002. Habitat associations of black-backed and three-toed 

woodpeckers in the boreal forest of Alberta. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 32: 1881-88. 

Hutto, Richard L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern 

Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9, (5): 1041-58. 

Kennedy, Patricia L. 2003. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A technical conservation 

assessment. January 3. 

Koehler, Gary M., and Keith B. Aubry. 1994. Lynx. In The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: 

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. edited by L.F. 

Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, Chap. 4, 74-98. U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 

Koehler, Gary M., and J.David Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. 

Journal of Forestry 88: 10-14. 

C-54 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

LANDFIRE. 2008. LANDFIRE BpS Models and Descriptions. 

https://www.landfire.gov/national_veg_models_op2.php. 

Linkhart, Brian D., R.T. Reynolds, and R.A. Ryder. 1998. Home range and habitat of breeding 

Flammulated Owls in Colorado. Wilson Bulletin 110: 342-51. 

Marti, C. 1997. Flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) breeding in deciduous forests. In Biology and 

conservation of owls in the Northern Hemisphere. edited by J.R. Duncan, D.H. Johnson and T.H. 

Nicholls, 262-66. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

McCallum, D.Archibald. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: Flammulated owls. In Flammulated, 

boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. edited by 

Gregory D. Hayward and Jon Verner, 14-27. 

McGrath, Michael T., Stephen DeStefano, Robert A. Riggs, Larry L. Irwin, and Gary J. Roloff. 2003. 

Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk nesting habit in the Interior Pacific Northwest. 

Wildlife Monographs 154: 1-63. 

Milburn, Amanda , Barry Bollenbacher, Mary Manning, and Renate Bush. 2015. Region 1 Existing and 

Potential Vegetation Groupings used for Broad-level Analysis and Monitoring. November 13. 

Montana Natural Heritage Program. 2013. Animal species of concern. October 7. 

Pierson, Jennifer Christy. 2009. Genetic population structure and dispersal of two North American 

woodpeckers in ephemeral habitats. PhD dissertation, The University of Montana, Missoula. 

December. 

Proffitt, Kelly, Benjamin Jimenez, Craig Jourdonnais, Justin Gude, Mike Thomspon, Mark Hebblewhite, 

and Daniel Eacker. 2015. The Bitterroot elk study: Evaluating bottom-up and top-down effects 

on elk survival and recruitment in the southern Bitterroot Valley, Montana. 

Reynolds, R.T., and B.D. Linkhart. 1992. Flammulated owls in Ponderosa pine: Evidence of preference for 

old-growth. In Old-growth forests in the Southwest and Rocky Mountain Regions: Proceedings of 

a workshop. edited by M.R. Kaufmann, W.H. Moir and R.L. Bassett, 166-69. 

Reynolds, Richard T., Russell T. Graham, and Douglas A. Boyce Jr. 2008. Northern goshawk habitat: an 

intersection of science, management, and conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 72, (4): 

1047-55. 

Reynolds, Richard T., Russell T. Graham, M.Hildergard Reiser, Richard L. Bassett, Patricia L. Kennedy, 

Douglas A. Boyce, Greg Goodwin, Randall Smith, and E.Leon Fisher. 1992. Management 

recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. 

Reynolds, Richard T., Suzanne M. Joy, and Douglas G. Leslie. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and 

spacing of northern goshawks in Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 106-13. 

Ruggiero, Leonard F., Keith B. Aubry, Steven W. Buskirk, L.Jack Lyon, and William J. Zielinski. 1994. The 

scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in 

the western United States. 

Russell, R.E., J.A. Royle, V.A. Saab, John F Lehmkuhl, W.M. Block, and J.R. Sauer. 2009. Modeling the 

effects of environmental disturbance on wildlife communities: avian responses to prescribed 

fire. Ecological Applications 19: 1253-1263. 

Saab, Victoria A., and Jonathan G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement 

fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pin/douglas-fir forest of southwestern Idaho. 

C-55 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Bureau of Land Management 

Samson, Fred B. 2006a. A conservation assessment of the northern goshawk, black-backed woodpeckers, 

flammulated owl, and pileated woodpecker in the Northern Region. 

Samson, Fred B. 2006b. Habitat estimates for maintaining viable populations of the northern goshawk, 

black-backed woodpecker, flammulated owl, pileated woodpecker, american marten, and fisher. 

Squires, John R., Nicholas DeCesare, J., Jay A. Kolbe, and Leonard F Ruggiero. 2010. Seasonal resource 

selection of Canada lynx in managed forests of the northern Rocky Mountains. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 74, (8): 1648-1660. 

Squires, John R., Nicholas DeCesare, J., Jay A. Kolbe, and Leonard F. Ruggiero. 2008. Hierarchical den 

selection of Canada lynx in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 72, (7): 1497-506. 

Squires, John R., and Leonard F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in 

southcentral Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management 60, (1): 170-77. 

Tomson, Scott Dean. 1999. Ecology and summer/fall habitat selection of American Marten in northern 

Idaho. Wildlife Biology M.S. thesis, The University of Montana, Missoula. March. 

Toweill, Dale E., and Jack Ward Thomas. 2002. North American elk: Ecology and management. 

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 

USDA Forest Service. 2015. USFS Region One Aerial Detection Surveys Northern Region 1 and 

Intermountain Region 4. https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r1/forestgrasslandhealth/?cid=stelprdb5285985. 

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Notice of 12-

month finding on a petition to list the northern goshawk in the contiguous United States west of 

the 100th Meridian. 

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Northern goshawk status review: Status review of the northern 

goshawk in the forested west. 

Wargo, Phillip M., and Charles G. Shaw III. 1985. Armillaria root rot: the puzzle is being solved. Plant 

Disease 69: 826-32. 

Wasserman, T.N., S.A. Cushman, M.K. Schwarts, and D.O. Wallin. 2010. Spatial scaling and multimodel 

inference in landscape genetics: Martes Americana in northern Idaho. Landscape Ecology 25: 

1601-12. 

Wright, Vita. 1996. Multi-scale analysis of flammulated owl habitat use: owl distribution, habitat, and 

conservation. Dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula. 

Wright, Vita, Sallie J. Hejl, and Richard L. Hutto. 1997. Conservation implications of a multi-scale study of 

flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) habitat use in the Northern Rocky Mountains, USA. In 

Biology and conservation of owls of the Northern Hemisphere: Second international symposium: 

General Technical Report NC-190. edited by James R. Duncan, David H. Johnson and Thomas H. 

Nicholls, Chap. General Technical Report NC-190, 506-16. USDA Forest Service. 

C-56 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix D: Impaired Waters 

WATERBODY NAME (305B Segment ID) Location Segment 

Miles 

BLM 

Miles 

TMDL 

index* 

ARRASTRA CREEK (MT76F002_070) headwaters to mouth (Blackfoot River) 12.86 1.77 2 

BELMONT CREEK (MT76F006_070) headwaters to mouth (Blackfoot River) 10.6 3.39 9 

BLACK BEAR CREEK (MT76F003_060) headwaters to mouth (Bear Creek) 7.67 1.30 10 

BLACKFOOT RIVER (MT76F001_020) Landers Fork to Nevada Creek 48 3.01 1, 2 

BLACKFOOT RIVER (MT76F001_032) Monture Creek to Belmont Creek 23.53 4.49 11 

BLACKFOOT RIVER (MT76F001_033) Belmont Creek to mouth [3] 21.4 8.63 8, 9 

BOULDER CREEK (MT76E003_060) headwaters to mouth (Flint Creek) 14.23 0.31 3 

BRAZIEL CREEK (MT76F003_040) headwaters to mouth (Nevada Creek) 3.95 2.20 10 

BROCK CREEK (MT76G005_100) headwaters to mouth (Clark Fork River) 12.5 1.98 14 

CAMP CREEK (MT76E003_130) headwaters to terminus 1.8 0.04 3,5 

CARPENTER CREEK (MT76G004_091) headwaters to Basin Creek [4C] 3.67 1.22 No 

TMDL 

CLARK FORK RIVER (MT76E001_010) Flint Creek to Blackfoot River 50.93 3.29 18,19 

CLARK FORK RIVER (MT76G001_010) Little Blackfoot River to Flint Creek 27.78 0.18 13, 18, 19 

CLARK FORK RIVER (MT76M001_020) Rattlesnake Creek to Fish Creek 52.6 0.38 18,19 

CRAMER CREEK (MT76E004_020) headwaters to mouth (Clark Fork River) 11.98 0.39 16, 17 

DAY GULCH (MT76F006_080) headwaters to mouth (Elk Cr.) [3] 1.2 0.74 8,9 

DEEP CREEK (MT76E004_070) headwaters to mouth (Bear Creek) 5.12 0.97 17 

DOG CREEK (MT76G004_072) Meadow Creek to mouth (Little Blackfoot River) 13.63 0.20 6, 7 

DOUGLAS CREEK (MT76E003_100) headwaters to where stream ends, near Philipsburg 3.76 0.01 3,4,5 

DOUGLAS CREEK (MT76F003_081) headwaters to Murray Creek 13.02 3.75 10, 11 

DOUGLAS CREEK (MT76F003_082) Murray Creek to mouth (Nevada-Cottonwood 

Creeks) 

10.91 0.45 10, 11 

ELK CREEK (MT76F006_031) headwaters to Stinkwater Creek 8.5 2.50 8, 9 

FLAT GULCH (MT76E002_120) headwaters to mouth (Rock Creek) 2.99 1.56 12 

FLINT CREEK (MT76E003_011) Georgetown Lake to confluence with Boulder Creek 28.09 1.22 3,5 

FRAZIER CREEK (MT76F004_010) headwaters to mouth (Blackfoot River) 4.44 1.15 10 

FRED BURR CREEK (MT76E003_040) Fred Burr Lake to mouth (Flint Creek) 11.21 0.39 3 

GALLAGHER CREEK (MT76F003_030) headwaters to mouth (Nevada Creek) 7.34 4.22 10 

KENO CREEK (MT76F006_040) headwaters to mouth (Elk Creek) 2.87 2.36 9 

MINERS GULCH (MT76E002_160) headwaters to mouth (Upper Willow Creek) 5.42 0.32 12 

MULKEY CREEK (MT76E004_050) headwaters to mouth (Clark Fork River 5.99 2.62 17 

MURRAY CREEK (MT76F003_120) headwaters to mouth (Douglas Creek) 8.83 3.69 10, 11 

RATTLER GULCH (MT76E004_060) headwaters to mouth (Clark Fork River) 8.08 0.72 17 

ROCK CREEK (MT76E002_010) headwaters to mouth [1] 52.5 1.52 12 

SAWPIT GULCH (MT76E002_130) headwaters to mouth [3] 2.0 0.55 12 

SCOTCHMAN GULCH (MT76E002_100) headwaters to mouth (Upper Willow Creek) 6.88 1.76 12 

SLUICE GULCH (MT76E002_110) headwaters to mouth (Rock Creek) 6.33 1.06 12 

SMART CREEK (MT76E003_110) headwaters to mouth (Flint Creek) 11.6 1.37 3,5 

SOUTH FORK ANTELOPE CREEK (MT76E002_060) headwaters to mouth (Antelope 

Creek) 

2.93 1.12 12 

TENMILE CREEK (MT76E004_030) headwaters to mouth (Bear Creek-Clark Fork River) 4.92 1.58 17 

UNION CREEK (MT76F006_010) headwaters to mouth (Blackfoot River) 21.57 2.31 8,9 

UPPER WILLOW CREEK (MT76E002_040) headwaters to mouth (Rock Creek) [4C] 21.7 0.67 No 

TMDL 

WARD CREEK (MT76F004_060) headwaters to Browns Lake 10.38 0.67 10 

WASHINGTON CREEK (MT76F003_0710) Cow Gulch to mouth 5.8 .08 10 

WARM SPRINGS CREEK (MT76G005_111) headwaters to line between R9W and R10W 6.28 1.89 14, 15 

WASHOE CREEK (MT76F006_090) Headwater to mouth (Union Creek) 6.12 1.39 8,9 

WOODSON GULCH (MT76G004_100) headwaters to mouth (Carpenter Creek) [4C] 0.84 0.84 No 

TMDL 

YOURNAME CREEK (MT76F004_080) headwaters to mouth (Blackfoot River) 9.72 2.33 10 

TOTAL MILEAGE -> 531.57 78.6 

(14.8%) 

D-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

With the exceptions noted in brackets [ ], the stream segments in the table are Category 4A, which means that all required TMDLs are in 

place to correct identified impairments or threats. Category 4C means the waterbody is impaired or threatened by causes that cannot be 

resolved with a TMDL. Category 3 waters have insufficient data to assess the use-support of any applicable beneficial use and no usesupport determinations have been made. Category 1 waters are those for which all applicable beneficial uses have been assessed and all 

uses are determined to be fully supported. 

Source: Montana DEQ (2016). Clean Water Act Information Center (CWAIC) website. Accessed April 2018. 

All mileages in the table are calculated from GIS. 

As of April 2018, Montana DEQ has a draft 2018 revision of the impaired waters listing. As of this writing, the draft did not appear to 

have any changes from 2016 for the stream segments in the table. 

*TMDL documents associated with the TMDL Index numbers in the fourth column of the table. 

1. (C03-TMDL-01a) Water Quality Restoration Plan for Metals in the Blackfoot Headwaters TMDL Planning Area. June 2003. 

2. (C03-TMDL-01b) Blackfoot Headwaters Planning Area Water Quality and Habitat Restoration Plan and TMDL for Sediment. Apr. 

2004 

3. (C02-TMDL-01a) Flint creek Planning Area Sediment and Metals TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan. Oct. 

2012 

4. (C02-TMDL-01a-a) Final – Addendum to Flint Creek Planning Area Sediment and Metals TMDLs and Framework Water Quality 

Improvement Plan. May 2015 

5. (C02-TMDL-01b) Flint Nutrients TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan. Dec. 2013 

6. (C01-TMDL-03a) Little Blackfoot River Watershed TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan. Dec. 2011 

7. (C01-TMDL-03a-a) Little Blackfoot River Watershed TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement Plan - Metals 

Addendum. Mar. 2014 

8. (C03-TMDL-04a) Lower Blackfoot Nutrients TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan. Sept. 2013 

9. (C03-TMDL-03a) Lower Blackfoot Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plan – Sediment, Trace Metal 

and Temperature TMDLs. Dec. 2009 

10. (C03-TMDL-02a) Middle Blackfoot-Nevada Creek Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plan – Sediment, 

Nutrients, Trace Metal and Temperature TMDLs. Sept. 2008 

11. (C03-TMDL-02a-a) Final - Middle Blackfoot-Nevada TMDL and Water Quality Improvement Plan Addendum. Dec. 2014 

12. (C02-TMDL-02a) Rock Creek Watershed Total Maximum Daily Loads and Water Quality Improvement Plans. Sep. 2013 

13. (C01-TMDL-04a) Final - Upper Clark Fork Phase 2 Sediment and Nutrients TMDLs and Framework Water Quality Improvement 

Plan. Apr. 2014 

14. (C01-TMDL-02a) Upper Clark Fork River Tributaries Sediment, Metals, and Temperature TMDLs and Framework for Water 

Quality Restoration. Mar. 2010 

15. (C01-TMDL-02a-a) Addendum to Upper Clark Fork River Tributaries Sediment, Metals, and Temperature TMDLs and Framework 

for Water Quality Restoration. Apr. 2014 

16. (C02-TMDL-03a) Bonita-Superior Metals TMDLs. May 2013 

17. (COL-TMDL-01a) Final - Central Clark Fork Basin Tributaries TMDLs and Water Quality Improvement Plan. Sept. 2014 

18. (C01-TMDL-05a) Final - Silver Bow Creek and Clark Fork River Metals TMDLs. May 2014 

19. (C01-TMDL-01a) Clark Fork River Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program. Aug. 1998 

D-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

WATERBODY NAME BLM Source 

Contribution 

BLM 

Miles 

Management Direction 

(All Alternatives) 

ARRASTRA CREEK Grazing 2012 1.77 Maintain. Improve where needed. 

BELMONT CREEK None 2011 3.39 Maintain 

BLACK BEAR CREEK Grazing 2012 1.30 Improve 

BLACKFOOT RIVER Landers Fork to Nevada 

Creek 

Grazing 2010 3.01 Improve 

BLACKFOOT RIVER Monture Creek to Belmont 

Creek 

None 4.49 Maintain. Improve where needed (recr) 

BLACKFOOT RIVER Belmont Creek to mouth Recr. 2015 8.63 Maintain. Improve where needed. 

BOULDER CREEK None 0.31 Maintain 

BRAZIEL CREEK Landslide 2.20 Maintain 

BROCK CREEK Grazing 2011 1.98 Maintain 1.93, Improve 0.05 

CAMP CREEK None 2012 .04 Maintain 

CARPENTER CREEK n/a 1.22 Assess 

CLARK FORK RIVER Flint Creek to Blackfoot 

River 

None 2010 3.29 Maintain 

CLARK FORK RIVER Little Blackfoot River to 

Flint Creek 

None 2008 0.18 Maintain 

CLARK FORK RIVER Rattlesnake Creek to Fish 

Creek 

n/a 0.38 Assess 

CRAMER CREEK None 2017 0.39 Maintain 

DAY GULCH n/a Reclaimed 0.74 Assess 

DEEP CREEK n/a Reclaimed 0.97 Assess 

DOG CREEK None 2015 0.20 Maintain 

DOUGLAS CREEK near Philipsburg None 2012 0.01 Maintain 

DOUGLAS CREEK headwaters to Murray Creek None 2012 3.75 Maintain 

DOUGLAS CREEK Murray Creek to mouth None 2016 0.45 Maintain 

ELK CREEK None 2015 2.50 Maintain 

FLAT GULCH Grazing 2015 1.56 Improve 

FLINT CREEK None 2012 1.22 Maintain 

FRAZIER CREEK None 2012 1.15 Maintain 

FRED BURR CREEK Recr. 2015 0.39 Maintain 0.36 Improve 0.03 

GALLAGHER CREEK None 2006 4.22 Maintain 

KENO CREEK None 2015 2.36 Maintain 

MINERS GULCH None 2017 0.32 Maintain 

MULKEY CREEK None 2005-6 2.62 Assess 

MURRAY CREEK Grazing 2012 3.69 Improve 

RATTLER GULCH Grz, rds 2010 0.72 Improve 

ROCK CREEK Grazing 2011 1.52 Maintain 

SAWPIT GULCH None 2007 0.55 Maintain 

SCOTCHMAN GULCH None 2015 1.76 Maintain 

SLUICE GULCH Metals 1.06 Maintain 1.02, Improve .04 

SMART CREEK Grazing 2014 1.37 Maintain 0.87, Improve 0.5 

SOUTH FORK ANTELOPE CREEK Grazing. 2007 1.12 Improve 

TENMILE CREEK n/a 1.58 Assess 

UNION CREEK None 2012 2.31 Maintain. Improve where needed (grazing). 

UPPER WILLOW CREEK None 2007 0.67 Maintain 

WARD CREEK None 2006,12 0.67 Maintain 

WASHINGTON CREEK n/a .08 Assess 

WARM SPRINGS CREEK Grazing 2013 1.89 Maintain 1.41, Improve 0.48 

WASHOE CREEK None 2012 1.39 Maintain 

WOODSON GULCH n/a .84 Assess 

YOURNAME CREEK None 2003 2.33 Maintain 

TOTAL 78.6 

mi 

Maintain: 40.46 mi. (51.5%) 

Maintain, Improve where needed: 17.2 mi. (21.9%) (Grazing: 4.08 mi., Recreation: 13.12 mi.) 

Improve: 12.50 (15.9%) (Grazing: 12.43 mi., Recreation: 0.03 mi., Metals: 0.04 mi.) 

Assess: 8.43 mi. (10.7%) 

D-3 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix E: Locatable Minerals Reasonable 

Foreseeable Development Scenario 

Introduction 

Purpose 

The purpose of the reasonable foreseeable development (RFD) scenario is to provide a model that 

anticipates the level and type of future locatable minerals activity in the Missoula Field Office 

planning area and serve as a basis for cumulative impacts analysis. 

The RFD first describes the main legal framework of solid minerals development, the Mining 

Law of 1872. Next is a discussion of the steps involved in developing a mineral deposit. The 

historic and current activity levels are briefly addressed. Future trends and assumptions affecting 

mineral activity are then addressed, followed by predictions and identification of anticipated 

mineral exploration and development. The RFD is based on the current management situation. 

The Future Activities section that describes variations in the RFD by alternative is included. 

Scope 

The RFD is based on the known or inferred mineral resource capabilities of the lands involved, 

and applies conditions and assumptions discussed under Future Trends and Assumptions. 

Changes in available geologic data and/or economic conditions would alter the RFD, and 

deviation is to be expected over time. 

The mineral development discussed within this RFD include only locatable minerals as described 

in Chapter 2, and the development scenario is limited in scope to the planning area. The mineral 

commodities dominating activity are gold, silver and copper. Though there is some minor activity 

regarding barite, the RFD will pay special attention to gold, silver, and copper mining since the 

activity coincides with large amounts of BLM land ownership. 

The types of land included are restricted to only federal surface and federal minerals administered 

by the BLM. Activities on private, state, or National Forest lands are considered when BLM lands 

or minerals are nearby and may be involved or affected. 

The Mining Law 

The 1872 Mining Law (as amended) governs locatable minerals and other mineral activity in the 

Missoula Field Office planning area. The BLM must approve any Plan of Operations or review 

Notices on all public land. Except for areas withdrawn or otherwise segregated from mineral 

location, all BLM-administered mineral estate remains open for prospecting and development of 

locatable minerals. Development is subject to the regulations contained in 43 CFR 3809. 

The Mining Law consists of five basic elements: discovery of a valuable mineral, location of 

mining claims, recordation of claims, maintenance – performance of annual requirements on 

claims, and patenting of the mineral and possibly surface estate to the claimant. 

E-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

Discovery 

There is no federal statutory definition of what constitutes a valuable mineral deposit, but several 

judicial and administrative rulings or declarations on the subject have been made. In 1894, in the 

case of Castle v. Womble, the Department of the Interior established the “prudent person rule.” 

This rule states: 

"...where minerals have been found and the evidence is of such a character that a [person] 

of ordinary prudence would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, 

with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine, the requirements of 

the statutes have been met." 

This definition was approved by the United States Supreme Court in 1905. 

In 1968, in the case of U.S. v. Coleman, the Supreme Court approved the marketability test as a 

complement to the prudent person rule. This test requires a showing of marketability to confirm 

that a mineral could be mined, removed and marketed at a profit. In other words, the 

marketability test takes into account economics, requiring the claimant to show that there is a 

reasonable prospect of selling material from a claim or a group of claims. It is not necessary that 

the material has been sold or is selling at a profit, but that there is a reasonable likelihood that it 

could be sold at a profit. Demonstrating an established market is not difficult for precious metal 

commodities. 

Some minerals, such as calcium carbonate, can be classified as either locatable (uncommon 

variety) or salable (common variety), depending on the characteristics of the deposit. To classify a 

mineral as locatable, the 1968 ruling from U.S. Minerals Development Corp., 75 ID 127 (1968) 

stated that the mineral must meet the following characteristics: In 1969, McClarty v. Secretary of 

the Interior (408 F.2d 907, 908) set the following standards to distinguish locatable minerals from 

salable minerals (Maley 1990): “There must be a comparison of the mineral deposit in question 

with other deposits of such minerals, generally: 

1. the mineral deposit in question must have unique property; 

2. the unique property must give the deposit a distinct and special value; 

3. if the special value is for uses to which ordinary varieties of the mineral are put, the 

deposit must have some distinct and special value for such use; and 

4. the distinct and special value must be reflected by the higher price which the material 

commands in the market place (or by reduced cost or overhead so that the profit to the 

claimant would be substantially more).” 

Location 

Mining claims may be located only by citizens of the United States, persons who have declared 

an intention to become citizens, and corporations organized under any state law. Mining claims 

may only be located on federal lands open to mineral entry under the mining laws, and only for 

mineral commodities considered to be locatable. Mining claims may be located before or after 

discovery of valuable mineral, on unappropriated public domain land. This claim grants the 

locator an exclusive possessory right to the mineral deposit. This possessory right allows the 

locator to continue to develop the claim as provided for by law. It is valid against the United 

States and other claimants only if a valuable mineral deposit has been discovered. 

There are two primary types of mining claims: lode and placer. Lode claims are located on 

indurated bedrock; while placer claims are usually located on loosely consolidated materials such 

E-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

as mineral-bearing sands and gravels. Two additional types of mining claims may be located 

under the mining law: mill sites and tunnel sites. A mill site may be located on unappropriated 

public domain land that is nonmineral in character. It is used for the construction of a mill or 

reduction works, or for other uses reasonably incident to a mining operation. A tunnel site may be 

located on a plot of land where a tunnel is run to develop a vein or lode, or for the purpose of 

intersecting unknown veins or lodes. The actual location of a mining claim in Montana involves 

posting a notice of location at the discovery point and erecting corner posts, or monuments, on the 

ground to ensure that the claim boundaries are readily identifiable. 

Recordation 

Prior to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), claimants were required to file 

their location and assessment notices only in the office of the county recorder, or county clerk, in 

the county in which the claim was located. Since enactment of FLPMA, notices of location and 

other notices must be filed with the BLM State Office, as well as the appropriate county recorder. 

This requirement has allowed BLM to know the number, types, and their current status of claims 

located on public land. Failure to file these documents with the BLM is considered abandonment 

of a mining claim. 

Maintenance 

The General Mining Law of 1872 requires performance of an annual minimum of $100 worth of 

labor or improvements to retain a possessory interest in the claim. An affidavit of assessment 

work must be filed with both the county recorder and with the BLM State Office. Owners of mill 

and tunnel sites are not required to file assessment work, but are required to file a notice of intent 

to hold the site. 

Exploration and mining activities on BLM administered lands are subject to regulation under 43 

CFR 3715, 43 CFR 3802, and 43 CFR 3809. These regulations require that an operator prevent 

unnecessary or undue degradation and perform reasonable reclamation. 

Patents 

It is not necessary to have a patent to mine or remove minerals from a mining claim. In fact, it is 

not even necessary to have a mining claim at all if the land is open to mineral entry. However, a 

patent gives the owner exclusive title to the locatable minerals and, in most cases, to the surface 

estate. In order to obtain patent, the claimant must have performed at least $500 worth of 

development work per claim; had a mineral survey and plat prepared at their expense; show they 

hold possessory rights by chain of title documents; publish a notice for potential adverse 

claimants to assert their claims; and demonstrate discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within 

the meaning of the Mining Law. Upon satisfactory completion of the above requirements, the 

claimant is given the opportunity to purchase the mining claim(s) at $2.50 per acre for placer 

claims and $5 per acre for lode claims. 

Since October 1, 1994, Congress has imposed a budget moratorium on BLM acceptance of any 

new mineral patent applications. Until the moratorium is lifted, no new applications may be 

accepted by the BLM. 

E-3 
I 

Productfon: Ac.tU'a1 Mining of' Property, Dormant Prn,11erty; T,emporarily Ctosed 

continue Af.sessment f'or Add'ed' Reser.-es.. -· ~ 

- Waitin,g. Cha11ge in l;i;oncmii;:5 

Concurrent Recfamation 

l 

l>eYelopment: Construclicn a f 

lnrra5tn.ict~re, P'ermitting P"hase - . - - -

l 

Pre Oevelopmen.t: Res.erve AS4e-mneot, 

Feasibility Studic-5 to M3ke OllWlopment - . ~ , 

Dc-cision 

i 

Exploratron: Orilling, r,cnchins. <1ncl - Oe3d Property: ftecfam3tion Act.ii;ity, 

E:«:::iv.itiog or Target Art0malies , . Exlm1s tecl Prod'iuctron Cap.i,'bilit',' I+-

------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- ------------------------------- l , ' 

PfOSl)ecllng: M.-ippil'lg ,mcl Sampting to ~~ 'EG>no<!l'l<•«T'odinoi>p- ,_, Lo~te liargQt Anomaties ~ 

Bureau of Land Management 

Development of a Mine 

The development of a mine from exploration to production can be divided into six stages. Each 

stage requires the application of more discriminating (and more expensive) techniques over a 

successively smaller land area to identify and develop an economic mineral deposit. 

A full sequence of developing a mineral project involves the following stages: appraisal of a large 

region, reconnaissance of selected parts of the region, detailed surface investigation of a target 

area, three dimensional physical sampling of the target area, development of the mine 

infrastructure and actual production. These stages can be grouped into four categories: 

Reconnaissance, Prospecting, Exploration, and Mine Development. A diagram showing the 

relationship of these various stages in the life of a mine is shown below. 

Figure 1. Mine Life Cycle Diagram 

BLM 2017 

Reconnaissance 

Reconnaissance level activity is the first stage in exploring for a mineral deposit. This activity 

involves initial literature search of an area of interest, using available references such as 

publications, reports, maps, aerial photos, etc. The area of study can vary from hundreds to 

thousands of square miles. 

Activity that will normally take place includes large scale mapping, regional geochemical and 

geophysical studies, and remote sensing with aerial photography or satellite imagery. These 

E-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

studies are usually undertaken by academic institutions, government entities, or major 

corporations. 

The type of surface disturbing activity associated with reconnaissance-level mineral inventory is 

usually no more than occasional stream sediment, soil, or rock sampling. Minor off-road vehicle 

use may be needed. 

Prospecting 

As the result of anomalous or geophysical readings, unique geologic structure or feature, 

occurrence of typical mineral bearing formations, or a historical reference to mineral occurrence, 

the prospecting area of interest is identified through reconnaissance. This area may range from 

single square mile to an entire mountain range of several hundred square miles. 

Activities that will take place in an effort to locate a mineral prospect include more detailed 

mapping, sampling, geochemical and geophysical study programs. Also, this is the time when 

property acquisition efforts usually begin, and most mining claims are located in order to secure 

ground while trying to make a mineral discovery. Prospecting on an annual basis is considered a 

minimum requirement, under the mining laws, to secure a claim. 

Types of surface disturbing activity associated with prospecting would involve more intense soil 

and rock chip sampling that would require mostly hand tools, frequent off-road vehicle use, and 

placement and maintenance of mining claim monuments. With the exception of off-road vehicle 

use, this activity is normally considered casual use (43 CFR 3809.5) and does not require BLM 

notification or approval. 

Exploration 

Upon location of sufficiently anomalous mineral occurrence or favorable occurrence indicator, a 

mineral prospect is established and is subjected to more intense evaluation through exploration 

techniques. 

Activities that take place during exploration include those utilized during prospecting but at a 

more intense level and in a more focused area. In addition, activities such as road building, 

trenching, and/or drilling are conducted. In later stages of lode exploration, an exploratory adit or 

shaft may be driven. If the prospect already has underground workings, these may be sampled, 

drilled, or extended. Exploration activities use mechanized earth moving equipment (excavators, 

backhoes, drill rigs, etc.) and may involve the use of explosives. 

For a lode deposit, a typical exploration project in the planning area would require construction of 

approximately 3,000 feet of access road, establishment of about a dozen drill sites, with several 

holes at each site drilled between 500 to about 6,000 feet deep, and possibly several trenches 

200 feet by 8 feet by 6 to 8 feet deep. If initial results are encouraging, the exploration program 

will be expanded to determine the limits of the deposit. Most surface disturbance associated with 

exploration projects amounts to less than 5 acres and is conducted under a Notice (43 CFR 

3809.21), requiring the operator to notify BLM 15 days before beginning activity. For larger 

exploration projects that require exploratory trench or adits may require a filing of a Plan of 

Operations. 

A typical placer exploration project in the planning area would require construction of 

approximately 2,000 feet of access road, establishment of about a dozen trenches 200 feet by 

E-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

8 feet by 5 to 15 feet deep. If initial results are encouraging, the exploration program will be 

expanded to determine the limits of the deposit. Most surface disturbance associated with 

exploration projects amounts to less than 5 acres, no more than 1,000 tons of presumed ore 

sampled, and is conducted under a Notice, requiring the operator to notify BLM 15 days before 

beginning activity. 

Mine Development 

If exploration results show that an economically viable mineral deposit may be present, activity 

will intensify to obtain detailed knowledge regarding possible reserves, mining methods, and 

mineral processing requirements. This will involve applying all the previously used exploration 

tools in a more focused effort. Once enough information is acquired, a feasibility study will be 

made to decide whether to proceed with mine development and what mining and processing 

methods will be used. 

Once the decision to develop the property is made by the proponent, the Plan of Operations 

process begins. Upon approval (see process below), work begins on development of the mine and 

its infrastructure. This includes construction of the processing facilities, offices, and a laboratory; 

driving of development workings if the property is to be mined underground or prestripping if it 

is to be mined through surface mining methods. During this time, building of access roads or 

haulage routes and placement of utility are completed while additional refinement of ore reserves 

is being made. 

When enough facilities are in place, actual mine production begins. Concurrent with production, 

there are often satellite exploration efforts to expand the mine’s reserve base and extend the 

project life. Upon completion of the operation, concurrent with mining, the property is reclaimed. 

Often subeconomic resources remain unmined and the property is dormant, waiting for changes 

in commodity price or production technology that would make these resources economic (Figure 

1. Mine Life Cycle Diagram). 

Activities that occur on these lands include: material excavation and hauling, ore processing, 

tailings disposal, waste rock placement, solution-metal refining, and placement of support 

facilities such as repair shops, laboratories, and offices. Such activities involve the use of heavy 

earthmoving equipment and explosives for mining and materials handling, exploration equipment 

for refinement of the ore reserve base, hazardous or dangerous reagents for processing 

requirement, and general construction activities. 

The size and type of mines vary greatly, and not all mines would require all the previously 

mentioned facilities and equipment. Acreage involved can range from several single acres to 

several hundred, with most projects having surface disturbance greater than casual use and 

requiring an approved Plan of Operations (43 CFR 3809). 

Plan of Operations Approval Process 

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is the state permitting authority for 

hardrock operations and open-cut mining in Montana. All Plans of Operations required by the 

BLM are reviewed and approved in coordination with the DEQ. 

Often before submitting a proposed Plan of Operations to the BLM (Operating or Open-cut 

Permit to the DEQ), the operator will contact the agencies for guidance on specific information or 

data that should be included in the application. The application is then filed with both agencies 

E-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

that coordinate staffing needs and agency roles for the review. The pre-Plan coordination is not 

required by regulation, but can be arranged as a convenience to the operator. 

Upon receipt, the Plan of Operations is reviewed for completeness. A completeness review 

involves identifying any additional information that the operator must provide to allow BLM to 

determine whether or not Plan of Operations is adequate to prevent unnecessary or undue 

degradation. The deficiencies identified during a completeness review are provided to the 

operator within 30 days of receipt. The applicant then revises their Plan of Operations as 

appropriate and resubmits it to the agencies for another completeness review. The cycle of 

completeness review by the agencies, including subsequent modification of the Plan by the 

applicant, continues until the application is accepted as complete. 

After a complete Plan of Operations is received, the environmental analysis is prepared in 

accordance with both the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) and National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Depending on the anticipated impacts of the 

proposal, this may be either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). Typically, but not always, three alternatives are analyzed in the document: the 

operator’s proposal, the operator’s proposal with additional agency-imposed modifications 

(usually the preferred alternative), and the no action alternative. During this time, the BLM may 

require the operator to submit additional information or baseline studies that assist the BLM with 

its environmental analysis under NEPA, its National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

consultation, Endangered Species Act consultation, or any other review process associated with 

the Plan of Operations. 

When the environmental analysis and review process is to the point where BLM and the operator 

can anticipate what the approved Plan of Operations will be, the operator will be required to 

provide a Reclamation Cost Estimate (RCE). Within 30 days of receipt, the BLM will review the 

RCE and notify the operator of any deficiencies in the cost estimate or any additional information 

required. 

Public review and comment of the Plan of Operations may be solicited at any time during the 

process, but is mandatory after a complete Plan of Operations is filed. The time period for public 

comment is dependent on the issues and interest of the operation, but a minimum of 30 calendar 

days is required. Public meetings for scoping and/or comment are held as appropriate. 

After completing the Plan of Operations review, including the environmental analysis, the 

consultation requirements are complete while the public comments have been considered, the 

agencies make an approval decision. Conformance with the modified mining and reclamation 

plans, plus any additional mitigation measures, are conditions of approval. A financial guarantee 

based on the RCE must be posted before ground disturbance can begin. 

The Plan of Operations approval process is laid out with associated regulation in Plan of 

Operations Approval Diagram. Amendments to an existing Plan of Operations are processed in a 

similar manner. 

E-7 
Complet ene-ss Revf,ew EnYironrne11t.ail Re1,1iew 

3&0!b101j~} . - 3809.4Dl{c)(l) - 3S.O!b!I011bU 1-Sl 3809.41'Halt31 

t -!, 

Pl;in Modific:atlOl'I J Compliante Mc:mltorlng Pl;an Approv.a.1 :and :8.Qnd 

E~t:abll"~hm11nt 

3809 • .:130 3809.alS 

<E- I 3809,401{d} 

3809.431 I 38-09.421 I 

! 3809.41mn 

J, .J, 

closi:.re a.nd bonid R-eleas,e Admiriistrati..,e or Legal 

R@view 

38-09.S91) et 5eq. 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 2. Plan of Operations Approval Process Diagram 

BLM 2018 

Mineral Development Activities 

Mining Claims 

The number of active mining claims by county within the planning area is provided below, Table 

1. It is important to note that while there over 700 mining claims in the planning area that are 

located on BLM-managed mineral estate, only a small portion of these claims had or will have 

any activity above the prospecting level. Many claims are adjacent to known minable areas and 

serve to secure the property from potential rivals. Many of the claims overlap and might cover the 

same portion of ground. Often blocks of claims are located to serve as a basis for exploration 

projects. These blocks will naturally cover more area than the initial geology indicates is 

warranted so as to provide room for possible expansion should the mineral prospect prove to be 

favorable. 

Table 1. BLM Mining Claims 

County Mining

Claim Type 

BLM Lands 

Granite Lode 437 

Granite Placer 32 

Lincoln Lode 1 

Lincoln Placer 5 

Missoula Lode 176 

Missoula Placer 2 

Powell Lode 36 

Powell Placer 36 

Sanders Lode 1 

BLM May 2018 

E-8 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Historic Mining 

The following description of past mining within the planning area was taken from the Mineral 

Assessment Report for the Missoula Field Office planning area (EMI 2011). 

There are over 70 mining districts in the planning area. Mining districts were historically formed 

by an association of miners who were exploring or mining in the same geographic area and where 

the geology and mineralization were the same or similar. The mining districts were originally a 

form of local government before statehood and county designations superseded their function. A 

brief history of some of the most important mining districts in the planning area with significant 

BLM federal estate interests is presented below (MT DEQ 2010). 

Garnet (Granite, Missoula, Powell Counties) 

The Garnet mining district was one of the earliest to be established in the Montana Territory. In 

1865, placer gold was discovered at the confluence of Bear Creek and the Clark Fork, an area 

subsequently known as Bearmouth. Soon after the discoveries at Bearmouth, prospectors 

searched the interior of the Garnet Range for placer and lode deposits. The lode deposits were 

generally high in the mountains near the head of Bear Creek where granite magma intruded along 

thrust faults in the older sedimentary rocks. Where the magma penetrated the Madison limestone, 

the two reacted to form skarns that consisted mostly of garnets and gold (Alt and Hyndman 

1992). Deposits are also found in the fissure veins both within the intrusive rock and in the 

intruded sediments. Most of the mining was done between 1880 and 1900. 

Top o' Deep Sub-district 

The Top o' Deep is considered to be a sub-district within the Garnet District. It was a small 

mining camp to the east of Garnet which was most active during the 1860s as a placer camp. 

Some lode mining was conducted during the 1890s, but was limited by constant litigation. Total 

production was estimated by Pardee to have been around $50,000 in gold (Pardee 1918). 

Coloma (Missoula County) 

The Coloma mining district is located in the northeastern corner of the Garnet Range at the 

headwaters of McGinnis Creek, a tributary of Elk Creek which flows north into the Blackfoot 

River. The mining camp known as Coloma was on the north side of the divide from the camp of 

Garnet. The total metal production of the Coloma mining district between 1897 and 1960 was 

17,456 ounces gold; 21,950 ounces silver; 13,503 pounds copper; 18,856 pounds lead; and 

800 pounds zinc. Most of the production was from the Mammoth and Comet mines, the 

Mammoth by far the larger of the two. In more recent years a considerable amount came from the 

Dandy mine at the head of Elk Creek (Kauffman and Earll 1963). 

The Coloma mining district is characterized by limestone and granodiorite rocks that are 

continuous with similar bodies exposed at Garnet. The veins occupy fractures in the granodiorite 

and are locally very rich. The ore contains gold, and the sulphide material is composed of mostly 

of pyrite and chalcopyrite. Most of the ore mined was oxidized gold ore carrying $20-100 per ton 

in gold (Sahinen 1935). 

Garrison (Powell County) 

The neighboring Garrison mining district has been a prolific producer of phosphate (a leasable 

mineral). The Phosphoria formation of Permian age is 65 to 70 feet thick in this district and the 

Retort phosphate member is 3 to 5 feet thick. In the eastern part of the district the Retort member 

E-9 
Bureau of Land Management 

is high-grade oolitic phosphorite as much as 5 feet thick. Outcrops can be traced from Avon west 

to Drummond. It has been estimated that 100 million long tons of material have been removed by 

the operator from the district for the manufacture of fertilizer in its Canadian plant. The mine has 

been shut down since the mid-1990s. 

Philipsburg (Granite County) 

The Philipsburg mining district began with the discovery of lode claims along Flint Creek in 

1865. By June of 1866, claims had been staked on many of the important lodes of the area. Rocks 

in the district are chiefly Paleozoic sedimentary rocks with exposed sections from lower 

Cambrian to Pennsylvanian along with a part of the Pre-Cambrian Spokane formation. A granitic 

batholith of late Cretaceous or early Tertiary cuts the sedimentary rocks. Subsequent to the 

intrusion of the granite and the folding of the sediments, a system of east-west fissures was 

superimposed upon the structure and extensive mineralization followed. Mineral deposits are 

silver-bearing veins in granite, silver-bearing replacement veins in the sediments, and silverbearing deposits in bedding planes of calcareous rocks. Manganese is associated with the silver 

veins and replacement deposits. These deposits have been developed to a depth of 1,000 feet 

(Sahinen 1935). 

The Philipsburg district was one of the most prolific silver producers in Montana. Major mines 

included the Granite Mountain mine, the Bi-Metallic mine, and the Hope mine. According to 

records, the district produced 2.2 million troy ounces of silver in 1887, making it the largest silver 

producer in the United States for that year. The district suffered greatly from the fall of silver in 

1893 and essentially shut down until World War I, when the manganese deposits became 

valuable. More recently, the Black Pine Mine was operating up to 1993, when the mine was 

closed. The mine was historically a silver mine and produced silver from 1974-1989. The last 

mining at the Black Pine was for silica flux for the smelter in East Helena (McClave 2009). 

Gold Creek /Pioneer (Powell County) 

Gold Creek, a tributary of the Clark Fork River holds a special place in not only the history of 

mining, but in the history of Montana as well. The stream was the scene of the first discovery of 

gold in Montana. While the quality of the strike was soon overshadowed by the Bannack strike, it 

was the Gold Creek mines that first drew prospectors to the region and directly led to the 

discovery on Grasshopper Creek. In 1852, Francois Finlay, who was also known as Benetsee, 

found the first float gold in what is now Montana, in a branch of the Clark Fork, later to be called 

Gold Creek. The Pioneer or Gold Creek district never rivaled the other major strikes of Montana, 

but just the same the district flourished all through the 1870s. It has been estimated that over a 

million dollars of gold dust (at $20.67 per ounce) was removed from the Pioneer Bar in the late 

1870s and early 1880s (Pardee 1951). 

No production figures are available prior to 1904 when the majority of the gold was recovered 

from the district. However, from 1904 to 1951, the operations in the district worked 

4,625,700 cubic yards of gravel to recover 65,000 ounces of gold and 7,442 ounces of silver. 

Estimated value of historic 20th century production was reported to be over $2,000,000. Most of 

this production occurred in the 1930s with the advent of dredging (McClernan 1976). 

Gold Creek and Pikes Peak Creek flow into an area of complexly folded and faulted Mesozoic 

and Paleozoic sediments which have been intruded by an elongated batholith of quartz 

monzonite. The lode deposits occur in veins and replacement deposits in highly altered granite or 

quartz monzonite. None of the lode deposits have been particularly important as points of 

E-10 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

production, but erosion of these gold-bearing deposits have resulted in extensive placer deposits 

in Gold, Little Gold, Pioneer, and Pikes Peak Creeks. The placer gold occurs in recent stream 

gravels and also in bench gravels. The deposits have been mined by sluicing, hydraulic mining, 

and dredging (Sahinen 1935). 

Ophir (partially in Powell County) 

Located about 25 miles west-northwest of Helena near the town of Avon is the Ophir mining 

district. The district lies in two counties, Powell and Lewis and Clark. The Powell County portion 

of the district is accessed by road from Avon and was on the Northern Pacific Railway. 

Limestone, shale, and quartzite of lower Paleozoic age are the dominant materials in the area. In 

the Avon Valley there are also deposits of clay, sand and volcanic ash belonging to the group 

known as the Tertiary "lake beds." Along the principal streams carved in the Tertiary beds are 

gravels of varying thickness derived from the adjacent mountains; these gravels contain the placer 

deposits. The lodes which contain gold and gold-silver ore occur primarily in the limestone. The 

ore bodies contain chiefly pyrite or chalcopyrite in a gangue of quartz or metamorphic silicates. 

Placer mines were active in the district in the 1860s and 1870s and Blackfoot City, now Ophir, 

was a thriving mining camp. Ophir Gulch was placer mined for 8 miles while Carpenter and 

Snowshoe Gulches were placer mined for several more miles. Among the richest deposits of 

placer gold were the Prairie Bar and Carpenter Bar. On the McKay claim in Deadwood Gulch, 

which is a tributary of Snowshoe Gulch, a miner named Ed Risson found Montana's largest gold 

nugget. The nugget was reported at the time to be worth $3,280. It is estimated that the placers 

produced around $3.5 million in gold in the early years. In 1933, the gulches were reworked by 

the Yuba Associated Engineers using an all-electric dredge (Pardee and Schrader 1933). 

There are many other mining districts that have had a similar exploration and production history 

as the ones featured above. The Nine Mile mining district northwest of Missoula, the Emery 

mining district southeast of Deer Lodge, and the Elliston mining district are a few that had 

numerous placer and lode deposits that were found in the late 1880s and subsequently mined. 

Future Trends and Assumptions 

This section discusses anticipated future trends and assumptions that will be made when 

predicting solid minerals activity in the planning area. 

Commodities Produced 

The major commodities of interest will continue to be gold, silver, and copper based on the 

combination of price and favorable geology for mineral occurrence (EMI 2011). Additional base 

metal development will occur in association with precious metals, but is not expected to be a 

significant factor in mine economics. 

In addition to precious and base metal commodities, barite is also assumed to generate interest. 

This is based on a combination of favorable geology and the commodity having a history of 

production in the planning area. 

Technology 

As with most any other industry, advances in technology will have a substantial effect on future 

mineral exploration, development, and reclamation. Along with the exploration and data 

E-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

collection, analysis and geologic modeling methods will become more sophisticated and available 

to the average user. This will advance accuracy and speed when assessing a mineral deposit’s 

potential. 

Mining and mineral processing efficiency will continue to improve in the future. As general 

technology advances, availability to the mining industry increases as well. More knowledge from 

these advancements will continue to be gained through experience and research by industry and 

government agencies. Advancements in environmental science, including alternative mining and 

processing methods, could open up greater potential for development. 

In the same way, reclamation science will advance as well. More detailed design efforts will 

continue to be placed on reclamation of mined land, resulting in an overall increase in 

reclamation costs. These costs should pay dividends in the long-term with increased reclamation 

success. As the rate of reclamation success further improves and decreases environmental impacts 

of mining, the potential for development would increase. 

Commodity Markets 

The economics of mining in the planning area will be driven by the relationship between gold 

production costs and market price. Though more silver is often produced than gold, it is the 

relatively high unit value of gold that will be critical in establishing the economic viability of 

mining. While production costs can be controlled or anticipated, through management and 

technology, the significant unknown factor will be the price of gold. The overall profitability of 

an operation, and hence the level of activity at the prospecting, exploration, and mining phases, 

for development of gold ore bodies will be closely related to the price of gold. 

The supply and demand for gold, and ultimately the price, is determined by several factors. On 

the supply side, production costs must be lower than price for firms to earn a profit. Relatively 

low-grade deposits, which were once uneconomical to mine, have become profitable resources to 

develop due to the emergence of new production techniques. Thus, supply has been increasing 

while the relative cost of production generally has declined. However, the profitability of these 

mining processes has increased the number of suppliers worldwide and made the market more 

competitive. 

Factors influencing the demand for gold, both nationally and internationally, include the growth 

of disposable income, inflationary expectations, international stock market activity, the value of 

the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies, and political events. 

E-12 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 2. Average Annual Mineral Commodity Prices (1997-2017) 

Year PPI* 

(Metals) 

Unadjusted 

Gold (/oz.) 

2017 Dollar 

Gold (/oz.) 

Unadjusted 

Silver (/oz.) 

2017 Dollar 

Silver (/oz.) 

Unadjusted 

Copper (/lb.) 

2017 Dollar 

Copper (/lb.) 

1997 131.8 $331.10 $522.02 $4.90 $7.73 $1.03 $1.68 

1998 127.8 $294.16 $478.30 $5.55 $9.02 $0.75 $1.26 

1999 124.6 $278.77 $464.91 $5.22 $8.71 $0.71 $1.23 

2000 128.1 $279.03 $452.63 $4.95 $8.03 $0.82 $1.38 

2001 125.4 $270.99 $449.06 $4.37 $7.24 $0.72 $1.23 

2002 125.9 $309.97 $511.61 $4.60 $7.59 $0.71 $1.21 

2003 129.2 $363.51 $584.65 $4.88 $7.85 $0.81 $1.34 

2004 149.6 $409.21 $568.41 $6.65 $9.24 $1.30 $1.87 

2005 160.8 $444.88 $574.91 $7.31 $9.45 $1.67 $2.23 

2006 181.6 $604.34 $691.53 $11.57 $13.24 $3.05 $3.61 

2007 193.5 $696.66 $748.14 $13.39 $14.38 $3.24 $3.60 

2008 213.0 $871.70 $850.42 $15.02 $14.65 $3.15 $3.18 

2009 186.8 $972.98 $1,082.36 $14.65 $16.30 $2.34 $2.69 

2010 207.6 $1,224.66 $1,225.84 $20.16 $20.18 $3.42 $3.54 

2011 225.9 $1,568.58 $1,442.90 $35.26 $32.43 $4.00 $3.81 

2012 219.9 $1,668.82 $1,576.99 $31.14 $29.43 $3.61 $3.53 

2013 213.5 $1,411.11 $1,373.44 $23.83 $23.19 $3.32 $3.35 

2014 215.0 $1,266.31 $1,223.90 $19.08 $18.44 $3.11 $3.11 

2015 200.3 $1,160.08 $1,203.52 $15.70 $16.29 $2.50 $2.68 

2016 194.3 $1,248.34 $1,335.07 $17.10 $18.29 $2.21 $2.44 

2017 207.8 $1,257.13 $1,257.13 $17.05 $17.05 $2.80 $2.89 

* Producer Price Indexes (PPI): U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018. Commodity data for Metals and metal products. 

Annual average metal prices: CostMine, 2018. 

As shown in table 2, the price of gold has had a rapid increase between 2006 and 2012. In this 

time, there has been increased national and international interest in gold development, as is the 

case with Montana. To a lesser extent, silver and copper prices also follow a similar increase in 

value to gold. The general trend for Montana in this timeframe has been reopening past 

developments related to old mines and shipping to established mills in the area. 

Due to its unusually high specific gravity (4.5 when pure) as an inert mineral, the primary use of 

barite is as a weighting agent in oil and gas drilling mud. Barite mining in the area began in the 

early 1950s and continued until 1966 when decreased demand for barite by the drilling industry 

caused operations to close. When the oil and gas drilling market improved in the mid-1970s, 

barite mining resumed in 1976. Again in 1985, operations once again were discontinued as a 

result of a reduction of oil and gas drilling. Though there have been increases in mining claim 

location on presumed barite deposits, the planning area mines were never reopened after the 

1980s, even around 2012 when the North Dakota oil boom reached peak production. (Berg 1988) 

Legislative Changes 

There are several areas of legislative change that may affect how the locatable mineral resources 

are developed. 

One is the ongoing effort to amend, repeal, or reform the Mining Law of 1872. This could result 

in anything from simply leaving the law as is to completely restructuring it into a leasing and 

royalty system that is similar to what is now used for coal or oil and gas. For mineral exploration, 

a major change in the mining law would be if the right of self-initiation was lost, there would be a 

decrease in the amount of activity undertaken by small operators. Another affect, perhaps more 

extensive, would be if a royalty is placed on mineral production, decreasing the ultimate number 

and size of mines that could be developed. An increase of production cost with an added royalty 

would raise the cut-off ore grade, making some currently economic deposits uneconomical. 

E-13 
Bureau of Land Management 

Changes in the way mining property and production is taxed could also have a substantial effect 

on the viability of individual operations. No changes in state tax schedules are anticipated, and no 

federal royalty is assumed in this analysis. 

Another area of possible legislative change is in environmental laws or regulations which would 

affect exploration and mining activity. These could come in a form of restrictions or post-mining 

reclamation requirements. In regard to state legislation, Montana has banned certain mining and 

processing techniques in the past. For example, the Montana law for the ban on open-pit gold and 

silver mining that utilizes heap leaching or vat leaching with cyanide, Initiative 137, is considered 

a mine planning criteria, but is not applicable to the development potential for public lands 

managed by the BLM. 

For purposes of analysis, it is assumed that the mining law could be changed, the right of selfinitialization will be maintained, and there will be no federal royalty system imposed. 

Development Potential 

For the following discussion of development potential, please reference figures H-23 to H-28 in 

appendix H for the correlating geographic areas. The development areas are classified into four 

categories for potential: very low, low, moderate, and high. The term development potential as 

used in this document refers to the potential of the lands to support actual mine development. 

Mineral occurrence potential was identified in the Mineral Assessment Report for the Missoula 

Field Office (EMI 2011). This occurrence potential, in combination with the past/current activity 

and future trends discussed above, was used in the determining the areas of mineral development 

potential. All of the lands in the moderate and high development potential areas have high 

occurrence potential for locatable mineral resources. 

The development potential of these lands can be correlated with the types of activity and the Mine 

Life Cycle Diagram in figure 1. A description of development potential and associated level of 

activity follows. Because surface-disturbing activities is only associated with moderate and high 

development potential, the areas of very low and low potential for development are not addressed 

further in the analysis. 

Very Low or Unknown Development Potential/Reconnaissance

Level Activity 

The vast majority of lands in the planning area are in this category and have either little or 

unknown potential for locatable mineral development. Geologic conditions are not favorable for 

mineral occurrence, or geologic data is insufficient to support a determination. Activities that will 

occur on these lands are at the reconnaissance level as described under: Development of a MineReconnaissance. There is usually negligible surface disturbance associated with this level of 

activity. 

Low Development Potential/Prospecting Level Activity 

Lands in this category have geologic conditions moderately favorable for mineral resource 

occurrence, or have recent claim staking, past exploration, or property acquisition activities. 

These lands may contain mineral resources but cannot be put into a moderate or high 

development potential category due to lack of evidence indicating minable reserves, in either 

quality or quantity, that would warrant further consideration for development. Prospecting 

E-14 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

activities will occur on these lands as described under: Development Of A Mine-Prospecting. If 

an exploration program is successful further exploration would follow, and the lands may 

eventually be placed in a high development potential category. 

Moderate Development Potential/Exploration Level Activity 

Lands in this category exceed the requirements for Low Development Potential by having recent 

or anticipated exploration activity and/or a prospect identified requiring more intense exploration 

methods. These lands have high to very high mineral occurrence potential. Activities that would 

occur on these lands can involve use of mechanized earthmoving equipment and is described 

under: Development of a Mine. 

High Development Potential/Mining Level Activity 

Lands in this category exceed the requirements for moderate development potential and contain 

proven, probable or inferred reserves and/or are within, or potential additions to, the permit area 

of a proposed or operating mine. Activities that would occur on these lands are described under: 

Development of a Mine. 

Future Activity 

This section describes the extent of exploration and mine development within the foreseeable 

future, broken into specific geographic areas with high and moderate development potential and 

by alternative. This includes development of known resource occurrence and of undiscovered 

resource bodies resulting from prospecting and exploration activity. 

The acres of disturbance due to foreseeable locatable mineral activity by alternative is tabulated 

below, and the description of each geographic area’s potential exploration and mining 

development activity by alternative follows. Figures H-23 to H-28 in appendix H display 

moderate and high development potential within each of the five designated geographic areas. 

Table 3. Acres of Disturbance by Alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Wallace Crk - Union Peak 45 acres 45 acres 45 acres 

Garnet Ghost Town-Elk Crk 140 acres 130 acres 110 acres 

Top o’Deep-Wales Crk 70 acres 70 acres 70 acres 

Hoodoos-Blackfoot City 47 acres 47 acres 47 acres 

Philipsburg-Rock and Gold Crks 108 acres 108 acres 108 acres 

Total 410 acres 400 acres 380 acres 

BLM 2018 

It is estimated that 90 percent of activity would occur within the high and moderate development 

potential areas shown in figures H-23 to H-28 in appendix H, the remaining 10 percent could 

occur in the area having low or unknown development potential (not shown). 

E-15 
Bureau of Land Management 

Wallace Creek and Union Peak Area 

Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, four lode exploration projects can be anticipated for the Wallace Creek and 

Union Peak area over the life of the land use plan. The exploration would likely occur in the areas 

of Copper Cliff (three projects) and Wallace-Ashby Creek. Average disturbance for this activity 

would be 5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 20 acres of disturbance due to lode 

exploration. 

If the exploration in the Copper Cliff area indicates the presence of an economic copper deposit 

as could be anticipated, an exploratory shaft or decline would likely be developed to access the 

depths of mineralization. The size and volumes at that stage of exploration would result in 

25 acres of surface disturbance, requiring a Plan of Operations. 

Garnet Ghost Town and Elk Creek Area 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

Under this current management alternative, 12 exploration projects (four placer and eight lode) 

can be anticipated for this area over the life of the land use plan. The placer exploration would 

occur in the areas of First Chance Gulch, Bear Gulch (two projects), Elk Creek, and Day Gulch. 

Average disturbance for this activity would be 3 acres per project, amounting to a total of 15 acres 

of disturbance due to placer exploration. 

If future exploration discovers an economic placer deposit in the Bear Gulch, Elk Creek, and Day 

Gulch areas as could be anticipated, an operation in each of the three drainages would extract 

alluvial material and process by wash plant. This type of development would result in 10 acres of 

surface disturbance each, totaling 30 acres. 

The lode exploration projects would be in the areas of Garnet (four projects), Coloma (two 

projects), lower Deep Creek, and Bear Gulch. Average disturbance for this activity would be 

5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 40 acres of disturbance due to lode exploration. 

If an economic lode deposit is discovered through the eight exploration projects, one surface mine 

in the area of Coloma and two mines (one underground and one surface) in the vicinity of Garnet 

could be anticipated. The two surface mine developments would be expansions of past or existing 

operations and disturbance at each mine would amount to 20 acres of disturbance each. The 

underground mine development would also be an expansion of past operations with an additional 

surface disturbance of 15 acres. Total surface disturbance as a result of lode mine development 

would result in a total of 55 acres. 

Alternative B 

Under Alternative B, the Garnet and Elk Creek area can be anticipated to have a total of 10 

exploration projects (four placer and six lode) through the life of the land use plan. Same as 

Alternative A, the four placer exploration projects in First Chance Gulch, Bear Gulch (two 

projects), Elk Creek, and Day Gulch would be expected to occur, resulting in a total of 15 acres of 

surface disturbance. 

If future exploration discovers an economic placer deposit in the Bear Gulch, Elk Creek, and Day 

Gulch areas as could be anticipated, an operation in each of the three drainages would extract 

E-16 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

alluvial material and process by wash plant. This type of development would result in 10 acres of 

surface disturbance each, totaling 30 acres. 

The proposed Garnet withdrawal of 263 acres under this alternative would decrease lode 

exploration projects in the area to three projects. Lode exploration would also occur around 

Coloma (two projects), lower Deep Creek, and Bear Gulch. Average disturbance for this activity 

would be 5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 35 acres of disturbance due to lode 

exploration. 

If an economic lode deposit is discovered through the seven exploration projects, one surface 

mine in the area of Coloma and two mines (one underground and one surface) in the vicinity of 

Garnet could be anticipated. The surface mine development in the Coloma area would likely be 

an expansion of past barite development and amount to 20 acres of disturbance. Both the 

underground and surface mine developments around Garnet would are anticipated to result in 

surface disturbance of 15 acres each due to restrictions associated with the Special Recreation 

Management Area. Total surface disturbance as a result of lode mine development would result in 

a total of 50 acres. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, the Garnet and Elk Creek area can be anticipated to have a total of 10 

exploration projects (four placer and six lode) through the life of the land use plan. Same as 

Alternatives A and B, the four placer exploration projects in First Chance Gulch, Bear Gulch (two 

projects), Elk Creek, and Day Gulch would be expected to occur, resulting in a total of 15 acres of 

surface disturbance. 

If future exploration discovers an economic placer deposit in the Bear Gulch, Elk Creek, and Day 

Gulch areas as could be anticipated, an operation in each of the three drainages would extract 

alluvial material and process by wash plant. This type of development would result in 10 acres of 

surface disturbance each, totaling 30 acres. 

The proposed Garnet withdrawal of 355 acres under this alternative would decrease lode 

exploration projects in the area to two projects. Lode exploration would also occur around 

Coloma (two projects), lower Deep Creek, and Bear Gulch. Average disturbance for this activity 

would be 5 acres per project, amounting to a total of 30 acres of disturbance due to lode 

exploration. 

If an economic lode deposit is discovered through the six exploration projects, one surface mine 

in the area of Coloma and one surface mine in the vicinity of Garnet could be anticipated. The 

surface mine development in the Coloma area would likely be an expansion of past barite 

development and amount to 20 acres of disturbance. The surface mine development around 

Garnet would is anticipated to result in surface disturbance of 15 acres due to restrictions 

associated with the Special Recreation Management Area. Total surface disturbance as a result of 

lode mine development would result in a total of 35 acres. 

Top o’Deep and Wales Creek Area 

Common to All Alternatives 

Over the life of the land use plan, a total of seven exploration projects (one lode and six placer) 

can be anticipated for the Top o’Deep and Wales Creek area. Placer exploration would be 

E-17 
Bureau of Land Management 

expected to occur in the areas of upper Deep Creek, Gambler Gulch, and Douglas Gulch areas. 

Surface disturbance for this activity would be expected to be slightly larger than other placer 

exploration projects within the planning area, averaging 4 acres per project. Total surface 

disturbance from placer exploration would total 20 acres. 

If future exploration is successful and an economic placer deposit is discovered, it could be 

expected that mine developments would be established in Upper Deep Creek (one mine) and 

Rattler Gulch (two mines) areas. This type of development would be slightly larger than other 

placer operations within the planning area, resulting in 15 acres of surface disturbance from each 

mine. Total surface disturbance from placer mining would be 45 acres. 

The anticipated lode exploration would occur in the Limestone Cliffs area. Average total 

disturbance for this type of activity would is 5 acres per project. 

Hoodoos and Blackfoot City Area 

Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, four placer and three lode exploration projects can be anticipated for the 

Hoodoos and Blackfoot City area over the life of the land use plan. The placer exploration would 

likely occur in the areas of American/Nevada Creek, Ophir Creek, and Carpenter Creek (two 

projects). Average disturbance for this activity would be 3 acres per project, amounting to a total 

of 12 acres of disturbance due to placer exploration. 

If future exploration discovers an economic placer deposit in the American/Nevada Creek and 

Carpenter Creek areas as could be anticipated, an operation in each of the three drainages would 

extract alluvial material and process by wash plant. This type of development would result in 

10 acres of surface disturbance each, totaling 20 acres. 

The anticipated lode exploration would occur in the Mineral Hill, Puzzle Creek, and OphirCarpenter Creek areas. Average disturbance for this activity would be 5 acres per project, 

amounting to a total of 15 acres of disturbance due to lode exploration. 

Philipsburg, Rock Creek, and Gold Creek Area 

Common to All Alternatives 

Over the life of the land use plan, a total of seven exploration projects (four lode and three placer) 

can be anticipated for the Philipsburg, Rock Creek, and Gold Creek area. Placer exploration 

would be expected to occur in the areas of Upper Willow Creek, Montgomery Gulch, Henderson 

Creek, and Gold Creek/Dry Gulch (two projects) areas. Average disturbance for this activity 

would be 3 acres per project, amounting to a total of 18 acres of disturbance due to placer 

exploration. 

If future exploration discovers an economic placer deposit in the Henderson Creek and Gold 

Creek/Dry Gulch area, an operation in each drainage would extract alluvial material and process 

by wash plant. This type of development for these areas would be slightly larger than other placer 

operations within the planning area, resulting in 15 acres of surface disturbance from each mine. 

Total surface disturbance from placer mining would be 45 acres. 

E-18 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

The anticipated lode exploration would occur in the Sluice Gulch, Antelope Creek, Smart Creek, 

and North Philipsburg areas. Average disturbance for this activity would be 5 acres per project, 

amounting to a total of 20 acres of disturbance due to lode exploration. 

If an economic lode deposit is discovered through the four exploration projects, one surface mine 

could be anticipated in the vicinity of Smart Creek. This mine development would likely be an 

expansion from adjacent National Forest lands and amount to 25 acres of disturbance. 

Under Alternatives A and C, 640 acres of Phil Wright Rock ACEC is recommended for 

withdrawal from mineral entry. Because there is no moderate or high development potential for 

locatable minerals within the ACEC, a withdrawal is not anticipated to impact mineral 

development for the area. 

References for Appendix E 

Alt, D., and Hyndman, D.W. 1992. Roadside Geology of Montana, Mountain Press, Missoula, 

Montana. 

Berg, R.B. 1988. Barite in Montana, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Memoir 61. 

CostMine. 2018. Mining Cost Service. Version: May 2018. InfoMine USA, Inc. Spokane Valley, 

Washington. 

Ecosystem Management Inc. (EMI). 2011. Final Mineral Assessment Report for the Missoula 

Field Office. 

Kauffman, M.E., and Earll, F.N. 1963. Geology of the Garnett-Bearmouth Area, Western 

Montana. Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Memoir 39. 

Maley, T. S. 1996. Mineral law (6th ed.). Boise, ID: Mineral Land Publications. 

McClave, Michael A. 2009. A Geologic Review of the Black Pine Mine, Granite County, 

Montana. Northwest Geology 38:19-33. 

McClernan, H.G. 1976. Metallic mineral deposits of Powell County, Montana. Montana Bureau 

of Mines and Geology Bulletin 98. 

Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MT DEQ). 2010. Abandoned Mines. 

http://deq.mt.gov/Land/AbandonedMines/linkdocs. Accessed April 2018. 

Pardee, J.T. 1918. Ore Deposits of the Northwestern Part of the Garnet Range, Montana. U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 660-F, pp. 159-239. 

Pardee, J.T. 1951. Gold Placer Deposits of the Pioneer District, Montana. U.S. Geologic Survey 

Bulletin 978-C. 

Pardee, J.T., and Schrader, F.C. 1933. Metalliferous Deposits of the Greater Helena Mining 

Region, Montana. U.S. Geologic Survey Bulletin No. 842, reprint of article in Mining 

Truth, Vol. 14, No. 10. 

Sahinen, U.M. 1935. Mining Districts of Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana School of Mines, Butte, 

Montana. 

E-19 
Bureau of Land Management 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. 2018. Producer Price Index for Commodity 

Data - Metals and metal products. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/data/. 

E-20 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix F: Major Laws and other Policies and Plans

considered 

Major Laws 

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) has been the statutory authority for management 

of the BLM-managed lands since 1976. Subsequent laws affect management of the BLM-managed lands 

to varying degrees. Other laws, such as the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, are directly 

applicable to how the BLM exercises its statutory authorities in managing the BLM-managed lands, but 

none of these laws repealed the underlying primary direction and authority in FLPMA. These laws 

include the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Mining Law of 1872, the National Trails 

System Act, the Wilderness Act, and the Clean Air Act. Thus, the BLM has a duty to find a way to 

concurrently implement all of these laws, in a manner that harmonizes any seemingly conflict between 

them, unless Congress provided that one law would override another law. 

This section summarizes the key laws that have a substantial effect on the development and design of the 

alternatives in this revision. 

The BLM would permit activities that are not specifically mentioned in the management actions if they 

are consistent with management objectives. 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) 

FLPMA provides the legal authority to the Secretary of the Interior for the management of public lands on 

the basis of multiple-use and sustained yield for present and future generations. The FLPMA requires that 

public lands be managed in a manner that “will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, 

ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water resource, and archaeological values; that, where 

appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food 

and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation an 

human occupancy and use” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 102a8]). While FLPMA also requires that “the public 

lands be managed in a manner which recognizes the Nation’s need for domestic sources of minerals, food, 

timber, and fiber from the public lands” (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 102a.12]). FLPMA also directs that 

acquired lands will become and remain public lands. (43 U.S.C. 1701 [Sec. 205.c]). 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to use their legal authorities to promote the conservation 

purposes of the act. This section also requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to ensure that actions these agencies authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize species listed 

as threatened or endangered under the ESA or cause destruction or adverse modification to designated 

critical habitat for such species. Critical habitat is defined, in part, as geographic areas occupied by the 

species that contain the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species listed 

under the ESA and that may need special management. The BLM will complete Section 7 consultation 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to signing a record of decision for this RMP revision. 

Clean Water Act 

The objective of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters. To accomplish this objective, the statute requires that: (1) water quality 

F-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

standards consistent with the statutory goals of the Clean Water Act be established; (2) water bodies be 

monitored to determine whether the water quality standards are being met; and, (3) if all of the water 

quality standards are being met, then anti-degradation policies and programs, including ambient 

monitoring, be employed to keep the water quality at acceptable levels. In accord with this statute, the 

responsibility for establishing these standards, developing a strategy for meeting these standards, and 

monitoring their attainment in Montana has been delegated to the Montana Department of Environmental 

Quality. 

Sections 303(d), 313(a), and 319 of the Clean Water Act are relevant to management of water resources 

on BLM-administered lands. Section 303(d) (codified as 33 U.S.C. 1313[d]) directs the states and tribes 

to develop a list of waters that fail to meet water quality standards for various constituents including, 

among others, sediment, temperature, and bacteria. Section 303(d) requires states and tribes to develop 

total maximum daily loads that apportion a load of pollutants that can be discharged into the waters of a 

state. The total maximum daily loads determine what level of pollutant load would be consistent with 

meeting the water quality standards and allocate acceptable loads among sources of the relevant 

pollutants. Necessary reductions in pollutant loading are achieved by implementing strategies authorized 

by the Clear Water Act, along with other tools available for Federal, state, and local governments and 

nongovernmental organizations. Section 313(a) (codified as 33 U.S. C. 1323 [a]) directs that the Federal 

Government, “(1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged in any activity 

resulting, or which may result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants,” shall comply with requirements 

for the control and abatement of water pollution. Section 319 (codified as 33 U.S.C. 1329) established 

management programs to control water pollution from nonpoint sources, such as sediment. 

Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 

The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 led to the creation of grazing districts. In these districts, grazing use was 

apportioned and regulated. Section 3 of the Taylor Grazing Act concerns grazing permits issued on public 

lands within the grazing districts established under the Act. Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act 

concerns issuing grazing leases on public lands outside the original grazing district boundaries. Section 3 

permits and Section 15 leases are typically issued for not more than 10 years. The Missoula Field Office 

public lands fall within Section 15 of the Taylor Grazing Act. 

Public Rangeland Improvement Act of 1978 (PRIA) 

The Act of 1978 (PRIA) defines current grazing fee formula and establishes rangeland monitoring and 

inventory procedures for Bureau of Land Management and United States Forest Service rangelands. The 

National Grasslands are exempt from PRIA. 

Mining Law of 1872 

The General Mining Act of 1872 is a United States Federal law that authorizes and 

governs prospecting and mining for economic minerals, such as gold, platinum, and silver, on 

Federal public lands. This law, approved on May 10, 1872, codified the informal system of acquiring and 

mining claims on public land. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 

Signed in 1968, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects more than 200 rivers in 40 states and Puerto 

Rico. Wild and Scenic Rivers are designated into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System to preserve 

their free-flowing condition and to protect and enhance their outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values. The Act provides three 

F-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

levels of river classification: wild, scenic, and recreational. Wild rivers are free of dams, generally 

inaccessible except by trail, and represent vestiges of primitive America. Scenic rivers are free of dams, 

with shorelines or watersheds that are still largely primitive and shorelines that are largely undeveloped, 

but accessible in places by roads. Recreational rivers are readily accessible by road or railroad, may have 

some development along their shorelines, and may have been dammed in the past. 

Wilderness Act 

In 1964, Congress passed the Wilderness Act, thereby establishing a national system of lands to preserve a 

representative sample of ecosystems in a natural condition for the benefit of future generations. With the 

passage of FLPMA in 1976, Congress directed the BLM to inventory, study, and recommend which 

public lands under its administration should be designated as wilderness. Section 603 of FLPMA 

specifically required the BLM to provide Congress with recommendations on the suitability or 

unsuitability of roadless areas of public lands of 5,000 acres or more, and on roadless islands; areas of less 

than 5,000 acres were included if certain criteria were met. Congress gave the BLM 15 years to complete 

the wilderness inventory. Only Congress can decide which areas, if any, will be designated as wilderness 

and added to the National Wilderness Preservation System. 

The wilderness inventory was conducted on a state-by-state basis from 1978 to 1980. The wilderness 

inventory in Montana was conducted in two iterations, the initial and intensive inventories. The Wales 

Creek inventory is mentioned in the Montana Wilderness Inventory (Miles City and Lewistown BLM 

Districts) (BLM 1980 ). The inventory information for the rest of the planning area is in the Montana 

Overthrust Belt Wilderness Inventory (BLM 1980 ). 

When wilderness characteristics, as defined by Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 USC, 

Section 1131), were found within a defined boundary, the presence of the wilderness resource was 

documented and the area was classified as a WSA. All values, resources, and uses occurring in each WSA 

were analyzed through legislative EISs. When completed, recommendations as to the suitability or 

unsuitability of each WSA for designation as wilderness were submitted to the President through the 

Secretary of the Interior and then to Congress. FLPMA required that the reports be submitted to the 

President by October 21, 1991, and to Congress by October 21, 1993 (43 USC Section 1702). 

In addition to the WSAs studied under Section 603 of FLPMA, the BLM designated additional WSAs 

through the land use planning process under the authorities of Sections 201, 202, and 302 of FLPMA 

(referred to as Section 202 WSAs). These were typically areas that had wilderness characteristics only 

when combined with the contiguous lands of another agency. Any such WSAs designated before the 1993 

report to Congress were forwarded to Congress. 

Only Congress can decide which areas, if any, will be designated as wilderness and added to the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. Until Congress acts on the recommendations and either designates them 

as wilderness or releases them for other uses, WSAs are managed according to BLM Manual 6330, 

Management of Wilderness Study Areas (BLM 2012); as not to impair the suitability of such areas for 

preservation as wilderness. 

National Trails System Act 

The U.S. Congress passed the Act in 1968 to provide outdoor recreation opportunities for the expanding 

population and to promote preservation, public access, travel, and the enjoyment and appreciation of the 

great outdoors and the Nation’s history. The System includes congressionally designated National Scenic 

Trails and National Historic Trails; secretarially designated National Recreation Trails, National Water 

Trails, and Connecting or Side Trails; and promotes rail-trail development. Certain trails are also 

F-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

authorized for study by the U.S. Congress as potential additions to the National Trails System. The Act 

includes designation criteria, authorities, responsibilities, and requirements for agency trail administration 

and management. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The U.S. Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act to establish a Program for the 

Preservation of Additional Historic Properties throughout the Nation, and for Other Purposes. Under 

Section 106 of the NHPA, the head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a 

proposed Federal or federally assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or 

independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the 

expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case 

may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object 

that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency 

shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a 

reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking. Under Section 110 of the NHPA, 

Federal agencies’ responsibility to preserve and use historic properties including but not limited to 

identification, evaluation, and nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, protection of 

historic properties on the National Register of Historic Places, and provide for disposition of Native 

American cultural items from Federal lands. 

Policies and Plans used in conjunction with the Existing Decisions 

The BLM will consider following policies and plans: 

• Montana Statewide Wilderness Report Volumes I and II (USDI BLM 1991) 

• National Fire Plan and 2001 Federal Fire Policy, as amended (USDI BLM 2001) 

• Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (USDI BLM 2009) 

• Adoption of Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy (1996) 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Biological Opinion on Backlog ESA Consultation (2009) 

• Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy (LCAS 2013) 

• Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem grizzly bear strategy (NCDE 2013, Draft) 

• Interior Columbia Basin Strategy: A Strategy for Applying the Knowledge Gained by the Interior 

Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project to the Revision of Forest and Resource 

Management Plans and Project Implementation (ICBEMP 2014) which integrates the Framework 

for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into 

BLM and Forest Service Plan Revisions (USFS, NOAA, BLM, USFWS and EPA 2004). 

• Conservation and Management of Whitebark Pine Ecosystems on Bureau of Land Management 

Lands in the Western United States (BLM 2016). 

• Executive Order 13855: Promoting Active Management of America’s Forests, Rangelands, and other 

Federal Lands to Improve Conditions and Reduce Wildfire Risk (White House, 2018). 

• Secretarial Order 3372: Reducing Wildfire Risks on Department of Interior Land through Active 

Management (USDI, 2019) 

• Secretarial Order 3356: Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting and Wildlife Conservation 

Opportunities and Coordination with States, Tribes and Territories (USDI, 2018) 

F-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

• Secretarial Order 3362: Improving Habitat Quality in Western Big Game Winter Range and 

Migration Corridors (USDI, 2018) 

• Secretarial Order 3366: Increasing Recreational Opportunities on Lands and Waters Managed by the 

U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI, 2018) 

• USFS Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest Plan (2009). 

• Middle Rockies Level III Rapid Ecoregional Assessment (USDI BLM 2012). 

• BLM Butte Resource Management Plan (2009) and Dillon Resource Management Plan (2006). 

• USDA Forest Service Flathead National Forest Plan (2018), Helena National Forest Plan (revision in 

progress), Lewis and Clark National Forest Plan (DATE), and the Lolo National Forest Plan (1986). 

• Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan (NPS 1982) and 

Foundation Document (NPS 2012). 

• Montana Weed Management Plan (2005); Montana Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation 

Plan (SCORP 2014); Montana State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP 2015), and Montana 

Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CFWCS 2005b). 

• Granite, Missoula, and Powell County Community Wildland Fire Protection Plans 

• Granite, Missoula, and Powell Growth Policy Plans 

F-5 

1.1 

1.2 

1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

1.6.1 

1.6.2 

1.6.3 

1.6.4 

1.6.5 

1.7 

2.1 

2.2 

2.2.1 

2.2.2 

2.2.3 

Bureau of Land Management 

Appendix G: Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................... i 

List of Figures......................................................................................................................................................... ii 

List of Tables......................................................................................................................................................... iii 

Section 1. Introduction, Planning Area, and Eligibility Determinations .................................................................. 1 

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................1 

Planning Area ......................................................................................................................................................1 

Why Conduct a Suitability Study and Why Now? ................................................................................................5 

What is a Wild and Scenic River? ........................................................................................................................5 

Steps in the Wild and Scenic Study Process.........................................................................................................5 

Eligibility and Classification Phases.....................................................................................................................5 

River and Stream Identification ...................................................................................................................6 

Evaluation ....................................................................................................................................................6 

Tentative Classification ................................................................................................................................6 

Addendum to the 2010 Eligibility Study.......................................................................................................6 

Results of the Eligibility Phase .....................................................................................................................7 

Suitability Phase ..................................................................................................................................................9 

Section 2. Methods.............................................................................................................................................. 10 

Suitability Criteria Used to Evaluate River and Stream Segments.....................................................................10 

Data Sources and Methods ...............................................................................................................................11 

Geographic Information System ................................................................................................................11 

BLM Interdisciplinary Team .......................................................................................................................11 

Federal, State, Public, and Other Information Sources .............................................................................11 

Section 3. Suitability Reports ............................................................................................................................... 13 

G-i 
3.1 

3.1.1 

3.1.2 

3.2 

3.2.1 

3.2.2 

3.3 

3.3.1 

3.3.2 

3.4 

3.4.1 

3.4.2 

3.5 

3.5.1 

3.5.2 

3.6 

3.6.1 

3.6.2 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Belmont Creek Suitability Assessment and Determination ...............................................................................13 

Belmont Creek Suitability Factor Assessment ...........................................................................................15 

Belmont Creek Preliminary Suitability Determination...............................................................................17 

Blackfoot River Segment 1 Suitability Assessment and Determination.............................................................18 

Blackfoot River Segment 1 Suitability Factor Assessment .........................................................................20 

Blackfoot River Segment 1 Preliminary Suitability Determination ............................................................23 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 Suitability Assessment and Determination.............................................................24 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 Suitability Factor Assessment .........................................................................26 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 Preliminary Suitability Determination ............................................................29 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 Suitability Assessment and Determination.............................................................30 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 Suitability Factor Assessment .........................................................................32 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 Preliminary Suitability Determination ............................................................34 

Gallagher Creek Suitability Assessment and Determination .............................................................................36 

Gallagher Creek Suitability Factor Assessment..........................................................................................38 

Gallagher Creek Preliminary Suitability Determination .............................................................................40 

Rock Creek Suitability Assessment and Determination .....................................................................................41 

Rock Creek Suitability Factor Assessment .................................................................................................43 

Rock Creek Preliminary Suitability Determination.....................................................................................46 

Section 4. List of Preparers .................................................................................................................................. 47 

Section 5. Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................... 48 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Missoula RMP nine-county planning area ............................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2. Missoula RMP three-county analysis and decision areas......................................................................... 4 

Figure 3. Eligible WSR segments within the decision area...................................................................................... 8 

Figure 4. Belmont Creek Segment........................................................................................................................ 14 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-ii 
Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 5. Blackfoot River Segment 1..................................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 6. Blackfoot River Segment 2..................................................................................................................... 25 

Figure 7. Blackfoot River Segment 3..................................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 8. Gallagher Creek Segment ...................................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 9. Rock Creek Segment.............................................................................................................................. 42 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Surface land ownership within the planning area by county. ................................................................... 2 

Table 2. Mineral ownership within the planning area by county. .......................................................................... 2 

Table 3. Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Missoula Field Office planning area......................................... 7 

Table 4. Belmont Creek Summary........................................................................................................................ 13 

Table 5. Blackfoot River Segment 1 Summary...................................................................................................... 18 

Table 6. Blackfoot River Segment 2 Summary...................................................................................................... 24 

Table 7. Blackfoot River Segment 3 Summary...................................................................................................... 30 

Table 8. Gallagher Creek Summary. ..................................................................................................................... 36 

Table 9. Rock Creek Summary.............................................................................................................................. 41 

G-iii 
1.1 

1.2 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Section 1. Introduction, Planning Area, and Eligibility

Determinations

 Introduction 

In November 2010, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Missoula Field Office completed the 

eligibility phase of a Wild and Scenic Rivers (WSR) study as part of their Resource Management Plan 

(RMP) revision process. This effort identified six eligible river segments across the planning area. 

This WSR study process assesses the suitability of these six segments for potential inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). The planning area for this study includes all river 

segments within the RMP planning area that have been determined to meet the eligibility criteria for Wild 

and Scenic Rivers. The Field Office has not previously conducted a comprehensive suitability study in 

this planning area. 

Section 3: Suitability Reports, assesses the criteria and rationale used to determine preliminary suitability 

for each segment. Of the six stream segments determined to be eligible in the 2010 phase, the BLM 

determined there are no suitable segments for WSR designation. 

Planning Area 

The Missoula RMP planning area is located in nine western Montana counties, including: Flathead, 

Granite, Lake, Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders (see Table 1 and Figure 1, 

below). The term “planning area” refers to all lands within these counties regardless of jurisdiction; 

however, the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall under BLM jurisdiction, including 

subsurface minerals. 

Subsurface minerals include BLM-managed surface and subsurface lands, and subsurface minerals in 

areas of split estate (areas where the BLM administers federal subsurface minerals, but the surface is not 

owned by the BLM). 

Collectively, the “decision area” includes the lands (surface and mineral estate) within the planning area 

over which the BLM has authority to make land use planning and management decisions. 

Planning Area. The planning area is the geographic boundary the BLM limits its decisions to within the 

RMP. This includes the nine-county area, although the BLM will only make decisions on lands that fall 

under its jurisdiction including subsurface minerals. 

The Missoula planning area encompasses approximately 162,376 acres of BLM-managed surface land. 

Over 99 percent of these lands are located in Granite, Missoula and Powell Counties. Most of this land is 

non-contiguous, and range in size from less than one acre, to the largest at over 64,468 acres. The plan 

revision will also address 200,977 acres of federal mineral estate. 

Oil and gas leasing decisions for federal mineral estate under lands administered by other federal agencies 

within the planning area (i.e., U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service) will not be considered in the 

Missoula RMP. 

Analysis Area. The analysis area refers to any lands regardless of jurisdiction, for which the BLM 

synthesizes, analyzes, and interprets data and information that relate to planning for BLM-administered 

lands. This includes all lands within Granite, Missoula, and Powell counties regardless of jurisdiction or 

Section 1 G-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

ownership. The cumulative effects analysis areas in the future environmental impact statement may 

expand beyond these general planning boundaries depending on the resource or resource use. 

Decision Area. The decision area refers to lands within the planning area for which the BLM has 

authority to make land use and management decisions. 

The Missoula decision area includes all 162,376 acres of surface BLM-managed lands and the 

200,977 acres of subsurface minerals in split estate as described above. 

Other land managers and owners in the planning area include the Lolo and Beaverhead-Deerlodge 

National Forests, as well as state, tribal, and private lands. Table 1 identifies the acreage of various land 

ownerships within the planning area. Table 2 identifies the mineral estate within the planning area. 

Table 1. Surface land ownership within the planning area by county. 

County Total Acres BLM (Acres) Other Federal (Acres) State (Acres) Private (Acres) 

Flathead 3,363,940 0 2,404,643 137,026 822,271 

Granite 1,108,929 38,540 662,736 19,821 387,834 

Lake 1,058,560 0 188,624 82,873 787,063 

Lincoln 2,351,821 21 1,726,730 71,549 553,521 

Mineral 783,144 0 638,637 68,877 75,630 

Missoula 1,686,926 28,751 855,148 157,793 645,244 

Powell 1,490,497 95,275 653,630 149,005 592,585 

Ravalli 1,536,160 0 1,127,928 40,298 367,934 

Sanders 1,785,624 4 931,545 64,910 789,165 

Total 15,165,601 162,591 9,189,621 792,152 5,021,247 

Source: Missoula BLM GIS data. 

Note: Some discrepancies may exist in total acreage due to differences in how sources calculate data. 

Table 2. Mineral ownership within the planning area by county. 

County BLM Surface Estate 

(acres) 

Total Mineral Estate 

(acres) 

Full Mineral Estate1 

(acres) 

Split Mineral Estate2 

(acres) 

Flathead 0 459 0 459 

Granite 45,952 72,547 29,085 43,462 

Lake 0 6 0 6 

Lincoln 21 119 0 119 

Mineral 0 644 0 644 

Missoula 28,013 41,622 27,927 13,695 

Powell 88,386 79,688 40,256 39,432 

Ravalli 0 5809 0 5,809 

Sanders 4 83 0 83 

Total 162,376 200,977 97,268 103,709 

Source: Missoula BLM GIS data. 

1 Full mineral estate includes BLM-managed land where the Federal Government owns all, or a portion of the mineral rights under 

BLM-managed surface ownership. 

2 Split mineral estate includes all lands where the BLM administers federal subsurface minerals, but the surface is owned by a nonfederal entity such as state trust or private land. This acreage excludes federal mineral estate where other federal agencies have 

primary jurisdiction (i.e., U.S. Forest Service and National Park Service). 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-2 
LINCOLN 

e Libby 

No warrant;, is made by the Bureau or Land 

Management as to the accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for indi'tidual or 

aggregate use \IYith other data. Original data 

1Nere compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet Nalional Map 

Accu racy Standards. This product was 

developed throll"Jh digital means and may be 

updated without notification . 

Area of Interest 

Havre FO 

• 

FLATHEAD I 

Lewiston FO 

• 

• 

Butte FO 

Dillon FO " State - Lubrecht e County Seat 

Fore st Service 

National Park Service 

USFWS 

State 

Plum Creek 

TNC 

Stimson 

Private 

- Interstate 

[=:J BLM Field Office 

Miles 

0 10 20 40 

• 

N 

A 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Figure 1. Missoula RMP nine-county planning area 

Section 1 G-3 
LJ PUm c ,eek Timberland, 

LJ The Na1Ure- Conservancy 

SSmson l1.1mber Co 

US Fiffl and Wilalife Serv1ee- LJ Prtvate 

C]siate 

-- 1n1erst4te 

-- U S. Highway 

-- Slate Hig:lway 

• Coonty Seat 

0 

A Miles 

10 20 

No warranty is made by the Bureau of land Managemenl a:s to the accuracy, reliabiliiy, or oompleteness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use w;{h other data. Original dala were compiled from various source5. This information may not 

rrcct Natklnal Map Accuracy Standards. This product wos developed through digital means and may be updated without 

notification. 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 2. Missoula RMP three-county analysis and decision areas 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-4 
1.3 

1.4 

1.5 

1.6 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Why Conduct a Suitability Study and Why Now? 

Section 5(d)(1) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSR Act, Public Law 90-542, 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) 

directs federal agencies to consider potential Wild and Scenic Rivers in their land use planning processes. 

To fulfill this requirement, BLM must inventory streams for wild and scenic eligibility and evaluate 

eligible streams for suitability for inclusion in the NWSRS whenever it undertakes a land use planning 

effort (for example an RMP). Because the Field Office has not previously conducted a comprehensive 

suitability study, it must conduct one during this RMP revision process (USDI 2012).

 What is a Wild and Scenic River? 

Congress enacted the WSR Act on October 2, 1968, to address the need for a national system of river 

protections. As an outgrowth of a national conservation agenda in the 1950s and 1960s, the WSR Act 

responded to the many dams, diversions, and water development projects on America’s rivers. The WSR 

Act stipulates that selected rivers be preserved in a free-flowing condition and be protected for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations. Since 1968, many amendments to the WSR Act have 

designated additional rivers and authorized the study of others for possible inclusion. 

The WSR Act seeks to protect and enhance a river’s natural and cultural values and to provide for public 

use consistent with its free-flowing character, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable values (ORVs). 

Designation affords certain legal protection from development. For instance, the construction of new 

dams is prohibited and federally assisted water resources projects are not permitted if river values would 

be negatively affected by the development. Where private lands are involved, the federal managing 

agency works with local governments and owners to develop protective measures. 

As of December 2014 (the last designation), the National System protects 12,709 miles of 208 rivers in 40 

states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; this is a little more than one quarter of one percent of the 

nation’s rivers. By comparison, more than 75,000 large dams across the country have modified at least 

600,000 miles, or about 17%, of American rivers.

 Steps in the Wild and Scenic Study Process 

A WSR study process has three main components: the eligibility phase, the classification phase, and the 

suitability phase. The BLM completed the eligibility phase during the data-gathering stage of the RMP in 

2010. The eligibility phase followed the direction given in BLM Manual 8351, Wild and Scenic Rivers— 

Policy and Program Direction for Identification, Evaluation, and Management (BLM 1992), the Wild and 

Scenic River Study Process Technical Report (Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council 

1999), and the WSR Act. The BLM updated its guidance on Wild and Scenic Rivers after the eligibility 

phase with the publication of BLM Manual 6400; this manual guided the suitability phase. 

Eligibility and Classification Phases 

The BLM completed the eligibility phase in November 2010 and updated it with an addendum in 2017 

after a review of river segments on newly acquired BLM lands in the Lower Blackfoot River Corridor. 

Below is a brief description of the eligibility phase’s steps. The process described in the following 

paragraphs has been completed and is included here as a reference. For a complete description of the 

segments analyzed and methodology used, see the BLM’s Final Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report 

for the Missoula Field Office (USDI 2010). 

Section 1 G-5 
1.6.1 

1.6.2 

1.6.3 

1.6.4 

Bureau of Land Management 

River and Stream Identification 

The WSR Act defines a river as “a flowing body of water or estuary or a section, portion, or 

tributary thereof, including rivers, streams, creeks, runs, kills, rills, and small lakes.” All rivers 

that have the potential for WSR designation must be identified and evaluated. Rivers may be 

divided for review into segments for evaluation purposes; there are no specific requirements for 

segment length. A river study area extends the length of the identified river segment and includes 

the river area, its immediate environment, and shall total an average of no more than 320 acres 

per mile from ordinary high-water mark on both sides of the river. The Missoula eligibility study 

area included all resource values on BLM land within 1⁄4 mile of the segment’s ordinary highwater mark. 

Evaluation 

Each identified river segment shall be inventoried to determine whether it is eligible for inclusion 

as a component of the NWSRS. 

The WSR Act states that, in order to be found eligible, a river segment must be “free flowing” 

and contain at least one river-related value considered “outstandingly remarkable.” Free flowing 

is defined by section 16(b) of the WSR Act as “existing or flowing in natural condition without 

impoundment, diversion, straightening, riprapping, or other modification of the waterway.” The 

existence of small dams, diversion works, or other minor structures at the time the river is being 

considered should not automatically disqualify it for consideration as a potential addition to the 

NWSRS. Congress did not intend to require rivers to be “naturally flowing,” or in other words, 

flowing without any upstream manipulation except by nature. The presence of impoundments 

above or below the segment (including those that may regulate flow regime through the segment), 

or existing minor dams or diversion structures within the study reach do not eliminate a river 

from consideration. To be outstandingly remarkable, a river’s related value must be a unique, 

rare, or exemplary feature that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale. 

Tentative Classification 

All eligible rivers are then inventoried to determine the tentative river classification. Section 2(b) 

of the WSRA specifies and defines three classification categories for eligible rivers: wild, scenic, 

and recreational. The classification does not reflect the types of values present along a river 

segment. The classification assigned during the eligibility phase is tentative and may be changed 

by the managing agency in the final RMP in order to fit with other land management 

prescriptions, provided the revised classification was analyzed in the Draft RMP as part of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process. Determining a tentative 

classification also establishes a guideline for management until either a suitability determination 

or designation decision is reached. Final classification is a congressional legislative 

determination, along with designation of a river segment as part of the NWSRS. 

Addendum to the 2010 Eligibility Study 

Since publication of the 2010 eligibility study, the BLM acquired lands along the Belmont Creek 

and Blackfoot River 2 segments. These acquisitions added 1.37 miles of potentially eligible 

stream length to Belmont Creek, and .58 miles to the Blackfoot River. The BLM considers these 

additions eligible, as these segments are representative of the adjoining segments already 

evaluated in 2010 and contain the same ORVs. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-6 
1.6.5 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Belmont Creek and the Blackfoot River are occupied with bull trout. The species and its habitat is 

listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Because Bull Trout Critical Habitat is 

designated by the USFWS on federal land, this designation does not apply to the newly acquired 

lands unless the USFWS decides to re-map Critical Habitat. 

Results of the Eligibility Phase 

The eligibility study completed in 2010 determined that six individual segments within BLMadministered lands in the planning area met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in the NWSRS. As 

part of the current planning effort, the BLM studied these six eligible segments for suitability. 

Table 3 and Figure 3 below, identify the six eligible rivers, their outstandingly remarkable values, 

total miles, and acres of BLM-administered lands within study river corridors. 

Table 3. Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers within the Missoula Field Office planning area. 

Study River 

Name 

Outstandingly

Remarkable 

Values 

Tentative 

Classificati 

on 

Total 

Segment

Length

(Miles) 

2010 BLM 

Eligible

Segment

Length (Miles) 

Acquisitions

Since 2010 

(Miles) 

2018 Eligible 

Segment

Length*

(miles) 

Belmont 

Creek Fish Scenic 3.1 3.1 1.37 4.47 

Blackfoot 

River 

Segment 1 

Fish, 

Recreation Recreational 56.7 3.8 0 3.8 

Blackfoot 

River 

Segment 2 

Fish, 

Recreation, 

Wildlife 

Scenic 19.1 6.2 0.58 6.83 

Blackfoot 

River 

Segment 3 

Fish, 

Recreation, 

Scenic, 

Wildlife 

Recreational 6.3 6.3 0 6.3 

Gallagher 

Creek Fish Recreational 4.1 4.1 0 4.1 

Rock Creek 

Fish, 

Geological, 

Recreation, 

Scenic 

Scenic 11.1 2.1 0 2.1 

Total n/a n/a 100.4 25.6 1.95 27.6 

*See Section 1.6.4 above for an explanation of these additions. 

Section 1 G-7 
C BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park Service 

Indian Reservabon 

- USFWS 

State --Interstate - Blackfoot River Seg. 

State- Lubrecht --- U.S. Highway - Blackfoot River Seg. 2 

TNC 

LJ Priva te 

- WSA 

--- State Highway Blackfoot River Seg. 3 

- River I Stream - Belmont Creek 

- Gallagher Creek 

- Rock Creek 

MIies 

Ne warranty i$ made by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy. reliability, 

or completeness ol lhese 

data for lndvldual or 

awreoate use with other 

data. OtfOlnM data were ccmpiled tram vatk>us 

12 sources. Thil fllormaffon 

may not meet Natlonal Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product WH developed Coordnate Syslem; NAD 1983 A/bef's 

Projection: Albers ttrough digital means and 

may be updated wilhout 

notiflcation • ..._ • .,...,.,. ,. ..... 

DBIUm: Notth American t983 

Missoula F,eld Of/ice, GIS November 2017 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 3. Eligible WSR segments within the decision area 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-8 
1.7 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

 Suitability Phase 

The purpose of the suitability phase of the study process is to determine whether eligible segments would 

be appropriate additions to the NWSRS by considering tradeoffs between corridor development and river 

protection. The suitability evaluation does not result in an actual congressional designation, but rather an 

administrative determination of suitability that allows BLM to manage the suitable river corridor to 

protect the free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs until Congress acts on the recommendation. 

The suitability determination provides a basis for Congress to determine which rivers be included into the 

NWSRS. The BLM cannot administratively designate a stream into the NWSRS via a planning decision 

or other agency decision. Other than Congress, the only entity that can designate a WSR is the Secretary 

of the Interior, who may make such a designation under certain circumstances upon the application by the 

Governor of a state. Members of Congress will ultimately choose the legislative language for proposing a 

WSR designation if any suitable segments are presented to them. Water-protection strategies and 

measures to meet the purposes of the WSR Act will are the responsibility of Congress in any legislation 

proposed. Rivers would be dropped from further consideration if found not suitable and managed 

according to the objectives outlined in the governing RMP. 

As part of the current planning effort, the BLM studied the six eligible segments for suitability. The 

suitability assessments and determinations are included in Section 3: Suitability Reports of this document. 

Section 1 G-9 
2.1 

Bureau of Land Management 

Section 2. Methods 

This section describes the methodology implemented to evaluate eligible river segments for suitability. 

The criteria used to evaluate river and stream segments are those described in BLM Manual 6400 and 

recommendations from the Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council (1999). Suitability 

considerations include the environmental and economic consequences of designation and the 

manageability of a river if Congress were to designate it.

 Suitability Criteria Used to Evaluate River and Stream 

Segments 

Suitability studies are designed to answer these questions: 

• Should the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs be protected, or are one or more 

other uses important enough to warrant doing otherwise? 

• Will the river’s free-flowing condition, water quality, and ORVs be protected through designation? 

• Is designation the best method for protecting the river corridor? 

• Is there a demonstrated commitment to protect the river by any non-federal entities that may be 

partially responsible for implementing protective management? 

With the above guidance in mind, the following 13 suitability criteria factors identified in BLM Manual 

6400 (USDI 2012) were applied to each eligible river segment in the suitability study: 

1. Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the National System. These 

characteristics (free flow and ORVs) are described in the WSR Act and may include additional 

factors. 

2. The status of land ownership and use in the area. 

3. The reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be enhanced, foreclosed, 

or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

4. The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the National System. 

5. The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, including the costs thereof, 

is shared by state and local agencies. 

6. The estimated cost to the US of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within the corridor, as 

well as the cost of administering the area should it be added to the National System. 

7. A determination of the extent that other federal agencies, the state, or its political subdivisions might 

participate in the preservation and administration of the river should it be proposed for inclusion in 

the National System. 

8. An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the river’s ORVs and 

preventing incompatible development. 

9. The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on non-federal lands. This 

factor requires an evaluation of the river protection mechanisms available through the authority of 

state and local governments. Such mechanisms may include, for example, statewide programs related 

to population growth management, vegetation management, water quantity or quality, or protection of 

river-related values such as open space and historic areas. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-10 
2.2 

2.2.1 

2.2.2 

2.2.3 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

10. The existing support or opposition of designation. Assessment of this factor will define the political 

context. The interest in designation or non-designation by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal 

governments; national and local publics; and the state’s congressional delegation should be 

considered. 

11. The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and policies in meeting regional 

objectives. Designation may help or impede the goals of tribal governments or other federal, state, or 

local agencies. For example, designation of a river may contribute to state or regional protection 

objectives for fish and wildlife resources. Similarly, adding a river that includes a scarce recreation 

activity or setting to the National System may help meet statewide recreation goals. Designation 

might, however, limit irrigation and/or flood control measures in a manner inconsistent with regional 

socioeconomic goals. 

12. The contribution to river system or basin integrity. This factor reflects the benefits of a “systems” 

approach (e.g., expanding the designated portion of a river in the National System or developing a 

legislative proposal for an entire river system—headwaters to mouth—or watershed). Numerous 

benefits may result from managing an entire river or watershed, including the ability to design a 

holistic protection strategy in partnership with other agencies and the public. 

13. The potential for water resources development. Identify any proposed water resource projects that 

may be foregone, as designation may limit development of water resources projects as diverse as 

irrigation and flood control measures, hydropower facilities, dredging, diversion, bridge construction, 

and channelization.

 Data Sources and Methods 

The BLM relied on several sources to compile data applicable to the suitability criteria, including 

geographic information systems (GIS) data; planning team knowledge; information from the BLM, other 

federal agencies, state agencies, and non-governmental organizations; and public input. This data was 

used to determine the suitability of a particular segment. 

Geographic Information System 

The BLM used GIS data to generate segment maps, and where appropriate, to address suitability 

criteria factors. 

BLM Interdisciplinary Team 

The interdisciplinary team provided information pertaining to suitability criteria factors and 

reviewed data from additional sources such as other agencies and the public for accuracy. Once 

data was compiled, the team evaluated each segment and made a suitability determination. 

Federal, State, Public, and Other Information Sources 

The BLM used a number of informational sources and publications to analyze the suitability of 

river segments. These included: 

• Comments and discussions during pre-scoping RMP public engagement, including 

Public Envisioning listening sessions and public workshops. 

• Scoping comments and open house discussions. Although the BLM did not receive 

any comments directly related to Wild Scenic Rivers, the planning team considered 

comments related to the outstandingly remarkable values and other criteria used to 

evaluate suitability. 

Section 2 G-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

• Local news articles. 

• Discussions with cooperating agencies. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-12 
3.1 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Section 3. Suitability Reports 

This section presents the data collected for each eligible river segment in a narrative format and the 

resulting BLM determination of suitability. The 13 specific criteria described in Section 2.1 guided data 

collection. 

Impacts from designating or not designating suitable river segments will be analyzed in the draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS) associated with the Missoula Draft RMP. The BLM will consider 

public comment on suitability determinations included in the draft EIS/draft RMP before it makes a final 

suitability determination. 

 Belmont Creek Suitability Assessment and Determination 

Table 4. Belmont Creek Summary 

Segment Name Belmont Creek 

Segment Location Description 

Blackfoot River tributary flowing into the Blackfoot River approximately 2 

miles upstream from the Whitaker Bridge, located in Missoula County, 

approximately 14 miles east of Missoula, Montana. Map: Figure 4 below. 

Total Segment Length 3.1 miles* 

Length on BLM Land 4.47 miles* 

Preliminary Classification Scenic 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

(ORV) Fish 

*See Section 1.6.4 for an explanation of this stream length. 

Section 3 G-13 
R011W ROUW 

'\ 

\ \(.-

\_ \ \ 

/ 

113-37'W 

BLM 

State 

__ .,, . ..., 

/ 

·-

...... 

113-36'W 

State- Lubrecht 

: 

./·--···' J 

I 

/ 

_./-------

I 

/ 

/ 

113•3S'W 

-✓-· 

✓-

) 

/ 

_/ 

I ,-· 

'· '-·-: ·, ~I I 

) / .' I 

_, '· I._ \ 

/ I I_) I I _I 

__ )~ I ; f j / 

11 \ /-" . I I )" 

\ • .;,_ I I 

~- '. \ / ~ i I ... \ / \ ,,· I • 

···{° \ I 

\ ! i 

/ _, 

\ 

'f I 

I j \ ·. I_ \\. { ~ <'--.! 'j ( ·1 

-~ 'i\ \ I [ ;, I 

---;r- ) \ i > I ./ 

./ \ .. 

I A 

I 

/ 

.. ,,.-

I ,, -

--. 

\ i 

113-34°W 113-Jl'W 113.,2W 113•31-w 113-JO'W 113"29'W 

LJ TNC --- U.S. Highway - Blackfoot River Seg. 2 

LJ Private --- State Highway Blackfoot River Seg. 3 

- River / Stream - Belmont Creek 

113"21'W 

R014W 

II ' _ .. 

i \ . I 

(..r· 

/L---

/ ·•-..j.- ~-- ,..> ·~ .• 2'2 /" /··--::-~--... -- ....... -· 

Miles 

0.5 

Coorcfnate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

Datum: Nort.h American 1983 

Missoula Field Offrce, GIS 

November 20 17 

.. ✓- . \ "-~ - . --•. _ . 

"'"·• . 

113"22"W 113'"21'W 

No w1trranty fs mad6 by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

as to the aCOJrBcy. reliability, 

or completeness of these 

CNJta for lndivtdua/ or 

aggregate use with other 

data. Original data were 

complied from various 

sources. This Information 

may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This product wns CMveloped 

through digital means and 

may be updated without 

notification. ..11<', ... m.·xo•"· t.1,~ 

113'"20'W 

_,, 

I 

/-

113.,9'W 

z 

.. 

0 

.. 

z 

., 

0 

.. 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 4. Belmont Creek Segment 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-14 
3.1.1 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Belmont Creek Suitability Factor Assessment 

Criterion 1: Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System. 

Outstandingly remarkable values 

The Belmont Creek segment provides exceptionally high quality habitat for genetically pure populations 

of westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The 

westslope cutthroat trout is one of two native cutthroats in Montana and is co-designated with the 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout as the state fish. The historical range of the westslope cutthroat trout is 

western Montana and the upper Missouri River drainage. 

Estimations suggest genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout exist in only 2-4% of their historic stream 

distribution (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Habitat degradation and hybridization with other, nonnative 

fish have greatly reduced westslope cutthroat trout numbers. Poor grazing practices, historic logging 

practices, mining, agriculture, and residential development cause habitat loss and degradation, and 

westslope cutthroat trout cannot compete with nonnative trout (such as brook trout) where habitat is 

limited. Further, westslope cutthroat trout hybridize with the introduced rainbow trout, which reduces the 

purity of the stock. Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a Species of Concern by the State of 

Montana and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, a sensitive species by the U.S. 

Forest Service and BLM. 

This reach of Belmont Creek is occupied by stream resident westslope cutthroat trout as they make their 

way downstream from the headwater reaches as well as fluvial fish from the Blackfoot River using 

Belmont Creek as spawning habitat. The stream resident fish have been tested as genetically pure while 

fluvial fish have a greater chance of being at least partially hybridized. 

Bull trout are native to streams, rivers, and lakes in northwestern Montana and are threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. Factors contributing to declines in bull trout populations include: 

• Habitat degradation and loss due to land and water management practices; 

• Isolation and fragmentation of populations by both structural (e.g., dams) and environmental (e.g., 

thermal or pollution) barriers; 

• Introduction of nonnative fishes resulting in competition, predation and hybridization threats; 

• Historical eradication efforts; poisoning to remove non-game species; 

• Historical overharvest; and, 

• Ongoing poaching and accidental harvest due to misidentification. 

A similar situation exists for bull trout in Belmont Creek. This stream reach is occupied by resident bull 

trout as they make their way downstream from the headwater reaches, as well as fluvial fish from the 

Blackfoot River using Belmont Creek as spawning habitat. This portion of Belmont Creek is also 

designated as Bull Trout Critical Habitat. 

Criterion 2: Status of land ownership and use in the area. 

The land ownership of this segment is federal, managed by the BLM. Public access is by Ninemile Prairie 

Road. Resource uses along this segment include timber, recreation, and livestock grazing. 

Section 3 G-15 
Bureau of Land Management 

Criterion 3: Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

If Belmont Creek were to be designated under the “Scenic” classification, such a classification would 

likely lead to a VRM Class II designation for the segment, which may limit forest management activities. 

Criterion 4: The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM would administer the area. 

Criterion 5: The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies. 

None. 

Criterion 6: The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area, should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM manages the entire segment, so there are no other lands to acquire along it. It is not expected 

that Wild and Scenic River designation would substantially increase management costs in this river 

corridor due to the present costs of complying with existing federal laws. However, there is likely to be 

some increased cost of administering the area if designated. No detailed cost analysis or estimate was 

prepared as part of this study. 

Criterion 7: The extent to which other federal agencies or the state or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should 

it be proposed for inclusion in the National System. 

Though the BLM would retain exclusive management of the Belmont Creek segment, the Field Office 

would continue its partnerships with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife & Parks in order to preserve critical westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout habitat. 

Criterion 8: An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible development. 

Local zoning controls are not applicable to this segment because it is entirely on BLM-managed land. 

There are several protections already in place to protect the fish ORV; the Endangered Species Act 

protects bull trout and its habitat. Also, the BLM is a signatory to the 2007 memorandum of 

understanding and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout in 

Montana. The memorandum of understanding was developed to expedite implementation of conservation 

measures for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout their respective historical ranges in 

Montana. The other signatories include other federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and 

organizations. 

State and federal law protects water quality; Belmont Creek does not need a WSR designation to protect 

its quality. Further, the BLM’s management practices for the reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(recreation, forest management, and grazing) are protective of the water quality and fish ORVs. 

Criterion 9: The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on 

non-federal lands. 

Not applicable; the entire segment is managed by the BLM. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-16 
3.1.2 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Criterion 10: The existing support of or opposition to designation. 

The Field Office has received mixed feedback regarding the potential WSR designation of Belmont Creek 

in conversations with members of the public and interest groups, and did not receive any written 

comments regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers during scoping. No rivers advocacy group has proposed 

designation of this segment. 

Criterion 11: The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives. 

The designation would align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve 

conservation of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitats, including USFWS and MTFWP. The 

designation would also align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve water 

quality, including the USEPA and MTDEQ. 

Criterion 12: The contribution to river system or basin integrity. 

If Belmont Creek were designated as a WSR, its contribution to river system integrity would depend, in 

part, on whether Blackfoot River Segment 2 is also designated as a WSR. There are no designated Wild 

and Scenic Rivers within the Blackfoot watershed, no have there been any legislative proposals for 

additional federal protection of the Blackfoot River or its tributaries. 

Criterion 13: The potential for water resources development. 

The BLM, in this study, did not identify any plans for significant water development in the segment. 

Belmont Creek Preliminary Suitability Determination 

The BLM preliminarily finds Belmont Creek not suitable for inclusion in the National System. Though 

WSR designation would be protective of Belmont Creek’s values, such protection is not necessary as 

there are several other, better mechanisms for protecting the ORVs, and water quality. These mechanisms 

include the Endangered Species Act, BLM’s management policy on special status species, and state and 

federal water quality standards. The uses that occur in the area and that are reasonably foreseeable to 

occur in the future (grazing, forest management, and recreation) are also managed, per BLM policy, with 

an eye toward protecting the river. There are no reasonably foreseeable uses that would threaten the freeflowing condition of Belmont Creek such as dams or water developments. Further, the Blackfoot 

Challenge, a watershed conservation group coordinating efforts that conserve and enhance the natural 

resources and rural way-of-life throughout the Blackfoot River Watershed, is committed to protecting 

Belmont Creek and its nearby connection to the Blackfoot River. Many state entities have a clear, 

demonstrated commitment to protect the river, and specifically its quality, free-flowing condition, and 

fish. 

Section 3 G-17 
3.2 

Bureau of Land Management 

 Blackfoot River Segment 1 Suitability Assessment and 

Determination 

Table 5. Blackfoot River Segment 1 Summary. 

Segment Name Blackfoot River Segment 1 

Segment Description BLM land along the Blackfoot River has been broken into three segments. 

Segment 1 is located in Lewis and Clark and Powell Counties, beginning 

approximately four miles west of Lincoln, Montana, downriver to the 

Missoula-Powell county line. This segment flows through seven scattered 

BLM parcels. Map: Figure 5 below. 

Total Segment Length 56.7 miles 

Length on BLM Land 3.8 miles 

Preliminary Classification Recreational 

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORV) 

Fish, Recreation 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-18 
~ 

;: 

; 

j!; 

E i; 

~ 

/ 

o•"' r ~ ' ~ i 

t ~ ~l" 

~ 

,: 

; 

~ SLM 

CJ Forest Service 

- USFWS 

--- U.S. Highway 

--- State Highway 

- River/ Stream 

- Blackfoot River Seg. 1 

Miles 

0.5 

Coorcinafe System: NAO 1983Albers 

Projection: Albers 

D11tum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

November 20 t 7 

ROtOW 

'4': ~., ' \ '. I I 

., ./ 

I / 

\1 

I\ 

I \ 

. / 

No warranty is mada by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accvracy, reliability, 

or completaness of these 

data far iMvkiual or 

aggregate use w,th other 

data. Original data were 

compiled from various SOIHC8S. This Information 

may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This 

prodJct was devefopt,d 

through digital means and 

may be updated without 

notllicatK1n. .,.~.., .. •~•••• S'"'"'"'" 

/ 

/ / 

✓ 

I 

I i 

~//~ 

/0/ 

/··,. 

z 

& 

... 

z 

~ 

0 

... 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Figure 5. Blackfoot River Segment 1 

Section 3 G-19 
3.2.1 

Bureau of Land Management 

Blackfoot River Segment 1 Suitability Factor Assessment 

Criterion 1: Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System. 

Outstandingly remarkable values 

Blackfoot River Segment 1 provides outstanding recreational opportunities, attracting visitors from across 

the country. It is one of Montana’s premier blue ribbon trout streams. Fly-fishing for trout is the primary 

attraction, though rafting, canoeing, and inner-tubing are popular activities. Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks (MFWP) rate this segment as an outstanding fishery. Other attractions include following the Lewis 

& Clark National Historic Trail and opportunities for viewing wildlife such as grizzly bears, bald eagles, 

and peregrine falcons. 

Additionally, Blackfoot River Segment 1 provides exceptionally high quality habitat for genetically pure 

populations of westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. The westslope cutthroat trout is one of two native 

cutthroats in Montana and is co-designated with the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as the state fish. The 

historical range of the westslope cutthroat trout is western Montana and the upper Missouri River 

drainage. 

Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to exist in only 2-4% of their historic stream 

distribution (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Habitat degradation and hybridization with other, nonnative 

fish have greatly reduced westslope cutthroat trout numbers. Poor grazing practices, historic logging 

practices, mining, agriculture, and residential development cause habitat loss and degradation, and 

westslope cutthroat trout cannot compete with nonnative trout (such as brook trout) where habitat is 

limited. Further, westslope cutthroat trout hybridize with the introduced rainbow trout, which reduces the 

purity of the stock. Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a Species of Concern by the State of 

Montana and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, a sensitive species by the U.S. 

Forest Service, and BLM. 

Bull trout are native to streams, rivers, and lakes in northwestern Montana and are threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. Factors contributing to declines in bull trout populations include: 

• Habitat degradation and loss due to land and water management practices; 

• Isolation and fragmentation of populations by both structural (e.g., dams) and environmental (e.g., 

thermal or pollution) barriers; 

• Introduction of nonnative fishes resulting in competition, predation and hybridization threats; 

• Historical eradication efforts; poisoning to remove non-game species; 

• Historical overharvest; and, 

• Ongoing poaching and accidental harvest due to misidentification. 

The Blackfoot River is listed by the USFWS as Bull Trout Critical Habitat. The main stem of the river is 

considered feeding, migratory, and overwintering habitat as it is key to those aspects of bull trout life 

history. The river is an important migratory corridor for bull and westslope cutthroat trout as they are 

known to migrate great distances to their natal spawning streams throughout the Blackfoot River Basin. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-20 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Criterion 2: status of land ownership and use in the area. 

Land ownership in the area is a mix of private and Federal (USFS and BLM). All but one of the BLM 

parcels along Blackfoot River Segment 1 has public access from Highway 200. The scattered land 

ownership in this corridor is challenging for the administration of a WSR. 

Uses include recreation, grazing, hunting, and forest management. The area has low mineral potential and 

low rights-of-way demands. 

Criterion 3: Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

Because there are already several protections for special status species and habitat in place in this area, it 

is unlikely that any reasonably foreseeable potential uses along the BLM-managed 3.8 miles of this 

segment would be foreclosed or curtailed if the segment were included in the National System. A WSR 

designation would enhance recreation by directing management toward that use. 

Criterion 4: The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM would be best suited to administer the area if it were designated as a WSR, unless Congress 

designated another agency. 

Criterion 5: The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the

river, including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies. 

It is possible that the BLM could share administration, to a limited extent, with USFS, who manages a 

similarly small piece of the segment; however, the BLM has not discussed such shared administration 

with USFS. 

Criterion 6: The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area, should it be added to the 

National System. 

It is not expected that Wild and Scenic River designation would substantially increase management costs 

in this river corridor due to the present costs of complying with existing federal laws. However, there is 

likely to be some increased cost of administering the area if designated. No detailed cost analysis or 

estimate of management costs was prepared as part of this study. 

At this time, it is not expected the BLM would pursue land acquisition from willing sellers. Because the 

majority of the land within the corridor is privately owned (approximately 90%), it would be difficult for 

the BLM to acquire enough additional land to affect the manageability of the segment. No detailed cost 

analysis or estimate of acquisition costs was prepared as part of this study. 

Criterion 7: The extent to which other federal agencies or the state or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should 

it be proposed for inclusion in the National System. 

There is potential, albeit low, for USFS to participate in preservation and administration. The Natural 

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) might work with landowners to help them protect the WSR’s 

values. The BLM has not discussed potential WSR designation or shared administration with these 

entities. 

Section 3 G-21 
Bureau of Land Management 

Criterion 8: An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible development. 

Because the majority of the land ownership is private and only 6.7% is BLM-managed, the BLM has little 

ability to prevent incompatible development along this segment. 

There are several protections already in place to protect the fish ORV. The Endangered Species Act 

protects bull trout and its habitat; also, the BLM is a signatory to the 2007 memorandum of understanding 

and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Montana. The 

memorandum of understanding expedites implementation of conservation measures for westslope and 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout their respective historical ranges in Montana. The other signatories 

include other federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and organizations. 

State and federal law protects water quality; Blackfoot River Segment 1 does not need a WSR designation 

to protect its quality. 

Criterion 9: The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on 

non-federal lands. 

State and local government have some capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on non-federal lands. 

State programs already protect water quality, and Montana’s Streambed Protection Act would be partially 

protective of fish habitat. Montana’s fishing regulations would be partially protective of fish. The ORVs 

can also be state-protected through conservation easements on private land. 

Criterion 10: The existing support or opposition of designation. 

The Field Office has received mixed feedback regarding the potential WSR designation of Blackfoot 

River Segment 1 in conversations with members of the public and interest groups, and did not receive any 

written comments regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers during scoping. No rivers advocacy group has 

proposed designation of this segment. 

Criterion 11: The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives. 

MFWP has a management plan for the Blackfoot River with which a Wild and Scenic River designation 

for Segment 1 would likely be consistent. 

The designation would align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve 

conservation of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitats, including USFWS and MTFWP. The 

designation would also align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve water 

quality, including the USEPA and MTDEQ. 

Criterion 12: The contribution to river system or basin integrity. 

On its own, the designation of Blackfoot River Segment 1 as a WSR would not contribute to river system 

or basin integrity, because the BLM-managed lands are such a small percentage of total lands in the area. 

If all three Blackfoot River segments were included in the National System, BLM-managed lands in this 

corridor would still only represent 20% of the total land ownership. There are no designated Wild and 

Scenic Rivers within the Blackfoot watershed, nor have there been any legislative proposals for additional 

federal protection of the Blackfoot River or its tributaries. 

Criterion 13: The potential for water resources development. 

There is low potential for water resources development on the BLM-managed lands. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-22 
3.2.2 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Blackfoot River Segment 1 Preliminary Suitability Determination 

The BLM preliminarily finds Blackfoot River Segment 1 not suitable for inclusion in the National 

System. A Wild and Scenic designation is not the best method for protecting the segment, particularly 

given the small size of the BLM-managed length (6.7% of the total segment length). There are several 

other mechanisms in place that will protect the ORVs, water quality; such as the Endangered Species Act, 

BLM’s special status species management policy, and Montana’s fishing regulations, among others. The 

Missoula BLM’s Resource Management Plan protects the recreation values along the Blackfoot River. 

The reasonably foreseeable uses in the area – recreation, livestock grazing, forest management—are 

within BLM’s management practices and control. There are no reasonably foreseeable uses that would 

impact the free-flowing condition such as dams or major water developments. Many state entities, as well 

as the Blackfoot Challenge, have a clearly demonstrated commitment to protect the Blackfoot River’s 

water quality, free-flowing condition, and fish. 

Section 3 G-23 
3.3 

Bureau of Land Management 

 Blackfoot River Segment 2 Suitability Assessment and 

Determination 

Table 6. Blackfoot River Segment 2 Summary. 

Segment Name Blackfoot River Segment 2 

Segment Description BLM land along the Blackfoot River has been broken into three segments. 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 begins at Bear Creek Flat and continues 

downstream to the Whitaker Bridge. Map: Figure 6 below. 

Total Segment Length 19.1* miles 

Length on BLM Land 6.83* miles 

Preliminary Classification Scenic 

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORV) 

Fish, Recreation, Wildlife 

*See Section 1.6.4 for an explanation of this mileage. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-24 
z 

' 

·¥·· ....... 

\ ' 

'· ..... 

I 

R016W 

!' _ _,)·-·../ 

/ 

' 

I 

./··-... -

j 

'-

'\ 

\ 

) 

I 1· 

/ 

' .. -·-- ·· 

'-

- \, 

,,.7 I I 

I / 

I ) /- / 

/ 

.'1 '( 

113"37'W 113"3l'W 113"32'W 113.,1'W 113"30'W -11......... 3"29'W -.... --.... ----.... -......... ---.... ---.......... -..... --..------....-

C BLM LJ TN C - - - U.S. Highway - Blackfoot River Seg. 2 

State LJ Private --- State Highway Blackfoot River Seg. 3 

State- Lubrecht - River / Stream - Belmont Creek 

113"21'W 1u •2rw 113"21'W 

Miles 

0.5 

Coordioats System: NAD 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

Datum: Not1h Amencan ,983 

Missoula Fieki Ofr,ce, GI$ 

November 20 , 7 

11:J"22'W 

No warranty Is mad6 by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

as to tfle accvracy. rellabifity, 

or completeness of these 

dlfta for Individual Of 

aggregate use with other 

data. CJr,glnaJ data were 

compiled from various 

sources. Tl11s ir1fomiation 

may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This prod)ct was developed 

through digital means an<i 

may be updated without 

notification. ~- ,,....-'"••it•.i'"" 

z 

ft 

0 

... 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Figure 6. Blackfoot River Segment 2 

Section 3 G-25 
3.3.1 

Bureau of Land Management 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 Suitability Factor Assessment 

Criterion 1: Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System. 

Outstandingly remarkable values 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 provides outstanding recreational opportunities, attracting visitors from across 

the country. It is one of Montana’s premier blue ribbon trout streams. Fly-fishing for trout is the primary 

attraction, though rafting, canoeing, and inner-tubing are popular activities. Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks rate this segment as an outstanding fishery. Other attractions include following the Lewis & Clark 

National Historic Trail and opportunities for viewing wildlife such as grizzly bears, bald eagles, and 

peregrine falcons. 

Additionally, Blackfoot River Segment 2 provides exceptionally high-quality habitat for genetically pure 

populations of westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. The westslope cutthroat trout is one of two native 

cutthroats in Montana and is co-designated with the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as the state fish. The 

historical range of the westslope cutthroat trout is western Montana and the upper Missouri River 

drainage. 

Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to exist in only 2-4% of their historic stream 

distribution (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Habitat degradation and hybridization with other, nonnative 

fish have greatly reduced westslope cutthroat trout numbers. Poor grazing practices, historic logging 

practices, mining, agriculture, and residential development cause habitat loss and degradation, and 

westslope cutthroat trout cannot compete with nonnative trout (such as brook trout) where habitat is 

limited. Further, westslope cutthroat trout hybridize with the introduced rainbow trout, which reduces the 

purity of the stock. Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a Species of Special Concern by the 

State of Montana and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, a sensitive species by the 

U.S. Forest Service, and a special status species by the BLM. 

Bull trout are native to streams, rivers, and lakes in northwestern Montana and are threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. Factors contributing to declines in bull trout populations include: 

• Habitat degradation and loss due to land and water management practices; 

• Isolation and fragmentation of populations by both structural (e.g., dams) and environmental (e.g., 

thermal or pollution) barriers; 

• Introduction of nonnative fishes resulting in competition, predation and hybridization threats; 

• Historical eradication efforts; poisoning to remove non-game species; 

• Historical overharvest; and, 

• Ongoing poaching and accidental harvest due to misidentification. 

The Blackfoot River is listed by the USFWS as Bull Trout Critical Habitat. The main stem of the river is 

considered feeding, migratory, and overwintering habitat as it is key to those aspects of bull trout life 

history. The river is an important migratory corridor for bull and westslope cutthroat trout as they are 

known to migrate great distances to their natal spawning streams throughout the Blackfoot River Basin. 

Finally, bald eagles and peregrine falcons, both BLM sensitive species, nest within the canyon in this 

Segment, establishing outstandingly remarkable wildlife values. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-26 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

The scattered land ownership in this corridor would be a challenge for the administration of a WSR. 

Criterion 2: Status of land ownership and use in the area. 

Land ownership in the area is a mix of private, federal (BLM), and state. Blackfoot River Segment 2 

comprises two BLM parcels separated by private land. The Bear Creek Flat parcel has no public access. 

The remaining portion of the segment is accessible from McNamara Road. The scattered land ownership 

in this corridor would be a challenge for the administration of a WSR. 

Uses include recreation, grazing, hunting, and forest management. The area has low mineral potential and 

a low demand for rights-of-way. 

Criterion 3: Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

There are many pump diversions on the private lands in this corridor, so a WSR designation (which would 

only affect the BLM-managed lands) would be unlikely to enhance, foreclose, or curtail reasonably 

foreseeable potential uses of the water. If this segment were to be designated under the “Scenic” 

classification, such a classification would likely lead to a VRM Class II designation for the segment, 

which may limit forest harvest quantities and management of hydrologic function. A WSR designation 

would enhance recreation by directing management toward that use. 

Criterion 4: The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM would administer the area if it added to the National System. 

Criterion 5: The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies. 

None. If proposed, the BLM would only propose the BLM-managed segments for designation. 

Criterion 6: The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area, should it be added to the 

National System. 

Wild and Scenic River designation would not substantially increase management costs in this river 

corridor due to the present costs of complying with existing federal laws. However, there is likely to be 

some increased cost of administering the area if designated. No detailed cost analysis or estimate of 

management costs was prepared as part of this study. 

At this time, it is not expected that the BLM would pursue land acquisition from willing sellers. Because 

the majority of the land within the corridor is privately owned, it would be difficult for the BLM to 

acquire enough additional land to affect the manageability of the segment. No detailed cost analysis or 

estimate of acquisition costs was prepared as part of this study. 

Criterion 7: The extent to which other federal agencies or the state or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should 

it be proposed for inclusion in the National System. 

Because no other federal agencies manage land along this segment, no non-BLM agencies would 

participate in the preservation and administration of the river. There is a small possibility of state 

participation, given its interest in protecting the Blackfoot River, but the BLM has not discussed potential 

designation or the pursuant management with any state agencies. 

Section 3 G-27 
Bureau of Land Management 

Criterion 8: An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible development. 

Because the majority of the land ownership is private and only 32% is BLM-managed, the BLM has little 

ability to prevent incompatible development along this segment. 

There are several protections already in place to protect the fish ORV, specifically, the Endangered 

Species Act protects bull trout and its habitat. In addition, the BLM is a signatory to the 2007 

memorandum of understanding and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout in Montana. The memorandum of understanding was developed to expedite 

implementation of conservation measures for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout their 

respective historical ranges in Montana. The other signatories include other federal and state agencies, 

tribal governments, and organizations. Similarly, BLM policy directs management for sensitive species, 

which would protect the wildlife ORV. 

State and federal law protects water quality; Blackfoot River Segment 2 does not need a WSR designation 

to protect its quality. 

Criterion 9: The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on 

non-federal lands. 

State and local government have some capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on non-federal lands. 

State programs already protect water quality, and Montana’s Streambed Protection Act would be partially 

protective of fish habitat. Montana’s fishing regulations would be partially protective of fish. The ORVs 

can also be state-protected through conservation easements on private land. 

Criterion 10: The existing support or opposition of designation. 

The MFO has received mixed feedback regarding the potential WSR designation of Blackfoot River 

Segment 2 in conversations with members of the public and interest groups, and did not receive any 

written comments regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers during scoping. No rivers advocacy group has 

proposed designation of this segment. 

Criterion 11: The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives. 

MTFWP has a management plan for the Blackfoot River with which a Wild and Scenic River designation 

for Segment 2 would likely be consistent. 

The designation would align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve 

conservation of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitats, including USFWS and MTFWP. The 

designation would also align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve water 

quality, including the USEPA and MTDEQ. 

Criterion 12: The contribution to river system or basin integrity. 

If Blackfoot River Segment 2 were designated as a WSR, its contribution to river system integrity would 

depend, in part, on whether Blackfoot River Segments 1 and 3 are also designated as a WSR. If all three 

segments were included in the National System, BLM-managed lands in this corridor would still only 

represent 20% of the total land ownership. There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the 

Blackfoot watershed, nor have there been any legislative proposals for additional federal protection of the 

Blackfoot River or its tributaries. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-28 
3.3.2 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Criterion 13: The potential for water resources development. 

There is low potential for water resources development on the BLM-managed lands. 

Blackfoot River Segment 2 Preliminary Suitability Determination 

The BLM preliminarily finds Blackfoot River Segment 2 not suitable for inclusion in the National 

System. A Wild and Scenic designation is not the best method for protecting the segment, particularly 

given the small size of the BLM-managed length (32% of the total segment length). There are several 

other mechanisms in place that will protect the ORVs and water quality, such as the Endangered Species 

Act, BLM’s special status species management policy, and Montana’s fishing regulations, among others. 

The Missoula BLM’s Resource Management Plan prioritizes recreation values associated with the 

Blackfoot River. There are no reasonably foreseeable uses that would threaten the free-flowing condition 

of the Blackfoot River Segment 2 such as dams or water developments. Many state entities, as well as the 

Blackfoot Challenge, have a clearly demonstrated commitment to protect the Blackfoot River’s water 

quality, free-flowing condition, fish, and wildlife. 

Section 3 G-29 
3.4 

Bureau of Land Management 

 Blackfoot River Segment 3 Suitability Assessment and 

Determination 

Table 7. Blackfoot River Segment 3 Summary. 

Segment Name Blackfoot River Segment 3 

Segment Description 

BLM land along the Blackfoot River has been broken into three segments. 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 is in Missoula County, beginning at Whitaker 

Bridge and flowing west to the Johnsrud Boat Launch. Map: Figure 7 below. 

Total Segment Length 6.3 miles 

Length on BLM Land 6.3 miles 

Preliminary Classification Recreational 

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORV) Fish, Recreation, Scenic, Wildlife 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-30 
R017W 

! I 

'-(.\S,. '.\ __ 

E. . ' '·- i 

\ 

o,.,, 

' · .,;;:,,· 

113"44'W 11]•4]'W 1-13"42'W 

LI BLM Stale· Lubrechl --- U.S. Highway - Blackfoot River Seg. 2 

Forest Service LJ TNC - River / Stream Blackfoot River Seg. 3 

State LJ Private - Belmont Creek 

I ,- I 

r 

'· 

i 

i / 

i 

( ' \ \,i 

·, J ' ·,. '-

·., .. .-'j ··1 \ \/ 

i r I . , , \ 

./ 

-· ...... ·-.. .. _ 

...... I \ • i. .. ./ . \ _,- I 1' ; / \ \ '-. ./ _/ --1..-• .-·· ,,,. __ 

I \ 

'· I 

I 

'•. ) -I' / '1 !" ' i \ f I i,_ \.J \ ( / I I I I / , \ \ i l •.I \ \..) \ -

1 i ) · · -..l \ 

I I I 

\ ·' 

··f \<\ I) ; I Ii ', ",~ ·\w• ,~\~.:,__\ \'"· ' ••. I 1_j i ( I / ·, . .'~~ .. ,J -. ,_/ j' V ) ( / ) \ ' '\ \_ ! I j_ . r· ~{ ( \ o " ' . ' . \ / \/ .. ~-----=-·-,-'"'· ··--.. ~<---~,/--! ' ,_~,!. ✓ ... '. 

..... '-

- y 

- .✓ I 

I ./ 

.I 

I ·y-·-

J I ;· i / 

---

11:J"31'W 11J~O'W 113"29'W 113'"21'W 

Miles 

0.6 

No warranty is made by lhs 

Bureau of LRnd Management 

as to the accf.llacy, reliability, 

or complelBness of these 

data for individual or 

aggregate use with other 

dala. Original data werB 

compiled from various 

2 sources. This infom1ation 

may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This 

prcxi1,1c;t was deWJloped Coorcinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers through dlgitaJ means and 

may be updated without 

notification. '-1!,l,lCO.!UUl'w 

DaJum: North American t983 

Mssoula Fiek:J Office, GI$ 

Nuvember 2017 

z 

., 

0 

.. 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Figure 7. Blackfoot River Segment 3 

Section 3 G-31 
3.4.1 

Bureau of Land Management 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 Suitability Factor Assessment 

Criterion 1: Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System. 

Outstandingly remarkable values 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 provides outstanding recreational opportunities, attracting visitors from across 

the country. It is one of Montana’s premier blue ribbon trout streams. Fly-fishing for trout is the primary 

attraction, though rafting, canoeing, and inner-tubing are popular activities. Montana Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks rate this segment as an outstanding fishery. Other attractions include following the Lewis & Clark 

National Historic Trail and opportunities for viewing wildlife such as grizzly bears, bald eagles, and 

peregrine falcons. 

The scenic value of Blackfoot River Segment 3 are evident in its deep canyon with steep, timbered slopes 

and exposed rock outcrops, which combine with the flowing water and riparian vegetation to provide 

outstanding scenery. The BLM Scenic Quality Rating along this segment is Class A, which is the BLM’s 

highest scenic rating. 

Additionally, Blackfoot River Segment 3 provides exceptionally high quality habitat for genetically pure 

populations of westslope cutthroat trout and bull trout. The westslope cutthroat trout is one of two native 

cutthroats in Montana and is co-designated with the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as the state fish. The 

historical range of the westslope cutthroat trout is western Montana and the upper Missouri River 

drainage. 

Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to exist in only 2-4% of their historic stream 

distribution (McInture and Rieman 1995). Habitat degradation and hybridization with other, nonnative 

fish have greatly reduced westslope cutthroat trout numbers. Poor grazing practices, historic logging 

practices, mining, agriculture, and residential development cause habitat loss and degradation, and 

westslope cutthroat trout cannot compete with nonnative trout (such as brook trout) where habitat is 

limited. Further, westslope cutthroat trout hybridize with the introduced rainbow trout, which reduces the 

purity of the stock. Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a Species of Special Concern by the 

State of Montana and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, a sensitive species by the 

U.S. Forest Service, and a special status species by the BLM. 

Bull trout are native to streams, rivers, and lakes in northwestern Montana and are threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. Factors contributing to declines in bull trout populations include: 

• Habitat degradation and loss due to land and water management practices; 

• Isolation and fragmentation of populations by both structural (e.g., dams) and environmental (e.g., 

thermal or pollution) barriers; 

• Introduction of nonnative fishes resulting in competition, predation and hybridization threats; 

• Historical eradication efforts; poisoning to remove non-game species; 

• Historical overharvest; and, 

• Ongoing poaching and accidental harvest due to misidentification. 

The Blackfoot River is listed by the USFWS as Bull Trout Critical Habitat. The main stem of the river is 

considered feeding, migratory, and overwintering habitat as it is key to those aspects of bull trout life 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-32 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

history. The river is an important migratory corridor for bull and westslope cutthroat trout as they are 

known to migrate great distances to their natal spawning streams throughout the Blackfoot River Basin. 

Finally, bald eagles and peregrine falcons, both BLM sensitive species, nest within the canyon at 

Blackfoot River Segment 3, establishing outstandingly remarkable wildlife values. 

Criterion 2: Status of land ownership and use in the area. 

The land ownership along this segment of the Blackfoot River is entirely federal, managed by the BLM. 

Uses include grazing, timber, and recreation. It is readily accessible from McNamara Road and the five 

recreational developments along the segment. Uses include grazing, timber, and recreation. 

Criterion 3: Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

If this segment were to be designated under the “Scenic” classification, such a classification would likely 

lead to a VRM Class II designation for the segment, which may limit forest harvest quantities. However, 

there are other land use plan allocations appropriate for this area that would likely limit forest 

management quantities. 

Criterion 4: The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM would administer the area. 

Criterion 5: The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies. 

None. 

Criterion 6: The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area, should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM manages the entire segment, so there are no other lands to acquire along it. It is not expected 

that Wild and Scenic River designation would substantially increase management costs in this river 

corridor due to the present costs of complying with existing federal laws. However, there is likely to be 

some increased cost of administering the area if designated. No detailed cost analysis or estimate was 

prepared as part of this study. 

Criterion 7: The extent to which other federal agencies or the state or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should 

it be proposed for inclusion in the National System. 

Though the BLM would retain exclusive management of Blackfoot River Segment 3, the MFO would 

continue its partnerships with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

& Parks in order to preserve critical WCT and bull trout habitat should the segment be proposed for 

inclusion in the WSR System. 

Criterion 8: An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible development. 

There are several protections already in place to protect the ORVs of fish, recreation, scenic and wildlife. 

The Endangered Species Act protects Bull trout and its habitat. In addition, the BLM is a signatory to the 

2007 memorandum of understanding and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and 

Section 3 G-33 
3.4.2 

Bureau of Land Management 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout in Montana. The memorandum of understanding was developed to expedite 

implementation of conservation measures for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout their 

respective historical ranges in Montana. The other signatories include other federal and state agencies, 

tribal governments, and organizations. 

Similarly, BLM policy directs management for sensitive species, which would protect the wildlife ORV. 

The Missoula BLM’s Resource Management Plan prioritizes recreation and scenic values along the 

Blackfoot River along with wildlife and fish habitat values. 

State and federal law protects water quality; Blackfoot River Segment 3 does not need a WSR designation 

to protect its quality. 

Criterion 9: The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on 

non-federal lands. 

Not applicable, as BLM manages the entire segment. 

Criterion 10: The existing support or opposition of designation. 

The Field Office has received mixed feedback regarding the potential WSR designation of Blackfoot 

River Segment 3 in conversations with members of the public and interest groups, and did not receive any 

written comments regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers during scoping. No rivers advocacy group has 

proposed designation of this segment. 

Criterion 11: The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives. 

The designation would align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve 

conservation of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitats, including USFWS and MTFWP. The 

designation would also align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve water 

quality, including the USEPA and MTDEQ. 

Criterion 12: The contribution to river system or basin integrity. 

If Blackfoot River Segment 3 were designated as a WSR, its contribution to river system integrity would 

depend, in part, on whether Blackfoot River Segments 1 and 2 are also designated as a WSR. If all three 

segments were included in the National System, BLM-managed lands in this corridor would still only 

represent 20% of the total land ownership. There are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers within the 

Blackfoot watershed, no have there been any legislative proposals for additional federal protection of the 

Blackfoot River or its tributaries. 

Criterion 13: The potential for water resources development. 

There is low potential for water resources development in this segment. 

Blackfoot River Segment 3 Preliminary Suitability Determination 

The BLM preliminarily finds Blackfoot River Segment 3 not suitable for inclusion in the National 

System. Though WSR designation would be protective of the segment’s values, such protection is not 

necessary as there are several other, better mechanisms for protecting the ORVs and water quality. These 

mechanisms include the Endangered Species Act, BLM’s special status species management policy, and 

state and federal water quality standards. The uses that occur in the area (grazing, forest management, and 

recreation) are also managed, per BLM policy, with an eye toward protecting the river. The Missoula 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-34 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

BLM’s Resource Management Plan prioritizes recreation and scenic values along the Blackfoot River. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable uses that would threaten the free-flowing condition of the Blackfoot 

River segment 3 such as dams or water developments. Further, the Blackfoot Challenge is committed to 

protecting the Blackfoot River. Many state entities have a clear, demonstrated commitment to protect the 

river and specifically its quality, free-flowing condition, fish, and wildlife. 

Section 3 G-35 
3.5 

Bureau of Land Management 

 Gallagher Creek Suitability Assessment and Determination 

Table 8. Gallagher Creek Summary. 

Segment Name Gallagher Creek 

Segment Description Gallagher Creek is a tributary of Nevada Creek originating on BLM-managed 

land on the east side of the Garnet Range and southeast of the Hoodoo 

Mountain Wilderness Study Area (WSA). This segment is located in Powell 

County, approximately 15 miles southwest of Lincoln, Montana. Map: Figure 

8 below. 

Total Segment Length 4.1 miles 

Length on BLM Land 4.1 miles 

Preliminary Classification Recreational 

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORV) Fish 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-36 
J 

/ 

---···- o· ----·' 

112~9-W 

''-·-. 

112-SS-W 

......... __ _ 

18 ··--····17 

.. 

20 

29 

o. I I 

.,,.,, 

/ 

- BLM CJ Private --- State Highway 

State - WSA - Gallagher Creek 

> 

r 

ROIOW ?: ,.,. \ .c.··· i 

/ 

) 

/ 

,,,, ... --:, 

I 

Miles 

0.5 

,.. 

.J 

) :"l's ,,.,,. 

/ ~ / I 

! . -·/1 

i. -··•-./,,..,.· ✓·/ 

,,-( 

J 

.Jr 25 

'-. ., ii /.·- .r·•·-

1 / 

_.,.; 

112'4:t"W 

No w11rranly Is madfJ by lhe 

Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy. rel,abift'ty, 

or completeness of these 

data for lndiv,dual or 

aggregate use with other 

dDta. OnginaJ data were 

compiled from various 

2 sources. Tt11s information 

may not meet National Map 

Accuracy Standards. This prodJct was developed Coordl11al6 Sys/em: NAO 1983 Albers 

Pro;ection: Albers through digital means and 

may be updaled without 

notificatkm. "'"~•,•fl'mie,,,, ... ~w 

Datum: North Amencan 1983 

Missoula Field Off,ce, GIS 

November 20, 7 

ROOIW 

z 

N 

0 

... 

z 

0 

... 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Figure 8. Gallagher Creek Segment 

Section 3 G-37 
3.5.1 

Bureau of Land Management 

Gallagher Creek Suitability Factor Assessment 

Criterion 1: Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System. 

Outstandingly remarkable values 

The Gallagher Creek segment provides exceptionally high quality habitat for genetically pure populations 

of westslope cutthroat trout. The westslope cutthroat trout is one of two native cutthroats in Montana and 

is co-designated with the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as the state fish. The historical range of the 

westslope cutthroat trout is western Montana and the upper Missouri River drainage. 

Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to exist in only 2-4% of their historic stream 

distribution (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Habitat degradation and hybridization with other, nonnative 

fish have greatly reduced westslope cutthroat trout numbers. Poor grazing practices, historic logging 

practices, mining, agriculture, and residential development cause habitat loss and degradation, and 

westslope cutthroat trout cannot compete with nonnative trout (such as brook trout) where habitat is 

limited. Further, westslope cutthroat trout hybridize with the introduced rainbow trout, which reduces the 

purity of the stock. Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a Species of Special Concern by the 

State of Montana and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, a sensitive species by the 

U.S. Forest Service, and a special status species by the BLM. 

Gallagher Creek is occupied by westslope cutthroat trout and sculpin. Genetic testing in 2005 indicates 

there are low levels of hybrid introgression in the westslope cutthroat trout population. That is to say the 

population is largely (>90%) westslope cutthroat trout genetically. 

Criterion 2: Status of land ownership and use in the area. 

The land ownership along Gallagher Creek is entirely federal, managed by the BLM. There are no roads 

providing public access to the segment; the public may access Gallagher Creek by hiking cross-country 

from the north and from the west off the Windy Rock Jeep Trail. 

Uses in this area include grazing, timber, and recreation. 

Criterion 3: Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable potential uses that would be enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if 

Gallagher Creek were designated as a WSR. 

Criterion 4: The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM would administer the area. 

Criterion 5: The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies. 

None; the BLM manages the entire segment. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-38 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Criterion 6: The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area, should it be added to the 

National System. 

The BLM manages the entire segment, so there are no other lands to acquire along it. It is not expected 

that Wild and Scenic River designation would substantially increase management costs in this river 

corridor due to the present costs of complying with existing federal laws. However, there is likely to be 

some increased cost of administering the area if designated. No detailed cost analysis or estimate was 

prepared as part of this study. 

Criterion 7: The extent to which other federal agencies or the state or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should 

it be proposed for inclusion in the National System. 

Though the BLM would retain exclusive management of the Gallagher Creek segment, the MFO would 

continue its partnerships with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

& Parks in order to preserve critical WCT and bull trout habitat should the segment be proposed for 

inclusion in the WSR System. 

Criterion 8: An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible development. 

Local zoning controls are not applicable to this segment, because it is entirely on BLM-managed land. 

There are several protections already in place to protect the fish ORV: the Endangered Species Act 

protects bull trout and its habitat. Also, the BLM is a signatory to the 2007 memorandum of 

understanding and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone cutthroat trout in 

Montana. The memorandum of understanding was developed to expedite implementation of conservation 

measures for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout their respective historical ranges in 

Montana. The other signatories include other federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and 

organizations. 

State and federal law protects water quality; Gallagher Creek does not need a WSR designation to protect 

its quality. Further, the BLM’s management practices for the reasonably foreseeable future actions 

(recreation, forest management, and grazing) are protective of the ORVs here. 

Criterion 9: The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on 

non-federal lands. 

Not applicable; BLM manages the entire eligible segment. 

Criterion 10: The existing support or opposition of designation. 

The MFO has received mixed feedback regarding the potential WSR designation of Gallagher Creek in 

conversations with members of the public and interest groups, and did not receive any written comments 

regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers during scoping. No rivers advocacy group has proposed designation of 

this segment. 

Criterion 11: The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives. 

The designation would align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve 

conservation of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitats, including USFWS and MTFWP. The 

Section 3 G-39 
3.5.2 

Bureau of Land Management 

designation would also align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve water 

quality, including the USEPA and MTDEQ. 

Criterion 12: The contribution to river system or basin integrity. 

The designation of Gallagher Creek would not contribute to river system or basin integrity. There are no 

designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the area, nor have there been any legislative proposals for additional 

federal protection of Gallagher Creek. 

Criterion 13: The potential for water resources development. 

There is little potential for water resources development in Gallagher Creek. 

Gallagher Creek Preliminary Suitability Determination 

The BLM preliminarily finds Gallagher Creek not suitable for inclusion in the National System. Though 

WSR designation would be protective of Gallagher Creek’s values, such protection is not necessary as 

there are several other, better mechanisms for protecting the ORVs and water quality. These mechanisms 

include the Endangered Species Act, BLM’s special status species management policy, and state and 

federal water quality standards. The uses that occur in the area (grazing, forest management, and 

recreation) are also managed, per BLM policy, with an eye toward protecting the river. There are no 

reasonably foreseeable uses that would threaten the free-flowing condition of the Gallagher Creek such as 

dams or water developments. Further, many state entities have a clear, demonstrated commitment to 

protect the river and specifically its quality, free-flowing condition, and fish. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-40 
3.6 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

 Rock Creek Suitability Assessment and Determination 

Table 9. Rock Creek Summary. 

Segment Name Rock Creek 

Segment Description 

The Rock Creek segment is located in Granite County, approximately 12 

miles west of Phillipsburg, Montana. The segment consists of five separate 

BLM parcels through which Rock Creek flows before entering the Lolo 

National Forest. Map: Figure 9 below. 

Total Segment Length 11.1 miles 

Length on BLM Land 2.1 miles 

Preliminary Classification Scenic 

Outstandingly Remarkable 

Values (ORV) Fish, Geological, Recreation, Scenic 

Section 3 G-41 
~ 

• " , 

• ;: 

' 

! 

~ 

T 

-· '-

;: 

I 

I -, -1 I ·V '·. I ·, - .... 

-. .,,,.,-,,,,,- _:· --

-. 

"· 

0 

.,. 

1t3 "42'W 

/ j 

' I 

1u •,ww 

,,. 

~ + 

' / '\ 

\ 

113°40W 

I 

' 

.i _.,,,.. r. 

I / 

/ ,,.-i 

( 

\_ 

\ 

' I 

,,. , 113"39'W 1U~ l"W 

/ 

~ BLM Stale --- Stale Highway 

LJ Forest Service CJ Private - River / Strea m 

- WSA - Rock Creek 

~016W 

--/ -

I 

) / ...., 

\ \ 

't 

\---~---,--~ 

113"3S'W 

I 

., 

/ 

i 

113"34'W 

J I 

'-· 

_,-· 

113"3 3'W 113 "29'W 

Miles 

0.5 

I ' i 

, . .-- \ 

10 / 12 

, i . r t 

\ I I ' .1· \ ' \ .. _1 _) -- '-

, -~ (_ _..Jc·.,,..-..··- .. ) Jc,...,; . I ~•~v,P ·- {. 

, -- - 11 l"21'W 11 3"2 7'W 11 3"26W 

No warranty Is made by the 

Bureau of Land Management 

as to the accuracy. reliability, 

or completeness of Jhese 

data for inrividual or 

aggregate use with other data. Original data were 

compiled from vaiious 

2 sources. This Information 

may not meet National Map 

Acroracy Standards. This 

prOQJct was devt1loped CoordinaJe System: NAO 1983A lbers 

Projection: Almrs through digital means and 

may be u()dated without 

notification. .. .....,,u.,,iu• •""' ~-• 

Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GI$ 

November 20 17 

\ •9 

_.­ .( _ 

-........... .... 

07 

/ _/ 

! 

,. --y· 

--·1•• ·-. i .. - .. 

z 

Ii 

.... 

z 

§ 

.... 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 9. Rock Creek Segment 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-42 
3.6.1 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Rock Creek Suitability Factor Assessment 

Criterion 1: Characteristics that do, or do not, make the area a worthy addition to the 

National System. 

Outstandingly remarkable values 

Rock Creek’s steep canyon walls, massive rock outcrops, talus slopes, and coniferous timber combine 

with flowing water and riparian vegetation to provide striking visual contrast and outstanding scenic 

values. 

A sequence of brightly colored “hoodoos,” or pinnacles, occur along Rock Creek, south of its confluence 

with Upper Willow Creek, establishes remarkable geologic values. This highly conspicuous feature is 

eroded remnants of Tertiary volcanic ash and conglomerate. The combination of materials and colors is 

outstanding. This type of formation is fragile, as is easily sculpted by the elements. 

As one of Montana’s premier blue ribbon trout streams, with fantastic fishing opportunities for brown, 

rainbow, and westslope cutthroat trout, Rock Creek has outstanding recreation values. Fishing 

opportunities attract visitors on a national scale. MFWP rates the fisheries’ value as outstanding. In 2009, 

the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest made a similar determination on National Forest lands within 

this same river reach. 

The Rock Creek segment provides exceptionally high quality habitat for populations of westslope 

cutthroat trout and bull trout. The westslope cutthroat trout is one of two native cutthroats in Montana and 

is co-designated with the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as the state fish. The historical range of the 

westslope cutthroat trout is western Montana and the upper Missouri River drainage. 

Genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout are estimated to exist in only 2-4% of their historic stream 

distribution (McIntyre and Rieman 1995). Habitat degradation and hybridization with other, nonnative 

fish have greatly reduced westslope cutthroat trout numbers. Poor grazing practices, historic logging 

practices, mining, agriculture, and residential development cause habitat loss and degradation, and 

westslope cutthroat trout cannot compete with nonnative trout (such as brook trout) where habitat is 

limited. Further, westslope cutthroat trout hybridize with the introduced rainbow trout, which reduces the 

purity of the stock. Westslope cutthroat trout have been designated a Species of Special Concern by the 

State of Montana and the Montana Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, a sensitive species by the 

U.S. Forest Service, and a special status species by the BLM. 

Bull trout are native to streams, rivers, and lakes in northwestern Montana and are threatened under the 

Endangered Species Act. Factors contributing to declines in bull trout populations include: 

• Habitat degradation and loss due to land and water management practices; 

• Isolation and fragmentation of populations by both structural (e.g., dams) and environmental (e.g., 

thermal or pollution) barriers; 

• Introduction of nonnative fishes resulting in competition, predation and hybridization threats; 

• Historical eradication efforts; poisoning to remove non-game species; 

• Historical overharvest; and, 

• Ongoing poaching and accidental harvest due to misidentification. 

Section 3 G-43 
Bureau of Land Management 

Rock Creek has been listed by the USFWS as Bull Trout Critical Habitat. The main stem of the creek is 

considered to be feeding, migratory, and overwintering habitat as it is key to those aspects of bull trout 

life history. The reach is an important migratory corridor for bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout as 

they are known to migrate great distances to their natal spawning streams throughout the Clark Fork River 

Basin. 

Criterion 2: Status of land ownership and use in the area. 

Land ownership along Rock Creek is a mix of private, state, and federal (BLM and USFS). Public access 

is by Rock Creek Road, which provides access to two of the five parcels. Uses include recreation, 

hunting, grazing, forest management, minerals, and right-of-way requests. 

The scattered land ownership in this corridor would be a challenge for the administration of a WSR. 

Criterion 3: Reasonably foreseeable potential uses of the land and water that would be 

enhanced, foreclosed, or curtailed if the area were included in the National System. 

There is a possibility that inclusion of Rock Creek in the National System could lead to limiting or 

excluding mineral development, rights-of-way administration, and grazing. A WSR designation would 

enhance recreation by directing management toward that use. 

Criterion 4: The federal agency that will administer the area should it be added to the 

National System. 

The USFS could administer the area along with the BLM. 

Criterion 5: The extent to which the agency proposes that administration of the river, 

including the costs thereof, is shared by state and local agencies. 

It is possible that the BLM could share administration, to a limited extent, with USFS, who manages a 

slightly larger piece of the segment. However, the BLM has not discussed such shared administration with 

USFS. 

Criterion 6: The estimated cost of acquiring necessary lands or interests in land within 

the corridor, as well as the cost of administering the area, should it be added to the 

National System. 

It is not expected that Wild and Scenic River designation would substantially increase management costs 

in this river corridor due to the present costs of complying with existing federal laws. However, there is 

likely to be some increased cost of administering the area if designated. No detailed cost analysis or 

estimate of management costs was prepared as part of this study. 

At this time, it is not expected that the BLM would pursue land acquisition from willing sellers. Because 

the majority of the land within the corridor is privately owned, it would be difficult for the BLM to 

acquire enough additional land to affect the manageability of the segment. No detailed cost analysis or 

estimate of acquisition costs was prepared as part of this study. 

Criterion 7: The extent to which other federal agencies or the state or its political 

subdivisions might participate in the preservation and administration of the river should 

it be proposed for inclusion in the National System. 

There is a small possibility that the USFS, which also manages a small piece of Rock Creek, would 

participate in the preservation and administration of the segment if it were designated as a WSR. The 

BLM has not discussed potential WSR designation or shared administration with these entities. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-44 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Criterion 8: An evaluation of local zoning and other land use controls in protecting the 

river’s ORVs and preventing incompatible development. 

Because the majority of the land ownership is private and only 19% is BLM-managed, the BLM has little 

ability to prevent incompatible development along this segment. 

There are several protections already in place to protect the fish ORV, including on non-BLM lands; the 

Endangered Species Act protects bull trout and its habitat. Also, the BLM is a signatory to the 2007 

memorandum of understanding and conservation agreement for westslope cutthroat trout and Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout in Montana. The memorandum of understanding was developed to expedite 

implementation of conservation measures for westslope and Yellowstone cutthroat trout throughout their 

respective historical ranges in Montana. The other signatories include other federal and state agencies, 

tribal governments, and organizations. 

State and federal law protects water quality; Rock Creek does not need a WSR designation to protect its 

quality. 

Criterion 9: The state/local government’s capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on 

non-federal lands. 

State and local government have some capacity to manage and protect the ORVs on non-federal lands. 

State programs already protect water quality, and Montana’s Streambed Protection Act would be partially 

protective of fish habitat. Montana’s fishing regulations would be partially protective of fish. The ORVs 

can also be protected by the state through conservation easements on private land. 

Criterion 10: The existing support or opposition of designation. 

The Field Office has received mixed feedback regarding the potential WSR designation of Rock Creek in 

conversations with members of the public and interest groups, and did not receive any written comments 

regarding Wild and Scenic Rivers during public envisioning or public scoping. Various local newspaper 

articles have been published reflecting a mix of support for the designation along Rock Creek. 

Criterion 11: The consistency of designation with other agency plans, programs, and 

policies in meeting regional objectives. 

Whether or not a WSR designation would be consistent with other agency plans, programs, and policies is 

largely dependent on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest Plan (2009) and Lolo National Forest 

Plan (1986). The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest revised its Forest Plan in 2009, and determined a 

portion of Rock Creek along USFS-managed lands as eligible; no suitability determination was made. 

The Lolo National Forest has not studied this river for WSR designation, but is anticipated to revise its 

forest plan in the next few years. 

The designation would align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve 

conservation of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout habitats, including USFWS and MTFWP. The 

designation would also align with other agency plans, programs, and policies designed to achieve water 

quality, including the USEPA and MTDEQ. 

Criterion 12: The contribution to river system or basin integrity. 

The designation of Rock Creek would not necessarily contribute to river system or basin integrity, 

because the BLM manages only a small section of the river. There are no designated Wild and Scenic 

Rivers in the area, nor have there been any legislative proposals for additional federal protection of Rock 

Creek. 

Section 3 G-45 
3.6.2 

Bureau of Land Management 

Criterion 13: The potential for water resources development. 

There are existing developments and ditches throughout the 11.1-mile segment. Further, a private 

landowner has pre-FLPMA rights to canals and ditches on BLM-managed lands. 

Rock Creek Preliminary Suitability Determination 

The BLM has chosen to defer the suitability determination for the Rock Creek segment until a 

comprehensive suitability study can be conducted with the Forest Service. The USFS manages a greater 

percentage of land (81%) along the Rock Creek segment and is expected to begin revision of the Lolo 

National Forest Plan in the next few years. Until a suitability determination is made, the BLM will review 

projects on a case-by-case basis per BLM Manual 6400 so as not to impact river values or make decisions 

that might lead to a determination of ineligibility or nonsuitability. 

In the meantime, there are several other mechanisms in place that will protect the ORVs, free-flowing 

condition, and water quality, such as the Endangered Species Act, the BLM’s special status species 

management policy, and Montana’s fishing regulations, among others. Many state entities also have a 

clearly demonstrated commitment to protect Rock Creek’s water quality, free-flowing condition, and fish. 

There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that would adversely affect the scenic and geological 

features, and the BLM already manages Rock Creek for its recreational uses. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-46 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS – Appendix G 

Section 4. List of Preparers 

Name Professional Discipline 

Albritton, Michael Fire Management Specialist (Prescribed 

Fire/Fuels) 

Bell, Steven Rangeland Management Specialist 

Cook, Kenneth Range Technician 

Craig, Maria Outdoor Recreation Planner 

Downing, Daniel Fish Biologist 

Ebbers, Annie Planning and Environmental Coordinator; 

WSR Project Lead 

Flood, Steven Hydrologist 

Helser, Micah Writer-Editor 

Miller, Jody Archeologist 

Rye, Christopher Geologist 

Sandau, Lonna Realty Specialist 

Sparks, James Wildlife Biologist 

Ward, Margaret Planning and Environmental Coordinator; 

RMP Team Leader 

Warner, Patrick Geographic Information Specialist 

Wetzstein, Jodi Forester 

Section 4 G-47 
Bureau of Land Management 

Section 5. Literature Cited 

Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Coordinating Council. 1999. The Wild and Scenic River Study 

Process, Technical Report. Portland, OR and Anchorage, AK: USFS and NPS. 

McIntyre, J.D., and B.E. Rieman. 1995. Westslope Cutthroat Trout IN Conservation Assessment for 

Inland Cutthroat Trout. General Technical Report RM-256. US Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. M.K. 

Young, tech. Ed. Pages 1-15. 

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Final Wild and Scenic River Eligibility Report for the 

Missoula Field Office, Montana. Missoula, MT: BLM. 

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Manual 6400—Wild and Scenic Rivers—Policy and Program 

Direction for Identification, Evaluation, Planning, and Management. Washington, D.C.: BLM. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. § 1271-1287). 1968. U.S. Public Law 90-542, 90th Cong., 2 

October 1968. 

Wild and Scenic River Suitability Report G-48 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bureau of Land Management Appendix H - Maps Missoula RMP DEIS 

Appendix H: Maps 

List of Figures 

Figure Number Title 

H-1 Areas of critical environmental concern: alternative A 

H-2 Areas of critical environmental concern: alternative B 

H-3 Areas of critical environmental concern: alternative C 

H-4 Bear Creek Flats ACEC 

H-5 Limestone Cliffs ACEC 

H-6 Phil Wright Rock ACEC 

H-7 Aquatics habitat 

H-8 Eligible wild and scenic rivers 

H-9 Wildland fire management: alternative A 

H-10 Wildland fire management: alternative B 

H-11 Wildland fire management: alternative C 

H-12 Forest vegetation 

H-13 Livestock grazing: alternative A 

H-14 Livestock grazing: alternative B 

H-15 Livestock grazing: alternative C 

H-16 Land tenure: alternative A 

H-17 Land tenure: alternative B 

H-18 Land tenure: alternative C 

H-19 Lands with wilderness characteristics- Alt C only 

H-20 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail: alternative B 

H-21 Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail: alternative C 

H-22 Management areas: alternative A 

H-23 Mineral potential overview 

H-24 Mineral potential: Top O’ Deep and Wales Creek areas 

H-25 Mineral potential: Garnet Ghost Town and Elk Creek areas 

H-26 Mineral potential: Wallace Creek and Union Peak areas 

H-27 Mineral potential: Hoodoos and Blackfoot City areas 

H-28 Mineral potential: Philipsburg, Rock Creek, and Gold Creek areas. 

H-29 Mineral Restriction: alternative A 

H-30 Mineral Restriction: alternative B 

H-31 Mineral Restriction: alternative C 

H-32 Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile allocations: alternative A 

H-33 Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile allocations: alternative B 

H-34 Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile allocations: alternative C 

H-35 Recreation management areas: alternative A 

H-36 Recreation management areas: alternative B 
Bureau of LandManagement Appendix H - MapsMissoula RMP DEIS

Figure Number Title 

H-37 Recreation management areas: alternative C 

H-38 Rights-of-way: alternative B 

H-39 Rights-of-way: alternative C 

H-40 Terrestrial wildlife 

H-41 Visual resource management: alternative A 

H-42 Visual resource management: alternative B 

H-43 Visual resource management: alternative C 

H-44 Wilderness study area management, if released from designation: alternative A 

H-45 Wilderness study area management, if released from designation: alternative B 

H-46 Wilderness study area management, if released from designation: alternative C 
Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Alternative: A 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

ACEC 

0 2.5 

D 

 State 

 State- Lubrecht 

 TNC 

 Private 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I County Boundary l____l 

~ 

~ 

~ 

0 -

0 

Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles + Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported2/2012019@3:55:4BPM 
Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Alternative: B 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

ACEC 

0 2.5 

D 

 State 

 State- Lubrecht 

 TNC 

 Private 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I County Boundary l____l 

~ 

~ 

~ 

0 -

0 

Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles + Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

212012019@ 3:59:25 PM 
Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Area of Critical Environmental Concern 

Alternative: C 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

ACEC 

0 2.5 

D 

 State 

 State- Lubrecht 

 TNC 

 Private 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I County Boundary l____l 

~ 

~ 

~ 

0 -

0 

Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles + Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported212012019@5:04:41 PM 
1-

, 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Bear Creek Flats 

Alternative: A 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

 National Park  Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

ACEC 

D Bear Creek Flats No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

0 0.25 0.5 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

1 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

CJ Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121/2019@ 10:26:29AM 

i 

l 

I 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC 

Alternative: A, C 

BLM Interstate

 State ~ 

U.S. Hwy 

 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht 

State Hwy 

 National Park TNC ~ 

 

Service 

0 County Seat 

Indian Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary l____l 

-

WSA 

ACEC 

D Limestone Ridge No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

+ 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

0.5 S February, 2019 0 0.125 0.25 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

CJ Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported2121 /2019@ 10:33:32AM 
+-

') I

-,~---+--- ',I 

\ 

I 

) 

/

-,----t------+--

1 

i 

I 

\ 

I 

I \-----t---------,'---------+-

1 

I 

\ 

'" I 

• --+-\ ---+----+----./--- ',, 

/ 

( 

i 

/ 

( 

I 

I 

I 

) 

I 

) / ---+----+----+---

------I~-----+--, 

1 ----t-----t----+------'l--t--

/ 

t4 

~---t----

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Phil Wright Rock ACEC 

Alternative: All 

 BLM State ~ Interstate

 U.S. Hwy Forest Service State- Lubrecht 

State Hwy 

Service 

National Park TNC ~ 

 

0 County Seat 

Indian 

 ~ 

Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary l____l 

-

WSA 

ACEC 

~ D Phil Wright Rock No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

+ 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

2 S February, 2019 0 0.5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

\ 

'--, 

',, 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121/2019@ 10:28:16AM 

I 
~ 

_r 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Aquatics 

Alternative: All 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service 

TNC 

0 County Seat 

 Ind ian Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA

W. Pearlshell (observations) 

• W. Toad (observations) 

--- Westslope Cutthroat Trout 

Bull Trout Critical Habitat 

 Fish Key Watersheds 

Miles 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

2.5 5 + Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 2121 12019@ 11:45:00 AM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

 

• d 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Alternative: All 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service TNC 

0 County Seat 

Indian  Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA 

Eligible Wild and Scenic River Segments 

---• Blackfoot River Seg. 1 No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

---• Blackfoot River Seg. 2 

---• Blackfoot River Seg. 3 

---• Belmont Creek 

---• Gallagher Creek 

---• Rock Creek 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Miles W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

0 2.5 5 + Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121 12019@ 11:04:24AM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

 

~ 

" 

.I!> 

<Q ' 0 d "' 

. }\ 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

Alternative: A 

BLM  State 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht 

 National Park  Service 

TNC 

Ind 

ian  Private Reservation 

,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l 

Wildland Urban Interface -All Alts 

1 mile 

3 mile 

4 mile 

Fire Management Zones - Alt A 

- B - c 

Undesignated 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 10 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

I I ) ]_ I r 

~j ~ -r----.. 

rFj I L l, 

L ~ \ 

'. T\ +~ 

; L l ~1 1 

-( T L 

1

_-/, Ut> 1 

r., ) L / 1 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported2

12012019@3:45:15PM 

~ 

~ 

~ 

0 

0 

Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

WSA 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

 

/? 

o • d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

Alternative: B 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service TNC 

0 County Seat 

Indian  Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA

Wildland Urban Interface -All Alts 

1 mile 

3 mile 

4 mile 

Fire Management Zones - Alt B 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

-

without notification. 

Zone 1 

- Zone 2 - Zone 3 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

I I I ) 

"-j r j 

c]-~T\ L l ~1 1 

-( T L 

_"), fft'>\ 

L 1 

]_ 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported2

12012019@3:49:02PM 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Wildland Fire Management 

BLM Interstate

 State ~ 

U.S. Hwy 

 

Forest Service ~ 

 State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Service 

National Park TNC ~ 

~ 

~ 0 County Seat 

Indian  Private Reservation 0 Town ~ ,------,

"' F 

 

/? 

o • d 

D 

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary l____l WSA 

Wildland Urban Interface -All Alts 

-

1 mile No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

3 mile accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 4 mile other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This Fire Management Zones - Alt C information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This

- Zone 1 product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

- Zone 2 without notification. - +

Zone 3 N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

S February, 2019 0 2.5 5 10 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

I I I ) 

]. 

"-j r j 

c]-~T\ l ~1 1 

-( T L 

_"), 

L 

fft'>\ 

L 1 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

212012019@ 3:53:09 PM 
 

I' 

~ 

i' 

Forest Vegetation 

Alternative: All 

BLM 

Service 

Indian 

Habitat Type Groups -

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Interstate

 State ~ 

U.S. Hwy 

 

Forest Service ~ 

 State- Lubrecht 

State Hwy National Park TNC ~ 

 

0 County Seat 

Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary l____l 

Warm Douglas-fir (HTG-1) No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

Cool Douglas-fir (HTG-2) accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with Moist Douglas-fir (HTG-3) other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

Moist Subalpine Fir (HTG-4) information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through Cold Subalpine Fir (HTG-5) digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Very Cold Subalpine Fir (HTG-6) 

+ 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

BLM Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

5 10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121 12019@ 12:16:44 PM 

a 

 

 

! ..• 

~ --t 

0 2.5 

D 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

, 

  -4  

 

JJ 

• d 

D  

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Alternative: A 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park 

 Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

Grazing -Alt A - Unava

ilable 

CJ Current Allotment 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S March, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Exported3/1212019 @ 10:22:04AM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

, 

  -4  

 

JJ 

• d 

D  

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Alternative: B 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park 

 Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

Grazing -Alt B - Unava

ilable 

CJ Current Allotment 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S March, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Exported3/1212019 @ 10:24:03AM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

, 

  -4  

 

JJ 

• d 

D  

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Livestock Grazing 

Alternative: C 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park 

 Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

Grazing -Alt C - Unava

ilable 

CJ Current Allotment 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S March, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Exported 3/1212019 @ 10:25:36AM 
Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

WSA 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

 

• d 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Land Tenure 

Alternative: A 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

Land Tenure - Alt A 

D Retention 

Other 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I

l____l 

State 

State- Lubrecht 

TNC 

Private 

County Boundary 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

+ Missoula Field Office, GIS 

Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

~ 

~ 

~ 

0 -

0 

Exported212012019@3:19:54PM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Land Tenure 

Alternative: B 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

Land Tenure - Alt B 

Category 1 

Category 2 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I

l____l 

State ~ 

State- Lubrecht ~ 

TNC ~ 

0 

Private 

0 

County Boundary 

-

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

+ Missoula Field Office, GIS 

Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

Exported212012019@3:23:41 PM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Land Tenure 

Alternative: C 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

Land Tenure - Alt B 

Category 1 

Category 2 

Category 3 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I

l____l 

State ~ 

State- Lubrecht ~ 

TNC ~ 

0 

Private 

0 

County Boundary 

-

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

+ Missoula Field Office, GIS 

Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

Exported 212012019@ 3:29:32 PM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Areas managed for wilderness characteristics 

Alternative: C 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park 

 Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

Wilderness Character - Alt C 

0 

Wilderness Character No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

2.5 5 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121 12019@ 11:28:01 AM 
D 

'

~-" 

\ ·

,I

-,, . ~ ,,. 

... , __,..., 1. #' 

i 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I r------------l 

I • 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

 

D 

\) 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 

Alternative: B 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

 National Park  Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

Alt B Cooridor - Cooridor 

LnCNHT Trail (BLM) 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

0 2 4 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

8 S March, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

]_ 

JJ  M;ssoula F;eld Office Adm;, Bouada" 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 3/12

12019@ 9:57:42AM 
D 

'

~-" 

\ ·

,I

-,, . ~ ,,. 

... , __,..., 1. #' 

i 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I r------------l 

I • 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 

~ 

 

D 

\) 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 

Alternative: C 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

 National Park  Service 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Indian 

 Reservation 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l County Boundary 

-

WSA 

Alt C Cooridor - Cooridor 

LnCNHT Trail (BLM) 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Miles 

0 2 4 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

8 S March, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

]_ 

JJ  M;ssoula F;eld Office Adm;, Bouada" 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Exported 3/1212019 @ 10:01:00AM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Management Areas 

Alternative: A 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

 National Park 

Service  ~ State Hwy 

TNC 

Ind 

ian 

Reservation 

0 County Seat 

 Private 

0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA

Management Area p;§J Recom . Wi

lderness 

F7JI Riparian Protection 

IL:L] Zone j""TI Special Mgmt. No warranty is made by the Bureau LL:::I Are as f:'T7 Riparian Multiple of Land Management as to the 

LiJ Use Zone U Dev. I undev. rec. accuracy, reliability, or 

L/:\-J General Forest LJ :::t:ric and ~::;~:~:7;::;;::;;:~:t: :;h Fl Cultura l Sites other data. Original data were 

LiJ ~~b~~~ r / Fall j""TI _ _ compiled from various sources. This 

_ LL:::I Visua l Com

dor information may not meet National 

F7JI Big Game Su mmer ~ Map Accuracy Standards. This 

~ I Fall Range ~ Non forest habitat product was developed through 

Big Game Winter ~ _ . digital means and may be updated Range Minera l Production "th t t·&· t· Area wt ou no 1,1ca ton.

n Non Co mm . Fo rest, 

W etc. N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

o 2.5 5 10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

I I I ) 

"-j r j 

c]-~T\ L l ~1 1 

-( T L 

,/, fft'>\ 

L / 1 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

]. ~ ,, 

~ 0 ~ 

" 

./!;> 

' o • d "' 

~,:::> 0 ,!j • 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Exported212012019 @2:40:13PM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ "' F 

  

 

JJ 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Mineral Potential Overview 

Alternative: All 

BLM 



 Forest Service 



 National Park 

 Service Indian  Reservation 

,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I 

I I

l____l 

Mineral Potential and Method 

[] High, Load or 

Placer 

 High, Lode 

ISi High, Placer 

lei Medium, Load or 

Placer 

121 Medium, Lode 

ISi Medium, 

Placer 

Miles 

State ~ Interstate 

State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

~ Sta

te Hwy 

TNC 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town 

County Boundary 

-

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

0 2.5 5 + Projection: Albers 10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

I I I ) 

"-j r j 

c]-~T\ L l ~1 1 

-( T L

_-/, Ut> 1 

L / 1 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

]_ ~ ,, 

~ 0 ~ 

" 

./!;> 

' o • d "' 

~,:::> 0 ,!j • 

 Exported2

12112019@2:20:42PM 
Bureau of Land Management Figure H-24 

--13 

24 

25 

01 

12 

18 17 

19 

29 

_J 07 08 

16 

J4 

15 

28 

33 34 

11. 00 f~ 

26 

35 

02 

11 

14 

23 

26 

35 

11 

25 29 'Zl 

36 31 33 34 

01 04 

12 07 

13 18 17 - r 1 19 20 21 

25 29 28 

31 32 33 

05 04 

12 09 

11 12 

14 13 

23 24 

26 25 

35 36 

03 02 01 

10 11 

15 14 13 

t 

22 23 24 

i 27 26 25 

34 36 

03 02 01 

10 

Missoula RMP DEIS 

Bureau of Land Management v 

Missoula Field Office 

RMP Draft EIS 

Mineral Potential - Top O'Deep and Wales 

Creek Area 

Alternative: All 

 

BLM  US FWS 

 

Forest Service  State 

 

National Park  Sta

te- Lu brecht 

Service 

 

TNC

 

Indian 

Reserv

ation  Priva

te 

""-

Interstate 

1-7 County L_.J Boundary ~ U S Hwy 

WSA ......, State Hwy 

0 

County Seat 

0 To

wn 

Mineral Potential and EJ 

High , Placer 

Method Me

dium , Load or 

High, Load or ~ 

Placer 

Placer Me

dium , Lode 

High, Lode B Me

dium , Placer

No wa-rantyis made by theB11rea1 of Coordinate System: 

LandManagement as to the accuracy, NAO 1983 Albers 

reliability, or completeness ofthese data Projection: Albers 

for individual or aggregateuse with Datum: North 

other data. Originaldata were compiled American 1983 

from various sources. Thisinformation Missoula Field 

maynotmeetNati onal 11/tlp Accuracy Offk::e, GIS 

Standards. This product was developed Ju!;, 2018 

through dig

ital means andmay be 

updated withoutnotification. +N 

Miles W ll 

0.5 

Montana I Dakotas 

BLM 

Missoula Field 

Office 

Missoula Field Office 

Admin Bound

ary 
V 19 20 21 

30 

31 

.01 

08 

17 1G, 

24 24 19 i 

25 ll 26 25 29 

31 31 

n 

01 j 02 01 

r 

'\ 

\ 

\ ..._) 

i 

I 

I 

\ 

I 

I 

( 

\, 

16 ; 

\ 

I 

I 

+------'-------'--

21 

33 

0.5 

Montana/ Dakotas 

BLM 

Missoula Field 

Office 

Missoula Field Office 

Admin Boundary 

Bureau of Land Management Figure H-25 Missoula RMP DEIS 

Bureau of Land Management ~ 

Missoula Field Office 

RMP Draft EIS 

Mineral Potential - Gamet Ghost Town and 

Elk Creek Area 

Alternative: All 

~ BLM  USFWS 

D Forest Service Q State 

National Part< D State- Lubrecht 

Service  TNC Indian 

Reservation D Private 

,-7 County 

L_ _j Boundary ~ US Hwy 

WSA 

"'-' State Hwy 

0 County Seat 

o Town 

Mineral Potential and High, Placer 

Method Medium, Load or High, Load or Placer 

Placer 

Medium, Lode (ZJ High, Lode 

Medium, Placer 

No warranty is made bythe Bureau of Coordinate Sysem: 

LandManagement as to the accuracy, NAO 1983 Alters 

reliability, or completeness ofthese data ProJedion: A /ters 

for indwidual or aggreg,te use with Datum: North 

other data. Original data were compiled American 1983 from various sources. This information Mis.'3'Jula Field 

,ray notmeetNationalM,pAccuracy Office, G/S 

Standards. This productwas developed Juy, 2018 

through digital means andmay be 

updatedwithout notification. 

Miles 
Bureau of Land Management Figure H-26 Missoula RMP DEIS 

02 Ot 04 03 02 01 o:, 

11 1/2 08 I 

I 12 07 08 

14 Iii! 18 17 -----!6-1 

Z:I 24 19 ~ 21 22 

26 ~ 0 ~ u 28 

35 Jlil 31 !!3 

~ 26 25 

35 36 J1 32 

29 

7 

02 01 06 oz 111 !Ji 

12 

07 08 11 12 07 

13 18 

2 

14 

23 24 19 20 21 22 23 

04 

16 

21 

28 27 26 

~ 35 

()5 04~ 

99· 

16 

I 

28 

~-+ " 27 26 

33 

24 

25 

36 

06 

07 

18 

19 

05 Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

RMP Draft EIS 08 Mineral Potential - Wallace Creek and Union 

Peak Area 

Alternative: All 

17 D 

/20  

 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service 

 USFWS 

D State 

D State- Lubrecht 

30 ~ D Indian Reservation 

 TNC 

D Private 

,-7 County 

L_.J Boundary 31 

07 

-18 

--... Interstate 

~ ""-U S Hwy 

...., State Hwy 

Mineral Potential 

and Method B 

WSA 

0 County Seat 

o Town 

High, Lode 

Medium, Lode 

L No warra11ty is madeby the Bureau of Coordinate System: 

~4 -19 

25 30 

La11d Management as to the acwracy, NAO 1933A!bers 

reliability, orcompletei,ess of these data Projection: Albers 

forindividual or aggregate use 'Nth Datum: Norlh 

other data. Original data were compiled American 1983 

from various sources. This infonnatio11 MiMou!a Field 

may notmeet National!Vl1p Accuracy Office, GIS 

Slalldards. This productwas developed Ju!;, 2018 

through digital means andmay be 

~ -----i----a updated without notification. 

;Ii 31 

LJ. 

01 06 

12 07 

13 18 

19 

Miles 

0.5 

Montana/ Dakotas 

BLM 

Missoula Field 

Office 

Missoula Field Offi ce 

Admin Boundary 
Bureau of Land Management Figure H-27 

Missoula RMP DEIS 

Bureau of Land Management 4S' 

Linc Missoula Field Office V 

RMP Draft EIS J Mineral Potential - Hoodoos and Blackfoot 

Alternative: All BLM 

US FWS  

Forest Service State  

National Park St

ate- Lu 

brecht 

Service  

TNC 

Indian  

R ese rvatio n 

Private  

Interstate , -7 

County 

L_.J Boun

dary 

WSA 

0 

County Seat 

0 To

wn 

Medium, Lo

ad or 

Placer ./7  I High, Placer Medium, 

Lode I 

Medium, Placer i 

I 

I 

I 

B I 

i 

I No wa-rantyis madeby theB11rea1 

of Coordinate System: 

Land Managementas to the accuracy, NAO 1983 Albers ! 

........_! 

reliability, or completeness ofthese data Projection: Albers 

for individual or aggregateuse with Datum: North i other data. Original data were compiled American 1983 

from various sources. This information Missoula Field 

I maynotmeetNational Map Accuracy Offk::

e, GIS 

Standards. This product was developed Ju!;, 2018 

through digital meansandmaybe 

I 

i 

J¥1J  updated withoutnotificatio

n. +N ~ W E 

!~ 0 

0.5 1 2

I 

i Montana I Dakotas I 

I BLM 

I 

I 

Missoula Field 

w f ...J Office 

...J I- i w~ ~ i ~ 0:: i 0 

(!) i Q. Miss

oula Field Office 

I 

Adm in Boundary I 

1 

I 
V 

Bureau of Land Management Figure H-28 Missoula RMP DEIS 

Bureau of Land Management 4S' 

Missoula Field Office 

RMP Draft EIS 

Mineral Potential - Philipsburg, Rock Creek, 

and Gold Creek Area 

D Alternative: All BLM 

US FWS  

Forest Service State  

National Park St

ate- Lu 

brecht 

W ~

-

1

, 

- ..J ..J Serv

ice 



- I W 1., 

TNC

z I ~ J

Indian 



R ese rvatio n 

Private 

~ lal 



(!) i Cl. 

Interstate , -7 

County I L_.J Boun da

ry l WSA 

0 

County Seat 

- 0 To

wn 

 Me

dium, Load or 

Placer 

High, Lode Medium, Lode 

High, Plac

er B Medium, Placer 

No wa-rantyis madeby theB11rea1 of Coordinate System: 

Land Managementas to the accuracy, NAO 1983 Albers 

reliability, or completeness ofthese data Projection: Albers 

for individual or aggregateuse with Datum: North 

other data. Original data were compiled American 1983 

from various sources. This information Missoula Field 

maynotmeetNational 11/tlp Accuracy Offk::e, GIS 

Standards. This product was developed Ju!;, 2018 

through digital meansandmaybe 

updated withoutnotification. +N ~ W E 

0 0.5 1 2 

Montana I Dakotas 

BLM 

Missoula Field 

Office 

Missoula Field Office 

Adm in Bound

ary c1⁄4 @· 

I 
 

• d 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Mineral Restriction 

Alternative: A 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service 

Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I

l____l 

State 

State- Lubrecht 

TNC 

Private 

County Boundary 

~ Interstate 

~ U.S. Hwy 

~ State Hwy 

0 County Seat 

0 Town -

WSA 

Withdrawal- Alt A 

0 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawal (Recommend) 

Closed (leasable / saleable) 

Closed (leasable) 

Miles 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

2.5 5 + Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

212112019@ 2:09:13 PM 
v 

a 

I] 

J D • d 

a 

9 

i 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Mineral Restriction 

Alternative: B 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

 Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

  ~ State Hwy National Park 

Service TNC 

 

0 County Seat 

Indian 

Reservation Private 

0 Town 

USFWS N WSA 

Withdrawals - Alt B 

~ D Withdrawn No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification.  

I: : : : : : : I Withdrawal (Recommend) 

~ Closed (leasable / saleable) 

~ Closed (leasable) 

Miles 

2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

412912019@ 9:56:20 AM 
 

• d 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Mineral Restriction 

Alternative: C 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service 

Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I

l____l 

State 

State- Lubrecht 

TNC 

Private 

County Boundary 

~ Interstate 

~ U.S. Hwy 

~ State Hwy 

0 County Seat 

0 Town -

WSA 

Withdrawals - Alt C 

0 

Withdrawn 

Withdrawal (Recommend) 

Closed (leasable / saleable) 

Closed (leasable) 

Miles 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

2.5 5 + Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

212112019@ 2:16:30 PM 
0 

~ 

~ ~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

OHV Allocations 

Alternative: A 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service 

TNC 

0 County Seat 



Ind ian Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA 

OHV Allocations - Alt A  Limited 

~ Closed 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported2

12112019@ 1:54:44PM 
0 

Co, 

~ 

~ ~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

OHV Allocations 

Alternative: B 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service 

TNC 

0 County Seat 



Indian Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA 

OHV Allocations - Alt B  Limited 

~ Closed 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

212112019@ 1:56:34 PM 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

OHV Allocations 

0 

Co, 

BLM Interstate

 State ~ 

U.S. Hwy 

 

Forest Service ~ 

 State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Serv

National ice Park TNC ~ 

~ 

~ 0 County Seat Indian Private Reservation 0 Town 

 ~ 

,------,

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary "' F l

I 

____l

I WSA 

 OHV Allocations 

- Alt C 

-

 Limited No warranty is made by the Bureau 

~ of Land Management as to the Closed accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification.  

+ 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 0 2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

• d 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership D D Exported 

212112019@ 2:00:16 PM

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 
0 

~u ~ 

t ~ 

~ ~ 

~  "' F 

 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Recreation Management Areas 

Alternative: A 

BLM 

 Forest Service 

 National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

SRMA 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

,------, 

I I 

I I 

I I

l____l 

State ~ Interstate 

State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

~ State Hwy 

TNC 

0 County Seat 

Private 

0 Town 

County Boundary 

-

WSA 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

+ Missoula Field Office, GIS 

Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

I I I ) 

"-j r j 

c]-~T\ L l ~1 1 

-( T L

_-/, Ut> 1 

L / 1 

]_ 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

Exported2121/2019 @ 10:35:19AM 

~ ,, 

~ 0 ~ 

" 

./!;> 

' o • d "' 

~,:::> 0 ,!j • 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Recreation Management Areas 

Alternative: B 

 BLM State ~ Interstate

 U.S. Hwy Forest Service State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Service 

National Park TNC ~ 

~ 

~  0 County Seat 

~ 

Indian Private Reservation 0 Town 

 ~ 

,------,

I I 

 

"' I I 

-

USFWS I I County Boundary 

F 

l____l WSA 

SRMA No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification.  

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles + Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 0 2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

• d 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership D D Exported 

2121/2019@ 10:40:16AM

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Recreation Management Areas 

Alternative: C 

 BLM State ~ Interstate

 U.S. Hwy Forest Service State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Service 

National Park TNC ~ 

~ 

~  0 County Seat 

~ 

Indian Private Reservation 0 Town 

 ~ 

,------,

I I 

 

"' I I 

-

USFWS I I County Boundary 

F 

l____l WSA 

SRMA 

 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

BCA accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with , other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

D  do   information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated JJ JJ without notification.  

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles + Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S March, 2019 0 2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

• d 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership D 

Exported 3/ 1212019 @ 10:04:10AM 

 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 
Interstate 

U.S. Hwy 

State Hwy 

County Seat 

Town 

WSA 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ "' F 

 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Rights-of-Way 

Alternative: B 

ROW -Alt B D

 Avoid 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

+ Missoula Field Office, GIS 

Projection: Albers 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

BLM State  

Forest Service State- Lubrecht

National Park 



TNC Service Indian 

Private Reservation ,------,

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary l____l 

Exclusion 

~ 

~ 

~ 

0 -

0 

Exported212012019@3:32:23PM 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Rights-of-Way 

 BLM State ~ Interstate

 U.S. Hwy Forest Service State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Serv

National ice Park TNC ~ 

~ 

~  0 County Seat 

~ 

Indian Private Reservation 0 Town ~ ,------,

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary "' F l____l WSA

ROW -Alt C 

-



D Exclusion No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

Avoid accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification.  

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles + Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 0 2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

• d 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership D D Exported 

212012019@ 3:38:47 PM

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 
~ 

~ 

~ 

, 

 do  

 

o • d 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Terrestrial Wildlife 

Alternative: All 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service TNC 

0 County Seat 

Indian  Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA 

Northern Conti. Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy 

~ Primary Conservation Area 

-------n I I 

I I Zone 1 !!:______., 

------- I I I Zone 2 !!:______, 

(:] BLM Lynx LAUs 

Miles 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

0 2.5 5 10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121 12019@ 11:48:16AM 
 

• d 

D  

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Visual Resource Management 

Alternative: A 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

 State 

 State- Lubrecht 

 TNC 

 Private 

,------, 

I I 

I I County Boundary I I l____l 

Visual Resource Management - Alt A 

Class I 

Class II 

Class Ill 

Class IV 

Class V 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

~ Interstate 

~ U.S. Hwy 

~ State Hwy 

0 County Seat 

0 Town -

WSA 

Exported 2121 12019@ 11:33:47 AM 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~  "' F 

 

 

.. D  do  

 ~ JJ 

• d 

D  

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Visual Resource Management 

Alternative: B 

BLM  State ~ Interstate 

Forest Service  State- Lubrecht ~ U.S. Hwy 

National Park  ~ State Hwy 

Service TNC 

0 County Seat 

Indian  Private Reservation 0 Town ,------, 

I I 

USFWS I I County Boundary 

- I I l____l WSA 

Visual Resource Management - Alt B 

- Class I - Class II 

Class Ill 

- Class 

IV 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 

2121 12019@ 11:36:45AM 
 

• d 

D 

Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Visual Resource Management 

Alternative: C 

BLM 

Forest Service 

National Park 

Service Indian 

Reservation 

USFWS 

 State 

 State- Lubrecht 

 TNC 

 Private 

,------, 

I I 

I I County Boundary I I l____l 

Visual Resource Management - Alt C 

Class I 

Class II 

Class Ill 

 do O - Class lV 

Miles 

0 2.5 5 

No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

+ Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 

Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

D Tri County Primary Surface Ownership 

~ Interstate 

~ U.S. Hwy 

~ State Hwy 

0 County Seat 

0 Town -

WSA 

Exported 2121 12019@ 11:39:34AM 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bureau of Land Management Figure H-45 Missoula RMP DEIS

Ir i-----~ -~. 

~ ·· , T-----

v 

a 

D 

J 

C 0 

CJ 

• J 

" ' ,J 

0 

d 

 

 

Cl 

D 

 

 

 r-----, 

I I 

I I 

I I l ____ l 

-

MISSOULA 

Lewis & Clark £¤12 

£¤0 

§ ̈¦90 

!(200 

!(1 

!(83 

!(141 

Missoula 

Deer Lodge 

Philipsburg 

Garnet 

Ovando 

Bonner 

Lincoln 

Clinton 

Drummond 

Helmville 

Bureau of Land Management

Missoula Field Office

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Wilderness Study Area management (If 

released from designation)

Alternative: A 

State BLM Interstate 

U.S. Hwy Forest Service State- Lubrecht 

National Park 

Service TNC 

State Hwy 

Indian 

Reservation Private 

!( !( 

County Seat 

Town 

US FWS County Boundary 

Management Areas 

Areas Rec. for Wilderness Design. No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

Big Game Summer/Fall Range accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with Big Game Winter Range other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

Elk Summer/Fall Habitat information may not meet National

Map Accuracy Standards. This

product was developed through Special Management Areas digital means and may be updated 

without notification. 

Coordinate System: NAD 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS

June, 2018 0 2.5 5 10 

Montana / Dakotas BLM 

Missoula Field Office 

Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership Exported 6/21/2018 @ 4:02:12 PM 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Wilderness Study Area management (If 

released from designation) 

 BLM State ~ Interstate

 U.S. Hwy Forest Service State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Service 

National Park TNC ~ 

~ 

~  0 County Seat 

~ 

Indian Private Reservation 0 Town ~ ,------,

I I County Boundary I I 

N USFWS "' I I 

F 

l____l WSA

WSA released - Alt B 

D ACEC No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

SRMA accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification.  

+ 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 0 2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

• d 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership D D Exported 

2121 12019@ 12:08:55 PM

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 
Bureau of Land Management 

Missoula Field Office 

Resource Management Plan Draft EIS 

Wilderness Study Area management (If 

released from designation) 

BLM Interstate

 State ~ 

U.S. Hwy 

 

Forest Service ~ 

 State- Lubrecht 

~ State Hwy 

Service 

National Park TNC ~ 

~ ~ 0 County Seat Indian  Private Reservation 0 Town ~ ,------,

I I 

USFWS I I

I I County Boundary "' F l____l WSA

WSA released - Alt C 

- ~ Recommended Withdrawal No warranty is made by the Bureau 

of Land Management as to the 

accuracy, reliability, or 

completeness of these data for 

individual or aggregate use with 

other data. Original data were 

compiled from various sources. This 

information may not meet National 

Map Accuracy Standards. This 

product was developed through 

digital means and may be updated 

without notification.  

+ 

N Coordinate System: NAO 1983 Albers 

Projection: Albers 

W E Datum: North American 1983 Miles Missoula Field Office, GIS 

10 S February, 2019 0 2.5 5 

Montana I Dakotas BLM 

• d 

Tri County Primary Surface Ownership D D Exported 

2121 12019@ 12:10:59 PM

Missoula Field Office 

c:J Missoula Field Office Admin Boundary 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix I: Noxious and Invasive Species List 

PRIORITY 1A. These weeds are not present or have a very limited presence in Montana. Management 

criteria will require eradication (if detected), education, and prevention: 

(a) Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) 

(b) Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) 

(c) Common reed (Phragmites australis ssp. australis) 

(d) Medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) 

PRIORITY 1B. These weeds have limited presence in Montana. 

Management criteria will require eradication or containment and education: 

(a) Knotweed complex (Polygonum cuspidatum, P. sachalinense, P. × bohemicum, Fallopia japonica, F. 

sachalinensis, F. × bohemica, Reynoutria japonica, R. sachalinensis, and R. × bohemica) 

(b) Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) 

(c) Rush skeletonweed (Chondrilla juncea) 

(d) Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) 

(e) Blueweed (Echium vulgare) 

PRIORITY 2A.These weeds are common in isolated areas of Montana. Management criteria will require 

eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by local weed districts: 

(a) Tansy ragwort (Senecio jacobaea, Jacobaea vulgaris) 

(b) Meadow hawkweed complex (Hieracium caespitosum, H. praealturm, H. floridundum, and 

Pilosella caespitosa) 

(c) Orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum, Pilosella aurantiaca) 

(d) Tall buttercup (Ranunculus acris) 

(e) Perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium) 

(f) Yellowflag iris (Iris pseudacorus) 

(g) Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum, Myriophyllum spicatum x Myriophyllum sibiricum)

(h) Flowering rush (Butomus umbellatus) 

(i) Common buckthorn (Rhamnus cathartica L.) 

PRIORITY 2B.These weeds are abundant in Montana and widespread in many counties. Management 

criteria will require eradication or containment where less abundant. Management shall be prioritized by 

local weed districts: 

(a) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) 

(b) Field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis) 

(c) Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) 

(d) Whitetop (Cardaria draba, Lepidium draba) 

(e) Russian knapweed (Acroptilon repens, Rhaponticum repens) 

(f) Spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe, C.maculosa) 

(g) Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) 

(h) Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria dalmatica) 

(i) St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) 

(j) Sulfur cinquefoil (Potentilla recta) 

(k) Common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare) 

(l) Oxeye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare) 

(m) Houndstongue (Cynoglossum officinale) 

(n) Yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) 

(o) Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) 

I-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

(p) Curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus) 

(q) Hoary alyssum (Berteroa incana) 

PRIORITY 3 Regulated Plants: (NOT MONTANA LISTED NOXIOUS WEEDS) 

These regulated plants have the potential to have significant negative impacts. The plant may not be 

intentionally spread or sold other than as a contaminant in agricultural products. The state recommends 

research, education and prevention to minimize the spread of the regulated plant: 

(a) Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) 

(b) Hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata) 

(c) Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) 

(d) Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) 

(e) Parrot feather watermilfoil (Myriophyllum aquaticum or M. brasiliense) 

I-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

WEED SPECIES CATEGORIZATION 

MISSOULA FIELD OFFICE 

The noxious weeds of concern to the Missoula Field Office are divided into four groups based on the 

amount of acreage infested, as well as potential for invasion. This grouping is intended to help prioritize 

weeds for treatment, and will be updated annually as inventory data helps define the present situation. 

Group 1 - Noxious weeds that infest over 50 percent of their potential range on lands 

administered by Missoula Field Office. 

• Spotted knapweed 

• Cheat grass 

Group 2 - Noxious weeds which are now well established on BLM lands, but which 

occur on less than 10 percent of their potential range. 

• Canada thistle 

• Common tansy 

• Oxeye daisy 

• Hounds tongue 

• Sulfur cinquefoil 

• Musk Thistle 

• Bull thistle 

Group 3 - Noxious weeds now becoming established on BLM lands, but occupying 

less than 1 percent of their potential range. 

• Meadow hawkweed complex 

• Orange hawkweed 

• Tall buttercup 

• Perennial pepperweed 

• Field bindweed 

• Whitetop 

• Russian knapweed * 

• Dalmatian toadflax 

• Yellow toadflax 

• St Johnswort 

• Hoary alyssum 

• Leafy spurge 

*Not found on Missoula Field Office Lands 

An Evaluation of Noxious Weeds on the Lolo, Bitterroot and Flathead Forest with 

Recommendations for Implementing a Weed Control Program. Losensky 1987. 

I-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

3 - High Risk. Noxious weeds may frequently dominate native vegetation following disturbance or through 

invasion into an undisturbed community. 

2 - Moderate Risk. Noxious weeds may dominate interspaces of native vegetation but site generally have a limiting 

factor which prevents full development of the weed. 

1 - Low Risk. Noxious weeds occur as single plants or small groups and will not dominate native vegetation. 

0 - No Risk. Environmental conditions are unsuitable for the survival of the weed. 

HTG-1 210 DF/Wheatgrass 

HIGH 230 DF/Rough fescue 

311 wheatgrass phase 

321 wheatgrass phase 

350 DF/Kinnikinnick 

340 DF/Spiraea 

220 DF/Idaho fescue 

HTG-2 324 PP phase 

MODER 

ATE 

312 pinegrass phase 

260 DF/Ninebark 

262 pinegrass phase 

322 kinnikinnick phase 

285 

313 snowberry phase 

HTG-3 3232 pinegrass phase 

LOW 283 beargrass phase 

292 pinegrass phase 

281 huckleberry phase 

330 DF/Elk sedge 

360 DF/Juniper 

370 DF/Heartleaf arnica 

220 DF/Idaho fescue 

260 DF/Ninebark 

HTG-1 210 DF/Wheatgrass 

261 ninebark phase 

HTG-4 660 AF/Twinflower 

LOW 620 AF/Beadlily 

621 beadlily phase 

624 beargrass phase 

625 menziesia phase 

740 AF/Alder 

HTG-5 690 AF/Beargrass 

LOW 691 huckleberry phase 

692 whortleberry phase 

663 whortleberry phase 

720 AF/Huckleberry 

731 pinegrass phase 

732 whortleberry phase 

HTG-6 830 AF/Woodrose 

LOW 831 whortleberry phase 

832 menziesia phase 

820 AFWBP/Whortleberry 

850 WBF-AF 

860 AL-AF 

870 WBP 

I-4 
L L L L L 1 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 1. Risk Rating of the susceptibility of HTG to Weed Dominance ADP Code Habitat Name Spotted Knapweed Common Tansy Hounds Tongue Leafy Spurge dalmatian toadflax St Johnswort Canada thistle musk thistle HT-GRP ADP Code

Habitat Name

Spotted Knapweed

Common Tansy

Hounds Tongue

Leafy Spurge

dalmatian toadflax

St Johnswort

Canada thistle

musk thistle

HT-GRP 

G11 Alpine & Barren 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

G12 Mountain Meadow 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 

G13 Mt. grassland 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

G14 Foothill grassland 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

G16 Alder glade 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 

G19 Aquitic 0 3 1 2 1 1 2 2 

G21 Rockland 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

G22 Talus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

G23 Scree(010) 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 

130 PP/Wheatgrass 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

140 PP/Idaho fescue 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

141 Idaho fescue phase 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

142 rough fescue phase 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

160 PP/Bitterbrush phase 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

161 wheatgrass phase 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

162 Idaho fescue phase 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

170 PP/Snowberry 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 

210 DF/Wheatgrass 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

220 DF/Idaho fescue 3 1 2 3 2 3 2 1 

230 DF/Rough fescue 3 1 2 3 3 3 2 1 

250 DF/Dwarf huckleberry 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 

260 DF/Ninebark 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

261 ninebark phase 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

262 pinegrass phase 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 

280 DF/Huckleberry 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

281 huckleberry phase 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

282 kinnikinnick phase 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

283 beargrass phase 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 

290 DF/Twinflower 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

291 snowberry phase 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

292 pinegrass phase 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

293 huckleberry phase 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 

310 DF/Snowberry 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

311 wheatgrass phase 3 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 

312 pinegrass phase 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

313 snowberry phase 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

320 DF/Pinegrass 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

321 wheatgrass phase 3 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 

322 kinnikinnick phase 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

323 pinegrass phase 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

324 PP phase 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 

330 DF/Elk sedge 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

340 DF/Spiraea 3 1 2 2 2 3 1 1 

350 DF/Kinnikinnick 3 1 2 3 2 2 1 1 

360 DF/Juniper 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 

370 DF/Heartleaf arnica 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

380 DF/Mt. snowberry 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 

410 S/Horsetail 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 

420 S/Beadlily 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 

421 dwarf huckleberry 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 

422 beadlily phase 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 

440 S/Goldthread 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 

450 S/Dwarf huckleberry 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 

470 S/Twinberry 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 

510 GF/Beargrass 

520 GF/Beadlily 

521 beadlily phase 

522 sarsaprailla phase 

523 beargrass phase 

530 WRC/Beadlily 

531 beadlily phase 

532 sarsaprailla phase 

533 menziesia phase 

550 WRC/Devild club 

570 WRC/Beadlily 

571 beadlily phase 

572 sarsaprailla phase 

590 GF/Twinflower 

591 twinflower phase 

592 beargrass phase 

610 AF/Devils club 

620 AF/Beadlily 

621 beadlily phase 

622 sarsaprailla phase 

623 dwarf huckleberry 

624 beargrass phase 

625 menziesia phase 

630 AF/Goldthread 

640 AF/Dwarf huckleberry 

650 AF/Reedgrass 

651 reedgrass phase 

653 goldthread phase 

654 dwarf huckleberry 

660 AF/Twinflower 

661 twinflower phase 

662 beargrass phase 

663 whortleberry phase 

670 AF/Menziesia 

680 MH/Meniesia 

690 AF/Beargrass 

691 huckleberry phase 

692 whortleberry phase 

710 MH/Beargrass 

720 AF/Huckleberry 

730 AF/Whortleberry 

731 pinegrass phase 

732 whortleberry phase 

740 AF/Alder 

750 AF/Pinegrass 

820 AF-WBP/Whortleberry 

830 AF/Woodrose 

831 whortleberry phase 

832 menziesia phase 

840 MH/Woodrose 

841 whortleberry phase 

842 menziesia phase 

850 WBP-AF 

860 AL-AF 

870 WBP 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

C1 

C2 

C2 

C2 

C1 

D1 

D1 

D1 

D1 

A2 E1 

A2 D1 

A2 D1 

A2 D1 

A2 C1 

A2 C1 

A2 C1 

B1 E2 

A2 D3 

A2 D3 

A2 D3 

B3 D3 

B2 D3 

B2 D3 

B2 E2 

B3 F1 

B3 E2 

B2 E2 

B2 E2 

C1 D3 

C1 D3 

B3 D3 

C1 D3 

B2 F1 

A2 D3 

B2 D3 

B2 F1 

B1 F1 

A2 F1 

B1 F1 

B1 F1 

B1 F1 

B1 F1 

B2 F1 

B1 D3 

B1 F2 

B1 G1 

A1 G1 

E2 G1 

D3 G1 

E2 G1 

D3 G1 

E2 G1 

F1 G2 

D3 G2 

G2 

I-5 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix J: Post-fire Emergency Stabilization and

Rehabilitation Procedures 

Introduction 

The purpose and need of a normal fire rehabilitation plan is to streamline the emergency fire rehabilitation 

process to enable on-the-ground treatments to be completed within time frames consistent with the urgent 

nature of fire rehabilitation. The normal fire rehabilitation plan facilitates the orderly and timely 

rehabilitation of burned lands by delineating the procedures to be followed and treatments to be used after 

wildland fires that occur on the Missoula Field Office land. 

Appropriate use of emergency fire rehabilitation funds includes implementing the following practices to: 

• Protect life, property, and soil, water and/or vegetative resources. 

• Prevent unacceptable onsite or offsite damage. 

• Facilitate meeting land use plan objectives and other Federal laws. 

• Reduce the invasion and establishment of undesirable or invasive species of vegetation. 

Emergency fire rehabilitation funds are not used for rehabilitation of wildland fire suppression efforts; 

this includes rehabilitating firelines, helispots, fire camp, etc. Costs for rehabilitating wildland fire 

suppression efforts will be funded by the wildfire project code. 

The terms rehabilitation and restoration are often used synonymously, especially in relationship to the 

use of native species to revegetate burned areas. Rehabilitation is the “re-pair” of a wildland fire area 

utilizing native and/or non-native plant species to obtain a stable plant community that will protect the 

burned area from erosion and invasion of weeds. Restoration is the use of a diverse mixture of only native 

species to obtain a plant community that is similar in appearance and function to the historic vegetation. 

Total restoration of a burned area is not within the scope of the emergency fire rehabilitation program, 

although the use of native plants to rehabilitate burned areas is strongly encouraged. Native plants are to 

be used on those soils and ecological sites where they are, (1) adapted, (2) able to establish and survive 

with weed competition and periodic drought; (3) compatible with other land uses, and (4) reasonably 

priced relative to the land use and emergency fire rehabilitation plan objectives. The application of 

emergency fire rehabilitation practices should be consistent with the S&G’s in as much as the constraints 

of emergency fire rehabilitation policy will allow. 

This plan guides emergency wildland fire rehabilitation efforts in areas of the Missoula BLM that meet 

one or more of the following criteria: 

• Areas that are highly susceptible to accelerated soil erosion, either because of soil characteristics, 

steep topography, or recurrent high winds. 

• Areas where native grasses and forbs cannot reasonably be expected to provide soil and watershed 

protection within two years following fire. 

• Areas where unacceptable vegetation, such as noxious weeds or invasive annuals, may readily 

invade and become established following fire. 

• Areas containing crucial wildlife habitat components for T&E listed species. 

J-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

• Areas in forested habitats larger than 20 acres in size where natural regeneration does not become 

established to desired levels within 15 years or cannot be reasonably expected in 15 years. 

The process for implementing emergency fire rehabilitation activities through a site-specific plan 

development process is described as follows: 

1. Following a wildland fire, the field manager, consulting with resource specialists, will decide if 

fire rehabilitation is needed. If fire rehabilitation is needed, an interdisciplinary team reviews the 

burn and selects the proper rehabilitation prescription from this plan. (If the proper prescription 

does not fall under the scope of this plan, refer to the Emergency Fire Rehabilitation Handbook 

H-1742-1 for guidance. Generally, rehabilitation efforts not covered in this plan would require an 

environmental assessment.) 

2. The prescription identifies the appropriate tree species to be planted, seed mixture, application 

rates, planting methods, and costs. The prescription also describes any additional treatments that 

may be necessary including shrub and tree planting, erosion control structures, protection fencing, 

and grazing adjustments beyond the normally prescribed minimum two growing seasons rest 

period. 

3. A budget is created that summarizes the rehabilitation costs by fiscal year. This budget is sent to 

the State Director for funding approval. 

4. For all rehabilitation projects covered by this plan, a site-specific rehabilitation plan will be 

prepared that is tiered to this plan. Additionally, each rehabilitation project requires a normal fire 

rehabilitation plan treatment form. 

5. Cultural and T&E species clearances will be completed prior to project implementation. Known 

populations of T&E plants will be marked and that area restricted from heavy equipment use. 

Cultural sites discovered during clearances or previously known sites will be marked and avoided 

by ground-disturbing equipment. 

Due to the broad spectrum of situations encountered in emergency fire rehabilitation, several options of 

possible treatments, either separately or in combination, must be considered. The list of activities that may 

be considered are outlined below: 

Natural Revegetation 

In many cases, successful reestablishment of native species occurs if the perennial plant species are not 

killed as a result of the fire, if viable and desirable seed or root mass is present, or is conifers can seed in 

the burned areas. Generally, in these areas it would be necessary to rest the burned area from livestock 

grazing for at least two growing seasons. In some situations, the area may be closed to vehicles by issuing 

a temporary emergency closure. The only rehabilitation that may be necessary is repairing damaged 

fencing and/or construction of temporary fencing around the burned area until the native vegetation is 

successfully reestablished. 

Seeding with Rangeland Drills or Aerial Seeding 

Seeding of burned areas would only be considered if the emergency fire rehabilitation team determines 

that the burned area would not successfully reestablish to a native perennial plant community in a 

reasonable amount of time (generally two growing seasons under normal precipitation). 

J-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Seed mixtures should be designed for specific soil types. Parameters such as soil properties, erosion 

potential, aspect, elevation, intended use, potential plant community, threat to existing watershed, and 

seed cost and availability would be evaluated in selecting seed mixtures. 

The use of native plants for rehabilitation is strongly encouraged and is both BLM emergency fire 

rehabilitation policy and a standard for meeting rangeland health objectives. That policy is tempered, 

however, by the availability of native seed at a reasonable cost, its adaptation to the area proposed for 

treatment, impacts of competition on seeding establishment, and land use plan requirements. There are 

many areas where one or more of these criteria cannot be met, and the only choice is between seeding 

nonnative, such as crested wheatgrass and noxious weeds becoming established in the disturbed areas. 

Given these situations, the use of nonnatives is allowed to biologically and physically stabilizes the 

burned area until the earliest possible time when the introduced grass seedlings can be restored 

(converted) to a more diverse native plant community. Where available, native seed should be used in 

combination with nonnatives to complete a diverse mix of species to meet particular land use objectives 

for the site. 

Seeding guidelines: 

• Native species will be utilized over nonnative species as appropriate and based on seed availability. 

• A project inspector will monitor all phases of implementation. 

• The area to be seeded will be rested from grazing for at least two growing seasons or until 

vegetation is successfully established. Livestock will be excluded by using fencing, closing specific 

pastures, or closing entire allotments. 

• Only native species will be seeded in WSAs. 

• Monitoring will determine the effectiveness of seeding and to indicate when grazing will resume. 

• Use only certified weed-free sources and collect seed samples for an All States Noxious Weed Test. 

Seed nonnatives only in areas of the burn where high erosion or unacceptable vegetation is 

expected to occur. This may include, but not be limited to, roads, gullies, noxious weed areas, or 

cheatgrass sites. This will allow refugia for native species where they can reestablish without 

competition from nonnative species. 

• If nonnative species are used, a preference should be given to species that are not invasive and can 

be re-placed naturally by native shrubs and grasses. If this is inappropriate or is ineffective, a 

commitment should be made for long-term secondary restoration of a site following planting of 

nonnatives. 

Construction of Erosion and Sediment Control Structures 

Where the possibility of damage is great, structures, such as retention dams, or land treatments, such as 

contour fur-rowing, may be needed to control erosion, sediment yield, and flood waters. In most cases, 

these treatments would be used in combination with seeding. Gully check dams or plugs may be required 

where headcutting erosion is occur-ring. Gully treatment may also include broadcast seeding and chaining 

to establish perennial vegetation on the channel sides and bottom. Planning, design, and construction of 

erosion and sediment control structures and flood water retarding structures will be implemented in 

accordance with BLM Manual 1972, Water Control Structures. Any erosion and sediment control 

structures proposed within a WSA must comply with wilderness IMP. 

J-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

Construction of Support Facilities 

Fences, gates, cattle guards, and other control features will be constructed or repaired as needed to further 

natural revegetation, and to protect seedlings or other improvements created for rehabilitation. Follow 

BLM Manual Handbook H-1741-1 for fencing specifications. Any construction of support facilities 

proposed within a WSA must comply with wilderness guidelines. 

Fire Rehabilitation Guidelines for Wilderness Study Areas 

Rehabilitation following wildland fire in a WSA will comply with BLM Manual 6330-Management of 

BLM Wilderness Study Areas. When a proposed rehabilitation project addresses an area covering land 

both within and outside a WSA, it will be treated as two separate projects. The area outside the WSA will 

be treated in accordance with this guide. The area inside the WSA will be treated in accordance with the 

wilderness IMP referenced above. 

Interested parties will be allowed a 30-day comment period on the proposed treatment in WSAs, unless it 

is not possible to do so because of emergency conditions (i.e., the 30- day comment period would result in 

missing the optimum period for treatment). If a full 30-day period would result in missing the optimum 

period for rehabilitation, key contacts would be notified for immediate comment, and a follow up copy of 

the treatment prescription would be forwarded. 

Disturbance caused by fire suppression actions will be evaluated in WSAs. If it is determined that 

wilderness suitability is affected by the fire suppression disturbance, mitigation of the disturbance will 

occur prior to release of suppression resources. Costs associated with mitigating suppression actions will 

be covered by wildland fire suppression funds, not emergency fire rehabilitation funds. 

The “minimum tool” will be applied to all fire rehabilitation projects within WSAs. Any rehabilitation 

actions must maintain an area’s suitability for preservation as wilderness. Fire rehabilitation should be 

accomplished using methods and equipment that causes the least damage to wilderness resources. The use 

of motorized vehicles and mechanical equipment will be minimized to the extent possible. 

J-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix K: Probable Sale Quantity Determinations 

and Calculations 

A PSQ was determined for Alternatives B and C by assessing the biological capacity (annual growth 

rates) of the available acres in both alternatives then estimating the amount of the growth rates that would 

be harvested for each alternative based upon the objectives and management direction in each alternative. 

In Alternative B it was assumed that an average of 65 percent of the biological capacity would be 

removed during timber harvest activities and in Alternative C 55 percent of biological capacity would be 

removed. A comparison of PSQ by alternative is illustrated in table 1. 

Land use plans require the identification of areas that are available and have the capacity for planned, 

sustained-yield timber harvest or special forest product harvest. A probable sale quantity (PSQ) should be 

determined, if possible, for those areas determined to be available for harvest. The PSQ is the allowable 

harvest level that can be maintained without decline over the long term if the schedule of harvests and 

regeneration are followed. PSQ recognizes a level of uncertainty in meeting the determined level; this 

uncertainty is typically based on other environmental factors that preclude harvesting at a particular time 

(for example, because of watershed or habitat concerns). A PSQ is not a commitment to offer for sale a 

specific level of timber volume every year (H-1601-1 — Land Use Planning Handbook –BLM Manual 

Rel. 1-1693, Appendix C). 

In order to develop a Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) for the Missoula Field Office (Missoula BLM) 

Resource Management Plan (RMP) Revision, the Missoula BLM Forestry staff reached out to the 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Bureau. In 2015, the MT DNRC 

developed a Sustained Yield Calculation for the state of Montana as mandated by state law (MCA 77-5-

221). 

The DNRC used the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) growth and yield model for this calculation, 

which is a nationally recognized model widely used by several federal, state, and private forest managers. 

This model includes variants that were developed specifically for Montana forests. 

The Sustained Yield Calculation (SYC) works by first determining an area’s biological capacity (BC), 

then applying various constraints. A constraint is a reduction in harvest. For example: seed trees (trees left 

to regenerate the next crop), snags, riparian areas management objectives and wildlife habitat reserves are 

all constraints on the amount of volume that can be harvested in a given area. The biological capacity can 

be thought of the total tree biomass growing each year on the landscape. This biological capacity was 

determined by plot data gathered across Montana: 

The forest data used for the calculation came from two sources. The first source includes plot data 

collected by the DNRC in 2014 from over 5,300 plots on trust lands in the Northwestern, 

Southwestern, and Central Land Offices and was used to develop descriptions of forests in those 

areas. The second source is derived from U.S. Forest Service Forest Inventory and Analysis data 

and was used to develop descriptions of forests in DNRC’s east-side Land Offices. All of the 

forest data was summarized by timber type, size, and stocking for each Land Office. 

Source: http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/trust/forest-management/sustainable-yieldcalculation/announcements-and-stayinformed/20150911_Executive_Summary_SYC2015_FINAL.pdf 

K-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 1. Comparison of PSQ by alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Total BLM Acres 145,660 acres Total BLM Acres 163,801 acres Total BLM Acres 163,801 acres 

Forested Landbase 

biological capacity 

112,460 acres 

13,360 MBF/Year 

Forested Landbase 

biological capacity 

148,310 acres 

17,619 MBF/Year 

Forested Landbase 

biological capacity 

148,310 acres 

17,619 MBF/Year 

Unavailable 

MA 1, 8, 9, 11, 14 

Total Unavailable 

Restricted* 

MA 2, 4, 5, 6, 10 

Available with restrictions 

Available 

Total forested BLM acres 

7,440 acres 

7,440 acres 

64,720 acres 

64,720 acres 

40,300 acres 

112,460 acres 

Unavailable 

WSA 

road 

LWC 

SMZ 

Lynx 

Total Unavailable 

Restricted 

RCA 

Lynx habitat 

Available with restrictions 

Available 

Total forested BLM acres 

23,480 acres 

2,363 acres 

0 acres 

6,876 acres 

captured above 

32,719 acres 

7,640 acres 

5,624 acres 

13,264 acres 

102,327 acres 

148,310 acres 

Unavailable 

WSA 

road 

LWC 

SMZ 

Lynx 

Total Unavailable 

Restricted 

RCA 

Lynx habitat 

Available with restrictions 

Available 

Total forested BLM acres 

23,480 acres 

2,363 acres 

2,523 acres 

6,876 acres 

captured above 

35,242 acres 

7,640 acres 

5,624 acres 

13,264 acres 

99,803 acres 

148,310 acres 

PSQ Calculation † PSQ Calculation † 

Potential harvest level 

PSQ from available acres 

PSQ from restricted acres 

65% of BC 

7,902 MBF/year 

1,024 MBF/year 

Potential harvest level 

PSQ from available acres 

PSQ from restricted acres 

55% of BC 

6,521 MBF/year 

867 MBF/year 

1986 RMP 

Annual Sale Quantity (ASQ)** 7,300 MBF/year 

FINAL NUMBERS FOR NEW 

Annual PSQ from available 

landbase 

NEW RMP 

7,902 MBF/year Annual PSQ from available 

landbase 

6,521 MBF/year 

* The definition of restricted in 1986 was different than current. With new science and operational capacity, we can actively manage areas that were considered off limits in years past. 

** The 1986 RMP used an Annual Sale Quantity, which was a target to offer for sale. Currently, the BLM uses a Probable Sale Quantity as defined below. 

† The Probable Sale Quantity (PSQ) is the allowable harvest level that can be maintained without decline over the long term if the schedule of harvests and regeneration are followed. 

PSQ recognizes a level of uncertainty in meeting the determined level; this uncertainty is typically based on other environmental factors that preclude harvesting at a particular time (for 

example, because of watershed or habitat concerns). A PSQ is not a commitment to offer for sale a specific level of timber volume every year. 

Calculations 

Biological capacity (BC) is 0.1188 MBF /year/ acre Probable Sale Quantity = Biological Capacity x Potential Harvest Level percent x Available Acres 

55% of BC is 0.065 MBF/Year/Acre 

65% of BC is 0.077 MBF/Year/Acre 

Baseline figures Abbreviations 

Current lynx habitat on BLM 63,957 acres ASQ Annual Sale Quantity PSQ Probable sale quantity 

Lynx habitat within unavailable areas (WSAs, etc.) 26,462 acres BC Biological Capacity as determined by the 2015 MT DNRC RCA Riparian habitat conservation area 

Sustained Yield Calculation 

Lynx habitat outside unavailable areas 37,495 acres LWC Lands with wilderness characteristics SMZ Streamside management area 

Nonforested BLM Landbase 15,491 acres MBF Thousand board feet WSA Wilderness study area 

K-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Forested lands managed by the Missoula BLM are contained within the administrative boundaries of the 

MT DNRC’s SW Land Office. Therefore, the assumption was made that the Missoula Field Office forests 

grow and reproduce at the same rate as the MT DNRC’s SW Land Office (Source: phone conversation 

and emails with Tim Spoelma, MT DNRC Silviculturist/Forest Ecologist). The Biological Capacity of the 

SW Land Office (and Missoula Field Office) forests is 118 board feet per acre per year. 

BLM analysis revealed 148,310 acres of forest lands managed by the Missoula BLM. Forested lands are a 

minimum stand size of 10 acres, with a minimum 10 percent canopy cover and have a size class recorded 

(seed/sap, pole, saw timber)(Source: Lester Mass, BLM). The biological capacity of the Missoula BLM 

forest lands can then be calculated at 17,500,850 board feet per year (148,310 acres x 118 board 

feet/acre/year), which would be more commonly displayed as 17,500 MBF (17.5 million board feet). One 

MBF is one thousand board feet. One Board Foot is 12” x 12” x 1”. 

It is helpful to identify the area’s biological capacity as a starting point for the PSQ determination, 

however it is not accurate to think of the biological capacity as a target volume. This is because there are 

many reasons all the volume on every acre would not and should not be harvested completely, chief 

among these are wildlife and fishery habitat concerns although there are others such as recreational / 

scenic values, cultural / archeological resources and forest legacy reserves. Additionally, silvicultural 

systems (such as individual tree selection, group selection, seed tree, shelterwood, and regeneration 

harvests) prescribe differing levels of harvest to achieve resource objectives on forest management 

projects. 

The MiFO RMP Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) identified areas as Available, Restricted and Unavailable 

for forest management. For Alternatives B and C, areas identified as unavailable are: roads (non-forested 

acres) Wilderness Study Areas (WSA), Lands with Wilderness Characteristics (LWC) and portions of 

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA). Areas identified as Restricted are: a portion of RCAs and the portion 

of the mapped Lynx habitat which falls outside the areas listed as unavailable above. All lands not 

designated as Unavailable or Restricted are considered Available. 

For the RCAs Restricted land base calculation, the assumption was made that 1/3 of a 300-foot RCA 

buffer adjacent to fish-bearing streams would be the portion of the RCA that is unavailable for harvest. To 

reiterate, 100 feet directly adjacent to fish-bearing streams is unavailable for timber harvest. In the 

remaining 2/3 of the 300-foot RCA buffer on fish-bearing streams that is not adjacent to the waterbody 

timber harvest may occur if the primary objective of harvest activities is to improve or attain RMOs. The 

2/3 (or 200 foot) area in which harvest activities may occur was used based on the maximum length of 

site potential trees in the field office area. The majority of trees within the field office area average 60 to 

75 feet in height. 

For the Restricted lynx habitat land base a calculation was made determining how many acres would be 

encompassed by15 percent of the lynx habitat outside the unavailable land base. These LAU acres are 

Restricted in this alternative to illustrate the direction that all forest management in these areas would be 

for the purpose of benefiting the wildlife habitat under this alternative. The value of 15 percent of the lynx 

habitat was used per direction contained in the 2013 Lynx Conservation and Assessment Strategy. 

An assessment of past Missoula BLM forestry projects and field observations by the Forestry staff lead to 

the assumption that on any given acre approximately 55 to 65 percent of BC would be harvested in 

Alternatives B and C. 

As stated above, a wide range of silvicultural systems are employed across the field office forest lands 

leading to a wide discrepancy in the volume per acre yield from any given harvest. As an example, at the 

K-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

time of this report two active harvest operations are in progress. One is a salvage in a dense and largely 

beetle killed stand of lodgepole pine and one is a thinning in a relatively healthy Ponderosa pine stand. 

The lodgepole pine harvest is yielding approximately 10 MBF per acre while the Ponderosa pine harvest 

is yielding approximately 0.75 MBF per acre. This is due to vastly different forest productivity, forest 

health conditions and forest management objectives. For this reason, the Missoula BLM Forestry staff has 

determined that a decadal PSQ would be more accurate and more attainable than an annual PSQ. 

Measuring the field office output on a ten year cycle will more adequately capture fluctuations in volume 

output resulting from changes in staffing, budgeting, forest health epidemics, fires and other competing 

field office priorities. 

The calculated decadal PSQ for the alternatives ranges from a low of 65 MMBF (million board feet) in 

Alternative C to a high of 79 MMBF in Alternative B. 

This calculation is useful to illustrate what the Missoula Field Office PSQ could be under the varying 

alternatives, if staffing were adequate. With staffing levels as of the year 2018 it is unlikely this PSQ 

could be achieved. An accurate PSQ, given 2018 staffing level and budget, is 40 to 60 MMBF per decade. 

This PSQ is far below the calculated sustained yield described in this document, indicating that if staffing 

levels were increased, the Missoula BLM could increase its annual harvest roughly 2-fold and still harvest 

timber sustainably over the long term. 

K-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix L: Recreation Management Areas 

1.1 Summary Comparison of Recreation Management Areas 

Table 1. Summary comparison of recreation management areas by alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Blackfoot Block 

Management Area 

SRMA 

(19,052 acres) 

See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area 

BCA 

Blackfoot River/ Lewis 

and Clark Trail 

SRMA 

(9845 acres) 

See Lower Blackfoot River 

Corridor SRMA and National 

Trails Section 

Same as Alternative B 

Garnet Ghost Town SRMA 

(366 acres) 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Ghost Town 

RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA 

(40,282 acres) 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Clark Fork River SRMA 

(1,773 acres) 

No similar action No similar action 

Chamberlain Area See Blackfoot Block 

Management SRMA 

SRMA 

(19,307 acres) 

BCA 

(18,145 acres) 

Lower Blackfoot River 

Corridor 

See Blackfoot River/Lewis 

and Clark Trail SRMA 

SRMA 

(19,543 acres) 

SRMA 

(19,543 acres) 

Garnet Area No similar action SRMA 

(28,183 acres) 

SRMA 

(26,980 acres) 

Ram Mountain No similar action SRMA 

(4,549 acres) 

BCA 

(4,549 acres) 

Marcum Mountain No similar action No similar action BCA 

(11,162 acres) 

Hoodoos No similar action No similar action BCA 

(12,533 acres) 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC (20 acres) SRMA (50 acres) ACEC (20 acres) 

L-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

1.2 Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix 

Primitive 

Classification 

Back Country

Classification 

Middle Country

Classification 

Front Country

Classification 

Rural 

Classification 

Urban 

Classification 

Physical Component – Qualities of the Landscape 

Remoteness More than 0.5 mile Within 0.5 mile of Within 0.5 mile of four-wheel Within 0.5 mile of low- Within 0.5 mile of Within 0.5 mile of 

(approx. from either mechanized routes drive vehicle, all-terrain- clearance or passenger paved/primary streets and roads 

distance from mechanized or vehicle (ATV), and motorcycle vehicle routes (including roads and in municipalities 

routes) motorized routes routes unpaved county roads and 

private land routes) 

highways and along 

highways 

Naturalness Undisturbed Natural landscape with Character of the natural Character of the natural Character of the Urbanized 

(landscape natural landscape any modifications in landscape retained; a few landscape partially natural landscape developments 

texture, form, harmony with surrounds modifications contrast with modified, but none considerably dominate 

line, color) and not visually obvious 

or evident (e.g., stock 

ponds and trails) 

character of the landscape 

(e.g., fences and primitive 

roads) 

overpower natural 

landscape (e.g., roads, 

structures, and utilities) 

modified (e.g., 

agriculture, 

residential, or 

industrial) 

landscape 

Facilities No structures; 

foot/horse and 

water trails only 

Developed trails made 

mostly of native materials, 

such as log bridges; 

structures are rare and 

isolated 

Maintained and marked trails, 

simple trailhead 

developments, and basic 

toilets 

Rustic facilities such as 

campsites, restrooms, 

trailheads, and interpretive 

displays 

Modern facilities 

such as 

campgrounds, 

group shelters, 

boat launches, and 

occasional exhibits 

Elaborate fullservice facilities 

such as laundries, 

restaurants, and 

grocery stores 

Social Component – Qualities Associated with Use 

Contacts Fewer than 3 3 to 6 encounters per day 7 to 14 encounters per day off 15 to 29 encounters per People seem to be Busy place with 

(avg. with any encounters per day off travel routes (e.g., travel routes (e.g., staging day off travel routes (e.g., generally other people 

other group) at campsites and 

fewer than 6 

encounters per day 

on travel routes 

campsites) and 7 to 15 

encounters per day on 

travel routes 

areas) and 15 to 29 

encounters per day on travel 

routes 

campgrounds) and 30 or 

more encounters per day 

on travel routes 

everywhere constantly in view 

Group Size Fewer than or 4 to 6 people per group 7 to 12 people per group 13 to 25 people per group 26 to 50 people per Greater than 50 

(average, equal to 3 people group people per group 

other than per group 

your own) 

L-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Primitive 

Classification 

Back Country

Classification 

Middle Country

Classification 

Front Country

Classification 

Rural 

Classification 

Urban 

Classification 

Evidence of No alterations of Areas of alteration Small areas of alteration; Small areas of alteration A few large areas Large areas of 

Use the natural terrain; 

footprints only 

observed; sounds 

of people rare 

uncommon; little surface 

vegetation wear 

observed; sounds of 

people infrequent 

surface vegetation showing 

wear, with some bare soils; 

sounds of people occasionally 

heard 

prevalent; surface 

vegetation gone, with 

compacted soils observed; 

sounds of people regularly 

heard 

of alteration; 

surface vegetation 

absent, with 

hardened soils; 

sounds of people 

frequently heard 

alteration 

prevalent; some 

erosion; 

constantly hear 

people 

Operational Component – Conditions Created by Management and Controls over Recreation Use 

Access Foot, horse, and Mountain bikes and Four-wheel drives, all-terrain Two-wheel drive vehicles Ordinary highway Wide variety of 

(type of travel nonmotorized float perhaps other vehicles, dirt bikes, or predominant, but also four- auto and truck street vehicles, 

allowed) boat travel mechanized use, but all 

are nonmotorized 

snowmobiles, in addition to 

nonmotorized mechanized use 

wheel drives and 

nonmotorized, mechanized 

use 

traffic is 

characteristic 

and highway 

traffic is everpresent 

Visitor No maps or Basic maps, staff Area brochures and maps, Information materials Information Information 

Services brochures infrequently present (e.g., staff occasionally present describe recreation areas described to the described to the 

(and available onsite; seasonally and high use (e.g., most weekends) to and activities, staff left, plus left, plus regularly 

information) staff rarely present 

to provide onsite 

assistance 

periods) to provide onsite 

assistance 

provide onsite assistance periodically present (e.g., 

weekdays and weekends) 

experience and 

benefit 

descriptions; staff 

regularly present 

(e.g., almost daily) 

scheduled on-site 

outdoor 

demonstrations 

and clinics 

Management No onsite posting Basic user regulations at Some regulatory and ethics Rules, regulations, and Regulations strict Enforcement, in 

Controls and signing of 

visitor regulations, 

interpretive 

information, or 

ethics; few use 

restrictions 

key access points; 

minimum use restrictions 

signing; moderate use 

restrictions (e.g., camping and 

human waste) 

ethics clearly posted; use 

restrictions, limitation, and 

closures 

and ethics 

prominent; use 

may be limited by 

permits and 

reservations 

addition to rules 

to reduce 

conflicts, hazards, 

and resource 

damage 

Source: IM No. 2011-004, Revised Recreation and Visitor Services Land Use Planning Guidance, Updated Checklist, and Three Land Use Planning Templates. Attachment 5, 

Recreation Setting Characteristics Matrix. BLM, Washington, DC. October 14, 2010. 

L-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

1.3 Blackfoot Special Management Area 

Objective 

Cooperatively manage road closure area designed to improve the quality of elk hunting, protect soils, and 

vegetation and gain hunting privileges on private lands previously closed to the general public. 

Table 2. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted Activities Walk-in hunting, 

snowmobiling 

See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area BCA 

Targeted Experiences No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area BCA 

Target Benefits No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area BCA 

Table 3. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area 

BCA 

Naturalness No Similar action See Chamberlain Area See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA BCA 

Facilities No Similar action See Chamberlain Area See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA BCA 

Social Contacts No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area 

BCA 

Group Size No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area 

BCA 

Evidence of Use No Similar action See Chamberlain Area See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA BCA 

Operational Access No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area 

BCA 

Visitor Services No Similar action See Chamberlain Area See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA BCA 

Management 

Controls 

No Similar action See Chamberlain Area 

SRMA 

See Chamberlain Area 

BCA 

Table 4. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and Visitor 

Services 

Develop and/or update activity 

plan/environmental assessment, 

Cooperatively manage the area with 

MFWP and private landowners 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) 

Class 

Class II, III and IV See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Rights-of-Way (ROW) No similar action See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

L-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Leasable Minerals: 

Coal and Non-energy 

Solids 

No similar action See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Locatable Minerals No similar action See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Mineral Materials No similar action See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

Recreation Special use permits will be 

evaluated and approved on a case by case 

basis. This includes permit for commercial 

use, competitive events and group 

activities such as trail rides, bicycle tours, 

and off-road vehicle (ORV) events. 

No outfitter and guide permits will be 

issued for hunting except in conjunction 

with adjoining Forest Service lands 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Travel Management Area limited except DuPont and Bear 

Creek Flats which are closed to OHVs 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Forestry No similar action See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Table 5. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management Cooperatively manage the area with MFWP 

and local landowners 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Administration Partnership between MFWP and local 

landowners 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Information and 

Education 

Signs posted, Block Management maps 

made and distributed by MFWP 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Monitoring Supported by MFWP staff, BLM staff, local 

community and law enforcement 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

Camping 

Restrictions 

limits set by supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, 

See Chamberlain 

Area SRMA 

See Chamberlain 

Area BCA 

L-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

1.4 Blackfoot River and Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail 

Objective 

Provide river access and management opportunities. 

Table 6. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

River access, floating the 

river, acquiring more public 

access to the river 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Target Benefits No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Table 7. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Naturalness No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Facilities No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Social Contacts No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Group Size No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Evidence of 

Use 

No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Operational Access No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Visitor Services No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Management 

Controls 

No similar 

action 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

L-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 8. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

Cooperatively work with 

MFWP to manage the river 

related recreation including 

use in the day use sites, 

campground, and 

administering the SRP 

program. Participate in 

cooperative management on 

the section of river officially 

designated the Blackfoot 

River Recreation Corridor. 

Make efforts to acquire 

additional public access to 

key tracts along the Blackfoot 

River. 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Visual 

Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

Blackfoot River Scenic 

Corridor, VRM Class II, III 

and IV 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Leasable 

Minerals 

No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Mineral 

Materials 

No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Special 

Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

Recreation Special use 

permits will be evaluated and 

approved on a case by case 

basis. This includes permit for 

commercial use, competitive 

events and group activities 

such as trail rides, bicycle 

tours, and off-road vehicle 

(ORV) events. 

No outfitter and guide permits 

will be issued for hunting 

except in conjunction with 

adjoining Forest Service 

lands 

For water-based SRPs 

continue working with MFWP 

to administer the SRP 

program 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Travel 

Management 

Closed See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

Forestry No similar action See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

See Blackfoot River SRMA 

and National Trails Section 

L-7 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 9. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management Supplemental rules: 

On public lands in Secs. 18 and 19, T. 14 N., R. 15 

W., Secs. 4, 5, and 6, T. 13 N., R. 16 W., and Secs. 

13 and 14, 20 to 29, inclusive, 32 and 33, T. 14 N., 

R. 16 W., Principal Meridian, Montana, that are 

within one-quarter mile on either side of the 

Blackfoot River or McNamara Road, or both, you 

must not: 

a. Camp outside of designated sites or areas. 

b. Light or maintain a fire except in designated 

areas or established by government fire rings. 

c. Operate a motor vehicle off a designated trail, 

road or route. 

d. Collect firewood for other than on-site use. 

You may burn only dead and down wood. 

e. Discharge a firearm or projectile (except for 

legal game hunting purposes as established by 

the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks), or engage in other recreational 

shooting including, but not limited to, plinking, 

target shooting, or shooting varmints, etc. 

f. Use of a firework. 

g. Violate a posted regulation pertaining to the 

protection of natural resources or public safety. 

h. Occupy or camp at an area longer than 7 days 

during any 30-day period. 

See Blackfoot River 

SRMA and National 

Trails Section 

See Blackfoot 

River SRMA 

and National 

Trails Section 

Administration Work with MFWP for the management of the 

Blackfoot River Corridor 

See Blackfoot River 

SRMA and National 

Trails Section 

See Blackfoot 

River SRMA 

and National 

Trails Section 

Information and Interpretive signs, signs, rules posted at See Blackfoot River See Blackfoot 

Education campground, contacts made by MFWP River 

Ranger, MFWP Wardens and BLM Law 

Enforcement Ranger 

SRMA and National 

Trails Section 

River SRMA 

and National 

Trails Section 

Monitoring Supported by MFWP, local community and law 

enforcement 

See Blackfoot River 

SRMA and National 

Trails Section 

See Blackfoot 

River SRMA 

and National 

Trails Section 

Camping See above See Blackfoot River See Blackfoot 

Restrictions SRMA and National 

Trails Section 

River SRMA 

and National 

Trails Section 

L-8 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.5 Garnet Ghost Town 

Objective 

Enable visitors to step back in time and learn about the history of the area and Western Montana. Visitors 

targeted are local, regional and international. 

Table 10. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

Day use, guided and self-guided 

tours, interpretation and education, 

hiking, picnicking, viewing 

preservation of cultural resources, 

cabin rental in the winter only 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Ghost Town 

RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Ghost Town 

RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Target Benefits No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Ghost Town 

RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Table 11. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Naturalness No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Facilities No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Social Contacts No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Group Size No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Evidence of 

Use 

No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Operational Access No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Visitor Services No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

L-9 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 12. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

Continue in cooperation with 

Garnet Preservation Association 

in implementing the Garnet Ghost 

Town Management Plan 

Allow compatible uses that do not 

detract from the Garnet 

Experience 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) 

Class 

VRM Class III See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way (ROW) No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Leasable Minerals No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Locatable Minerals Recommend mineral withdrawal See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Mineral Materials No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No outfitter and guide permits will 

be issued for hunting except in 

conjunction with adjoining Forest 

Service lands. Commercial, 

organized group and competitive 

SRPs on a case by case basis as 

long as it doesn’t detract from the 

Garnet Experience and add to 

exceeding the capacity 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Travel Management Limited See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Forestry No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Table 13. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management Follow Garnet Ghost Town 

Management Plan 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Administration Work with Garnet Preservation 

Association for education and 

interpretation 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Information and 

Education 

Posted signs, guided tours, selfguided brochures, interpretive panels, 

Visitor Center 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Monitoring BLM Law Enforcement, Recreation 

staff, seasonal employees, volunteers 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No camping 1⁄2 mile around Garnet 

Ghost Town 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Ghost Town RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

L-10 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.6 Garnet National Winter Recreation Trail 

Objective 

Maintain the existing network of snowmobile trails in the Garnet Range, including the Garnet National 

Winter Recreation Trail as described in the Garnet Winter Recreation Trails Brochure and the Garnet 

Range Winter Trails Management Plan. 

Table 14. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

Snowmobile, cross-country 

ski, dog sled, snowshoe 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Target Benefits No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Table 15. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Naturalness No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Facilities No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Social Contacts No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Group Size No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Evidence of 

Use 

No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Operational Access No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Visitor Services No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet 

Trails RMZ 

Same as Alternative B 

L-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 16. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

Maintain the existing network of 

snowmobile trails in the Garnet Range, 

including the Garnet National Winter 

Recreation Trail as described in the 

Garnet Winter Recreation Trails Brochure 

and the Garnet Range Winter Trails 

Management Plan 

Develop and/or update activity 

plans/environmental assessments for the 

Garnet National Winter Recreation Trail 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Visual Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

VRM Class III and IV See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Leasable Minerals No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Locatable Minerals No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Mineral Materials No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

Recreation Special use permits will be 

evaluated and approved on a case by 

case basis. This includes permit for 

commercial use, competitive events and 

group activities such as trail rides, bicycle 

tours, and off-road vehicle (ORV) events 

No outfitter and guide permits will be 

issued for hunting except in conjunction 

with adjoining Forest Service lands 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Travel 

Management 

Motorized vehicle use (except 

snowmobiles) is limited to open roads and 

trails. Off-road snowmobile use is allowed 

unless specifically restricted. 

See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Forestry No similar action See Garnet Area 

SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Table 17. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management Groom trails See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Trails 

RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Administration Work with partners to groom 

trails 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Trails 

RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Information and 

Education 

Maps and signs posted See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Trails 

RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Monitoring Supported by BLM 

Recreation Staff 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Trails 

RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

limits set by supplemental 

rules of the Montana/Dakotas 

State Office, 

See Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Trails 

RMZ 

Same as 

Alternative B 

L-12 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.7 Clark Fork River 

Objective 

Provide access to the Clark Fork River. 

Table 18. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted Activities Access to the Clark Fork River, floating the river No similar action No similar action 

Targeted Experiences No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Target Benefits No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Table 19. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Naturalness No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Facilities No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Social Contacts No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Group Size No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Evidence of Use No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Operational Access No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Visitor Services No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Management Controls No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Table 20. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and Visitor 

Services 

Develop and/or update activity 

plan/environmental assessment; make 

efforts to acquire additional public access to 

key tracts along the Clark Fork River. 

A variety of dispersed and water based 

recreation activities are permitted and may 

be supported by the development of river 

access, trails, and trailhead facilities. 

Cooperative river management programs for 

recreation will be encouraged with 

appropriate BLM participation 

No similar action No similar action 

Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) 

Class 

Visual Corridor, Class II, III and IV No similar action No similar action 

Rights-of-Way (ROW) No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Leasable Minerals No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Locatable Minerals No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Mineral Materials No similar action No similar action No similar action 

L-13 
Bureau of Land Management 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

Recreation Special use permits will be 

evaluated and approved on a case by case 

basis. This includes permit for commercial 

use, competitive events and group activities 

such as trail rides, bicycle tours, and offroad vehicle (ORV) events. 

No outfitter and guide permits will be issued 

for hunting except in conjunction with 

adjoining Forest Service lands 

No similar action No similar action 

Travel Management Limited No similar action No similar action 

Forestry No similar action No similar action No similar action 

Table 21. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management Dispersed sites No similar action No similar action 

Information and Education Sign at Access Points No similar action No similar action 

Monitoring Supported by BLM Recreation Staff No similar action No similar action 

Camping Restrictions limits set by supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, 

No similar action No similar action 

L-14 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.8 Chamberlain SRMA and BCA 

Objective 

SRMA: Continue to offer a quality, walk-in hunting experience for the public including the local 

community, continue working with MFWP and the landowners in support of this experience and allow for 

snowmobile riding. 

BCA: Continue to offer a quality, walk-in hunting experience for the public including the local 

community and continue working with MFWP and the landowners in support of this experience while 

also providing for other dispersed wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities including camping, wildlife 

viewing and hiking. Conserve, maintain, restore and enhance high quality habitat for recreationally 

dependent fish and wildlife species. 

Visitors targeted: local and regional 

Table 22. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Targeted 

Activities 

No Similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Walk-in hunting, camping, 

wildlife viewing, 

snowmobile riding 

Walk-in hunting, camping, wildlife 

viewing, other wildlife-dependent 

recreation, snowmobile riding 

Targeted No Similar action (See Developing skills and Developing skills and abilities, 

Experiences Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA 

abilities, testing endurance, 

family/friends togetherness, 

enjoying ability to frequently 

participate in desired 

activities in preferred 

settings, feeling good about 

the way our cultural 

heritage is being protected 

testing endurance, family/friends 

togetherness, enjoying ability to 

frequently participate in desired 

activities in preferred settings, 

feeling good about the way our 

cultural heritage is being 

protected; enjoying being outdoors 

in nature interacting with wildlife. 

Target Benefits No Similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA 

Greater self-reliance, 

improved outdoor skills, 

more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle, greater respect for 

private property and local 

lifestyles, greater 

community ownership and 

stewardship 

Greater self-reliance, improved 

outdoor skills, more outdoor 

oriented lifestyle, greater respect 

for private property and local 

lifestyles, greater community 

ownership and stewardship, 

greater respect for wildlife 

L-15 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 23. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B - Alternative C -

SRMA BCA 

Physical Remoteness No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Back country to 

middle country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Naturalness No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Middle to front 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Facilities No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Social Contacts No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Group Size No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Evidence of Use No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Back country to 

middle country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Operational Access No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Visitor Services No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Back country to 

middle country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Table 24. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Work with partners to manage 

for dispersed and unstructured 

recreation, continue use of 

snowmobile trails and expand 

trail system 

Same as Alternative B 

Visual Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

VRM Class II and III Same as Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

avoidance area, consider 

whether the function or 

suitability of the recreation 

experience and benefits will be 

impaired, reduce user conflicts 

avoidance area, consider whether 

the function or suitability of the 

wildlife-dependent recreation 

experience and benefits will be 

impaired 

Leasable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Open Open, determine timing 

restrictions and mitigation 

measures to reduce user conflicts 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Open Open, determine timing 

restrictions and mitigation 

measures to reduce user conflicts 

L-16 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Mineral Materials No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Open case by case basis, if compatible 

with BCA objectives 

Special No similar action (See No outfitter and guide permits Same as Alternative B 

Recreation Blackfoot Special will be issued for hunting except 

Permits (SRPs) Management SRMA) in conjunction with adjoining 

Forest Service lands. 

Otherwise, issue special 

recreation permits, as 

appropriate and on a case by 

case basis, for commercial, 

competitive and special events 

subject to guidelines in BLM 

Handbook 2930, resource 

capabilities, social conflict 

concerns, professional 

qualifications, public safety and 

public need. 

Travel 

Management 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Limited Limited 

Forestry No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Allow forest management 

practices including but not 

limited to commercial timber 

harvest, prescribed burning, precommercial thinning, and 

planting if compatible with 

SRMA goals and objectives and 

to maintain the recreation 

setting characteristics. 

Determine timing restrictions at 

the project level 

Allow forest management 

practices including but not limited 

to commercial timber harvest, 

prescribed burning, precommercial thinning, and planting 

if compatible with BCA goals and 

objectives and to maintain the 

recreation setting characteristics. 

Wildlife habitat objectives will be 

included in forest management 

planning and determined at the 

project level. 

Table 25. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Management No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

Continue working with MFWP 

and landowners to support the 

Block Management area; 

manage for projects to maintain 

and improve big game habitat, 

manage for projects to restore 

riparian and stream functions; 

restrict construction of new 

improved roads and motorized 

trails within designated area 

(snowmobiles are an exception) 

Pursue opportunities to expand 

the snowmobile trail system 

Continue working with MFWP and 

landowners to support the Block 

Management area. Manage for 

projects to maintain and improve 

big game habitat, manage for 

projects to restore riparian and 

stream functions, restrict 

construction of new improved 

roads and motorized trails within 

designated area (snowmobiles 

are an exception); conserve 

unfragmented habitat and hunting 

and fishing opportunities. 

Pursue opportunities to expand 

the snowmobile trail system 

Administration No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

continue existing partnership 

with MFWP to support hunting 

opportunities, manage issues 

with public safety and user 

conflicts 

Same as Alternative B 

L-17 
Bureau of Land Management 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Information 

and 

Education 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

continue existing partnership 

with MFWP to provide Block 

Management maps and other 

information 

Same as Alternative B 

Monitoring No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

supported by BLM law 

enforcement and field staff, in 

conjunction with collaborating 

partnerships and agencies. 

Same as Alternative B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot Special 

Management SRMA) 

overnight use, limits set by 

supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, 

Western District or local office 

DuPont Property – no overnight 

camping 

Bear Creek Flats – designated 

camping only 

Same as Alternative B 

L-18 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.9 Lower Blackfoot River Corridor 

Objective 

Provide a wide array of outcome focused recreation opportunities for all skill levels and users while 

maintaining the scenic values. May include rafting, fishing, hiking, biking, hunting, scenic driving, 

motorized and non-motorized recreation. 

Visitors targeted: local and regional 

Table 26. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Rafting, fishing, camping, hiking, 

biking, hunting, scenic driving, 

motorized and non-motorized 

recreation 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Developing skills and abilities, 

enjoying the closeness of friends and 

family, enjoying easy access to 

natural landscapes, enjoying access 

to close-to-home outdoor amenities 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Target Benefits No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Restore mind from unwanted stress, 

greater sensitivity to/awareness of 

outdoor aesthetics, nature’s art and 

it’s elegance, a more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle, more positive contributions 

to local-regional economy 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Table 27. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country, middle 

country and front country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Naturalness No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country and middle 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Facilities No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country and Rural Same as 

Alternative B 

Social Contacts No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country and front 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Group Size No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Primitive, back country 

and middle country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Evidence of 

Use 

No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country and middle 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Operational Access No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country, middle 

country and front country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Visitor 

Services 

No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Back country and middle 

country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action (See Blackfoot 

River/Lewis and Clark Trail SRMA) 

Front country Same as 

Alternative B 

L-19 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 28. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

See Blackfoot River/Lewis 

and Clark Trail SRMA 

Continue working with partners to 

manage recreation and develop 

recreation opportunities; continue 

working with landowners in 

management of the River 

Recreation Corridor; continue 

support of Block Management; 

Consider developing a Scenic 

Driving loop; Work with partners to 

develop a regional connecting trail 

or trails; Work with partners to 

develop biking trails; Consider 

developing float in camp sites 

Same as Alternative B 

Visual 

Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

VRM Class II and III Same as Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Avoidance area, consider whether 

the function or suitability of the 

recreation experience and benefits 

will be impaired 

Same as Alternative B 

Leasable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Open Same as Alternative B 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

open Same as Alternative B 

Mineral 

Materials 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Open, consider whether the 

function or suitability of the 

recreation experience and benefits 

will be impaired 

Same as Alternative B 

Special 

Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

No outfitter and guide permits will 

be issued for hunting except in 

conjunction with adjoining Forest 

Service lands. Otherwise, issue 

special recreation permits, as 

appropriate and on a case by case 

basis, for commercial, competitive 

and special events subject to 

guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, 

resource capabilities, social conflict 

concerns, professional 

qualifications, public safety and 

public need. Water based SRPs 

continue working with MFWP to 

administer the SRP program 

including determining numbers and 

group sizes 

Same as Alternative B 

Travel 

Management 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Limited Same as Alternative B 

L-20 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Forestry No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Allow forest management practices 

including but not limited to 

commercial timber harvest, 

prescribed burning, pre-commercial 

thinning, and planting if compatible 

with SRMA goals and objectives 

and to maintain the recreation 

setting characteristics. Determine 

timing restrictions at the project 

level. 

Same as Alternative B 

Grazing No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

To provide visitors with a quality 

recreation experience and for 

public safety, no grazing within the 

River Recreation Corridor 

Same as Alternative B 

Table 29. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management See Blackfoot River/Lewis 

and Clark National Historic 

Trail SRMA 

Continue existing supplementary 

rules and add day use hours are 

5:00am to 10:00pm; 

No collection of firewood for other 

than on site use with the River 

Recreation Corridor and only dead 

and down wood can be burned; In 

the River Recreation Corridor, no 

discharging of firearms or 

projectiles (except for legal game 

hunting purposes as established by 

MFWP) or engaging in other 

recreational shooting including, but 

not limited to, plinking, target 

shooting, or shooting varmints, etc.; 

Outside of the River Recreation 

Corridor, no firearm restrictions 

Improve access to the river at the 

day use sites; 

Same as Alternative B 

Administration No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Supported by MFWP, pursue 

partnerships to develop and 

maintain trails 

Same as Alternative B 

Information and 

Education 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Post rules and regulations Same as Alternative B 

Monitoring No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

Supported by MFWP, local 

community and law enforcement 

Same as Alternative B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No similar action (See 

Blackfoot River/Lewis and 

Clark Trail SRMA) 

In the River Recreation Corridor 

camping in designated areas only; 

outside of the River Recreation 

Corridor dispersed camping limits 

set by supplementary rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, 

Western District or local office 

Same as Alternative B 

L-21 
Bureau of Land Management 

1.10 Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Ghost Town RMZ 

Objective 

Enable visitors to step back in time and learn about the history of the area and Western Montana. 

Visitors targeted are local, regional and international. 

Table 30. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

No similar action (See Garnet 

Ghost Town SRMA) 

day use, guided and self-guided 

tours, interpretation and education, 

hiking, picnicking, viewing 

preservation of cultural resources, 

cabin rental in the winter only 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar action (See Garnet 

Ghost Town SRMA) 

learning more about a specific area, 

bringing back the past, feeling good 

about the way our cultural heritage is 

being protected, sharing our cultural 

heritage with people 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Target Benefits No similar action (See Garnet 

Ghost Town SRMA) 

Enhanced awareness and 

understanding of cultural resources, 

greater freedom from urban living, 

stronger ties with family and friends, 

more positive contributions to localregional economy, greater protection 

of area historic structures and 

archaeological sites, reduced 

looting/vandalism of historic sites 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Table 31. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front Country and 

Rural 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Naturalness No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front Country Same as 

Alternative B 

Facilities No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front Country Same as 

Alternative B 

Social Contacts No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front Country and 

Rural 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Group Size No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Backcountry to 

Middle Country 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Evidence of Use No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front Country Same as 

Alternative B 

Operational Access No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front country Same as 

Alternative B 

Visitor Services No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Rural Same as 

Alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action (See Garnet Ghost 

Town SRMA) 

Front Country and 

Rural 

Same as 

Alternative B 

L-22 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 32. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Allow compatible uses that do not detract from 

the Garnet Experience 

Continue working with Partners for recreation 

opportunities and historic preservation 

Continue in cooperation with Garnet 

Preservation Association in implementing the 

Garnet Ghost Town Management Plan 

Update Garnet Ghost Town Management Plan 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Visual 

Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

VRM Class III Same as 

Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Avoidance area, consider whether the function 

or suitability of the recreation experience and 

benefits will be impaired; film permits consider 

whether the recreation experience and 

benefits will be impaired 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Leasable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Closed Same as 

Alternative B 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Recommend withdrawal of 263 acres Recommend 

withdrawal of 355 

acres 

Mineral 

Materials 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Closed Closed 

Special 

Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

No outfitter and guide permits will be issued for 

hunting except in conjunction with adjoining 

Forest Service lands. Otherwise, issue special 

recreation permits, as long as it doesn’t detract 

from the Garnet Experience and add to 

exceeding the capacity and on a case by case 

basis, for commercial, competitive and special 

events subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 

2930, resource capabilities, social conflict 

concerns, professional qualifications, public 

safety and public need. 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Travel 

Management 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Limited Same as 

Alternative B 

Forestry No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Allow vegetation management practices 

including but not limited to commercial timber 

harvest, prescribed burning, pre-commercial 

thinning, and planting if compatible with SRMA 

goals and objectives and to maintain the 

recreation setting characteristics. Continue 

fuel reduction efforts. 

Same as 

Alternative B 

Grazing No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

To preserve the historic buildings and features 

and for public safety, no grazing allowed. 

Same as 

Alternative B 

L-23 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 33. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

No digging for, removing, destroying, 

damaging, or possessing artifacts, or other 

cultural resources, or using any device for 

detecting metal, except when allowed by 

permit. 

Firewood collection will not be authorized 

unless compatible with management goals. 

no discharging or using firearms, other 

weapons, or fireworks 

No lighting or maintaining a fire except in 

designated areas or established by 

government fire rings 

Animals must be on a leash not longer than 

6 feet and secured to an object or under 

control of a person or is otherwise 

physically restricted at all times. 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Administration Work with Garnet 

Preservation Association 

Staffed by BLM Park Ranger, BLM 

seasonal employees, and volunteers. 

Continue working with partners 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Information and 

Education 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

Posted signs, Guided tours, self-guided 

brochures, interpretive panels, Visitor 

Center 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Monitoring No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

BLM Law Enforcement, Recreation staff, 

seasonal employees, volunteers 

Same as Alternative 

B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No similar action (See 

Garnet Ghost Town 

SRMA) 

No camping 1⁄2 mile around Garnet Same as Alternative 

B 

L-24 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.11 Garnet Area SRMA/Garnet Trails RMZ 

Objective 

Manage, maintain and expand the existing network of snowmobile trails (approximately 80 miles) in the 

Garnet Range, including the Garnet National Winter Recreation Trail (32 miles) and Garnet Winter 

Backcountry Byway (12 miles) to provide opportunities for visitors to get outdoors. 

Table 34. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

Snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, 

snowshoeing, dog sledding, 

Same as Alternative B 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

enjoying natural surroundings, 

scenery and solitude, reducing 

stress, enjoying the closeness of 

family/friends 

Same as Alternative B 

Target Benefits No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

Developing a closer relationship with 

the natural world, 

improving/maintaining health and 

fitness, reducing 

stress/tension/anxiety, stronger ties 

with family, recreation opportunities 

for family 

Same as Alternative B 

Table 35. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Middle country Same as Alternative B 

Naturalness No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Middle country Same as Alternative B 

Facilities No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Middle country Same as Alternative B 

Social Contacts No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as Alternative B 

Group Size No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Primitive to back 

country 

Same as Alternative B 

Evidence of Use No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Middle country Same as Alternative B 

Operational Access No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Middle country Same as Alternative B 

Visitor Services No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Primitive Same as Alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails SRMA) 

Middle country Same as Alternative B 

L-25 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 36. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

Maintain the existing network of 

snowmobile trails in the Garnet Range, 

including the Garnet National Winter 

Recreation Trail as described in the 

Garnet Range Winter Trails Management 

Plan 

Continue working with Partners to expand 

recreation opportunities, keep the existing 

trails and develop more trails 

Pursue road/trail use agreements and/or 

easements 

Same as Alternative B 

Visual 

Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

VRM Class III and IV Same as Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

rights-of-way - consider whether 

compatible with the recreation experience 

and benefits 

Same as Alternative B 

Leasable 

Minerals 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

Open Same as Alternative B 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

Open Same as Alternative B 

Mineral 

Materials 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

Open Same as Alternative B 

Special 

Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

No outfitter and guide permits will be 

issued for hunting except in conjunction 

with adjoining Forest Service lands. 

Otherwise issue special recreation 

permits, on a case by case basis as long 

as it is compatible with the experiences 

and benefits of the RMZ and the 

recreation setting characteristics, for 

commercial, competitive and special 

events subject to guidelines in BLM 

Handbook 2930, resource capabilities, 

social conflict concerns, professional 

qualifications, public safety and public 

need. 

Same as Alternative B 

Travel 

Management 

No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

Limited to roads and trails, snowmobiles 

may be an exception 

Same as Alternative B 

Forestry No Similar action (See 

Garnet Winter Trails 

SRMA) 

Allow vegetation management practices 

including but not limited to commercial 

timber harvest, prescribed burning, precommercial thinning, and planting if 

compatible with SRMA goals and 

objectives and to maintain the recreation 

setting characteristics 

Same as Alternative B 

L-26 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 37. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

Continue working with partners to 

groom trails, create maps and 

information about the trail system; 

Expand trail opportunities; maintain 

warming shelters; 

Winter cabin rental program at 

Garnet Ghost Town 

Same as Alternative B 

Administration No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

Continue working with partners 

including supporting grant 

opportunities for trail grooming 

Same as Alternative B 

Information and 

Education 

No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

Trail maps, trail markers Same as Alternative B 

Monitoring No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

Supported by BLM Recreation staff Same as Alternative B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No Similar action (See Garnet 

Winter Trails SRMA) 

dispersed camping limits set by 

supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, 

Western District or local office; 

cabins available for rent in Garnet 

from December through April 

Same as Alternative B 

L-27 
Bureau of Land Management 

1.12 Limestone Cliffs 

Objective 

Provide rock climbing opportunities while maintaining the educational and interpretive value of the cliffs. 

Visitors: local and regional 

Table 38. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Rock climbing No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Developing skills and abilities, 

experiencing a sense of greater 

independence, enjoying needed 

physical exercise 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Target Benefits No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Greater self-reliance, improved 

outdoor recreation skills, a more 

outdoor-oriented lifestyle, improve 

physical fitness and health 

maintenance 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Table 39. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Front country No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Naturalness No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Middle country No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Facilities No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Back country No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Social Contacts No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Primitive to back 

country 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Group Size No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Primitive to rural No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Evidence of Use No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Middle country No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Operational Access No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Front country No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Visitor Services No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

primitive No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Back country to middle 

country 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

L-28 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 40. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Work with partners to manage trails to 

climbing areas 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Visual 

Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

VRM Class III No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Avoidance area No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Leasable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Closed all 50 acres No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Continue existing withdrawal of 20 

acres 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Mineral 

Materials 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Closed all 50 acres No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Special 

Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

No outfitter and guide permits will be 

issued for hunting except in conjunction 

with adjoining Forest Service lands. 

Otherwise, issue special recreation 

permits, as appropriate and on a case 

by case basis, for commercial, 

competitive and special events subject 

to guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, 

resource capabilities, social conflict 

concerns, professional qualifications, 

public safety and public need 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Travel 

Management 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

limited No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Forestry No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Allow vegetation management practices 

including but not limited to commercial 

timber harvest, prescribed burning, precommercial thinning, and planting if 

compatible with SRMA goals and 

objectives and to maintain the 

recreation setting characteristics 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs ACEC) 

Table 41. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

Supplementary rules – within the SRMA 

boundary you must not: 

(a) Install new, permanent climbing 

hardware for new or existing routes 

unless approved by the authorized 

officer. 

(b) 

(a) Discharge of firearms, other 

weapons and fireworks. 

(c) Bring an animal into such an area 

unless the animal is on a leash not 

longer than 6 feet and secured to 

an object or under control of a 

person or is otherwise physically 

restricted at all times. 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

L-29 
Bureau of Land Management 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Administration No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

Pursue partnerships to develop and 

maintain trails to climbing areas 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

Information and 

Education 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

Have information about climbing ethics 

including staying away from raptors and 

raptor nesting 

No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

Monitoring No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

Supported by BLM field staff and partners No similar action (See 

Limestone Cliffs 

ACEC) 

L-30 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.13 Ram Mountain SRMA and BCA 

Objective 

For SRMA: Provide dispersed walk-in recreational opportunities including hunting, fishing, camping, and 

hiking adjacent to USFS roadless area 

For BCA: Provide dispersed wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities including hunting, fishing, 

camping, wildlife viewing, and hiking adjacent to USFS roadless area. Conserve, maintain, restore and 

enhance high quality habitat for recreationally dependent fish and wildlife species. 

Visitors targeted: local and regional 

Table 42. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Targeted 

Activities 

No similar action Hunting, fishing, camping, 

hiking, horseback riding 

Hunting, fishing, camping, wildlife 

viewing, horseback riding, hiking 

Targeted No similar action Developing skills and abilities, Developing skills and abilities, testing 

Experiences testing endurance, 

family/friends togetherness, 

enjoying ability to frequently 

participate in desired activities 

in preferred settings, feeling 

good about the way our 

cultural heritage is being 

protected. 

endurance, family/friends 

togetherness, enjoying ability to 

frequently participate in desired 

activities in preferred settings, feeling 

good about the way our cultural 

heritage is being protected; enjoying 

being outdoors in nature interacting 

with wildlife. 

Target Benefits No similar action Greater self-reliance, improved 

outdoor skills, more outdoor 

oriented lifestyle, greater 

respect for private property 

and local lifestyles, greater 

community ownership and 

stewardship. 

Greater self-reliance, improved 

outdoor skills, more outdoor oriented 

lifestyle, greater respect for private 

property and local lifestyles, greater 

community ownership and 

stewardship, greater respect for 

wildlife. 

Table 43. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Physical Remoteness No similar action Backcountry and middle country Same as alternative B 

Naturalness No similar action Middle country Same as alternative B 

Facilities No similar action Primitive and backcountry Same as alternative B 

Social Contacts No similar action Primitive and backcountry Same as alternative B 

Group Size No similar action Primitive and backcountry Same as alternative B 

Evidence of Use No similar action Backcountry to middle country Same as alternative B 

Operational Access No similar action Primitive and backcountry Same as alternative B 

Visitor Services No similar action Primitive Same as alternative B 

Management 

Controls 

No similar action Backcountry Same as alternative B 

L-31 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 44. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B -SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No similar action Manage for dispersed recreation Manage for dispersed recreation 

Visual Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No similar action Class II, III and IV Same as Alternative B 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action avoidance area, consider 

whether the function or suitability 

of the recreation experience and 

benefits will be impaired, reduce 

user conflicts 

avoidance area, consider whether 

the function or suitability of the 

wildlife-dependent recreation 

experience and benefits will be 

impaired 

Leasable Minerals No similar action Open Open, determine timing restrictions 

and mitigation measures to reduce 

user conflicts 

Locatable Minerals No similar action Open Open, determine timing restrictions 

and mitigation measures to reduce 

user conflicts 

Mineral Materials No similar action Open case by case basis, if compatible 

with BCA objectives 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No similar action No outfitter and guide permits will 

be issued for hunting except in 

conjunction with adjoining Forest 

Service lands. Issue special 

recreation permits, as 

appropriate and on a case by 

case basis if compatible with the 

objectives of the SRMA, for 

commercial, competitive and 

special events subject to 

guidelines in BLM Handbook 

2930, resource capabilities, 

social conflict concerns, 

professional qualifications, public 

safety and public need. 

No outfitter and guide permits will 

be issued for hunting except in 

conjunction with adjoining Forest 

Service lands. Issue special 

recreation permits, as appropriate 

and on a case by case basis if 

compatible with the objectives of 

the BCA, for commercial, 

competitive and special events 

subject to guidelines in BLM 

Handbook 2930, resource 

capabilities, social conflict 

concerns, professional 

qualifications, public safety and 

public need 

Travel 

Management 

No similar action Closed to OHVs Same as Alternative B 

Forestry No similar action Allow vegetation management 

practices including but not limited 

to commercial timber harvest, 

prescribed burning, precommercial thinning, and 

planting if compatible with the 

objectives of the SRMA. 

Determine timing restrictions at 

the project level 

Allow vegetation management 

practices including but not limited 

to commercial timber harvest, 

prescribed burning, pre-commercial 

thinning, and planting if compatible 

with the objectives of the BCA. 

Wildlife habitat objectives will be 

included in vegetation 

management planning and 

determined at the project level. 

L-32 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 45. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B - SRMA Alternative C - BCA 

Management No similar action Manage for nonmotorized 

activities, manage for projects to 

maintain and improve big game 

habitat, manage for projects to 

restore riparian and stream 

functions 

Manage for nonmotorized activities, 

manage for projects to maintain and 

improve big game habitat, manage 

for projects to restore riparian and 

stream functions, to conserve 

unfragmented habitat and hunting 

and fishing opportunities. 

Administration No similar action Manage issues with public safety 

and user conflicts 

Same as Alternative B 

Information and 

Education 

No similar action Post signs Post signs 

Monitoring No similar action Supported by BLM field staff and 

BLM law enforcement ranger. 

Same as alternative B 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No similar action overnight use, limits set by 

supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, 

Western District or local office 

Same as alternative B 

L-33 
Bureau of Land Management 

L-34 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.14 Marcum Mountain BCA 

Objective 

Provide dispersed wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities including hunting, camping, wildlife 

viewing, and hiking. Conserve, restore and enhance habitat for recreationally dependent fish and wildlife 

species. 

Visitors targeted: local and regional 

Table 46. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted 

Activities 

No similar 

action 

No similar 

Action 

Hunting, camping, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, other 

wildlife-dependent recreation 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Developing skills and abilities, testing endurance, 

family/friends togetherness, enjoying ability to frequently 

participate in desired activities in preferred settings, feeling 

good about the way our cultural heritage is being protected; 

enjoying being outdoors in nature interacting with wildlife. 

Target Benefits No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, more outdoor 

oriented lifestyle, greater respect for private property and 

local lifestyles, greater community ownership and 

stewardship, greater respect for wildlife 

Table 47. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action No similar action Middle country 

Naturalness No similar action No similar action Middle country 

Facilities No similar action No similar action Backcountry and middle country 

Social Contacts No similar action No similar action Primitive and backcountry 

Group Size No similar action No similar action Primitive 

Evidence of Use No similar action No similar action Backcountry 

Operational Access No similar action No similar action Backcountry and middle country 

Visitor Services No similar action No similar action Primitive 

Management Controls No similar action No similar action Backcountry 

L-35 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 48. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

Continue working with MFWP to provide additional hunting 

opportunities 

Visual Resource 

Management 

(VRM) Class 

No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

VRM Class II and III 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

For the area within the trail corridor, follow trail guidance. 

Outside of trail corridor avoidance area, consider whether 

the function or suitability of the wildlife-dependent 

recreation experience will be impaired 

Leasable Minerals No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

For the area within the trail corridor, follow trail guidance. 

Outside of trail corridor, case by case basis, if compatible 

with BCA objectives 

Locatable 

Minerals 

No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

For the area within the trail corridor, follow trail guidance. 

Outside of trail corridor, open, determine timing restrictions 

and mitigation measures to reduce user conflicts 

Mineral Materials No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

For the area within the trail corridor, follow trail guidance. 

Outside of trail corridor, case by case basis, if compatible 

with BCA objectives 

Special 

Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No Similar 

Action 

No Similar 

Action 

No outfitter and guide permits will be issued for hunting 

except in conjunction with adjoining Forest Service lands. 

Issue special recreation permits, as appropriate and on a 

case by case basis if compatible with the objectives of the 

BCA, for commercial, competitive and special events 

subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 2930, resource 

capabilities, social conflict concerns, professional 

qualifications, public safety and public need 

Travel 

Management 

No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

Limited 

Forestry No similar 

action 

No Similar 

Action 

Allow vegetation management practices including but not 

limited to commercial timber harvest, prescribed burning, 

pre-commercial thinning, and planting if compatible with 

the objectives of the BCA. Wildlife habitat objectives will 

be included in vegetation management planning and 

determined at the project level. 

Table 49. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Manage for projects to maintain and improve big game 

habitat, manage for projects to restore riparian and stream 

functions, manage to conserve unfragmented habitat and 

hunting and fishing opportunities. 

Administration No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

continue existing partnership with MFWP to support 

hunting opportunities, manage issues with public safety 

and user conflicts 

Information and 

Education 

No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

continue existing partnership with MFWP to provide Block 

Management maps and other information 

Monitoring No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Supported by BLM field staff and Law Enforcement Ranger 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

overnight use, limits set by supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, Western District or local 

office 

L-36 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

1.15 Hoodoos BCA 

Objective 

Provide dispersed wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities including hunting, camping, wildlife 

viewing, and hiking. Conserve, restore and enhance habitat for recreationally important wildlife species. 

Visitors targeted: local and regional 

Table 50. Targeted Activities, Experiences, and Benefits 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Targeted Activities No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Hunting, camping, wildlife viewing, and other wildlife 

dependent recreation 

Targeted 

Experiences 

No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Developing skills and abilities, testing endurance, 

family/friends togetherness, enjoying ability to 

frequently participate in desired activities in preferred 

settings, feeling good about the way our cultural 

heritage is being protected; enjoying being outdoors in 

nature interacting with wildlife. 

Target Benefits No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Greater self-reliance, improved outdoor skills, more 

outdoor oriented lifestyle, greater respect for private 

property and local lifestyles, greater community 

ownership and stewardship, greater respect for wildlife 

Table 51. Recreation Setting Characteristics 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Physical Remoteness No similar action No similar action Backcountry and middle 

country 

Naturalness No similar action No similar action Middle country 

Facilities No similar action No similar action backcountry 

Social Contacts No similar action No similar action Primitive and backcountry 

Group Size No similar action No similar action Primitive and backcountry 

Evidence of Use No similar action No similar action Primitive and backcountry 

Operational Access No similar action No similar action Primitive, backcountry and 

middle country 

Visitor Services No similar action No similar action Primitive 

Management Controls No similar action No similar action Primitive and backcountry 

L-37 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 52. Management Actions and Allowable Use Decisions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation and 

Visitor Services 

No similar action No similar action Continue working with Montana FWP to provide 

hunting opportunities 

Visual Resource 

Management (VRM) 

Class 

No similar action No similar action Class III 

Rights-of-Way 

(ROW) 

No similar action No similar action avoidance area, consider whether the function 

or suitability of the wildlife dependent recreation 

experience will be impaired 

Leasable Minerals No similar action No similar action case by case basis, if compatible with BCA 

objectives 

Locatable Minerals No similar action No similar action Open, determine timing restrictions and 

mitigation measures to reduce user conflicts 

Mineral Materials No similar action No similar action case by case basis, if compatible with BCA 

objectives 

Special Recreation 

Permits (SRPs) 

No similar action No similar action No outfitter and guide permits will be issued for 

hunting except in conjunction with adjoining 

Forest Service lands. Issue special recreation 

permits, as appropriate and on a case by case 

basis if compatible with the objectives of the 

BCA, for commercial, competitive and special 

events subject to guidelines in BLM Handbook 

2930, resource capabilities, social conflict 

concerns, professional qualifications, public 

safety and public need 

Travel Management No similar action No similar action Limited 

Forestry No similar action No similar action Allow vegetation management practices 

including but not limited to commercial timber 

harvest, prescribed burning, pre-commercial 

thinning, and planting if compatible with the 

objectives of the BCA. Wildlife habitat 

objectives will be included in vegetation 

management planning and determined at the 

project level. 

Table 53. Implementation Actions 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Management No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

Evaluate road system to determine access needs, pursue 

easements to ensure access, evaluate BCA for developing 

additional motorized access during hunting season, manage 

for projects to maintain and improve big game habitat, 

manage for projects to restore riparian and stream functions, 

manage to conserve unfragmented habitat and hunting and 

fishing opportunities. 

Administration No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

continue existing partnership with MFWP to support hunting 

opportunities, manage issues with public safety and user 

conflicts 

Monitoring No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

supported by BLM field staff, in conjunction with collaborating 

partnerships and agencies. 

Camping 

Restrictions 

No similar 

action 

No similar 

action 

overnight use, limits set by supplemental rules of the 

Montana/Dakotas State Office, Western District or local office 

L-38 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix M: Socioeconomic Report 

Table of Contents 

Appendix M: Socioeconomic Report ............................................................................................... i 

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 1 

Socioeconomic Analysis and Assumptions ................................................................................ 1 

Indicators................................................................................................................................. 1 

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2 

Study Area............................................................................................................................... 4 

Additional Assumptions for Economic Impact Analysis ........................................................ 4 

Affected Environment................................................................................................................. 7 

Social and Cultural Conditions................................................................................................ 7 

Social Trends, Attitudes and Values...................................................................................... 11 

Economic Conditions................................................................................................................ 14 

Employment & Income ......................................................................................................... 14 

Government revenues............................................................................................................ 20 

Missoula BLM Employment and Income Contributions by Program Area .......................... 20 

Non-market Values and Ecosystem Services............................................................................ 21 

Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................... 22 

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 25 

Summary of Effects............................................................................................................... 25 

Social Consequences ............................................................................................................. 26 

Economic Effects Common to All Alternatives........................................................................ 26 

Social Effects Common to All Alternatives.............................................................................. 27 

Environmental Justice Effects Common to All Alternatives .................................................... 27 

Alternative A: No Action.......................................................................................................... 28 

Economic Impacts ................................................................................................................. 28 

Social Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 29 

Alternative B: Proposed Alternative ......................................................................................... 30 

Economic Effects................................................................................................................... 30 

Social Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 31 

Alternative C............................................................................................................................. 34 

Economic Effects................................................................................................................... 34 

Social Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 35 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives ...................................................................................... 36 

References................................................................................................................................. 38 

Appendix 1: 260 (of 536) sectors present in the four-county economic study area ...................... 40 

Appendix 2: Employment, jobs contributed by program by alternative, average annual ............. 51 

Appendix 3: Labor Income, by program, by alternative, average annual (thousands of 2016 

dollars)........................................................................................................................................... 52 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Land in Farms 2012 ....................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 2. Percent of Total Employment by Industry Sector for the Aggregated Nine-County 

Missoula BLM Planning Area in 2015.................................................................................. 15 

Figure 3. Unemployment rate (%) for 2016 in Missoula BLM Planning Area............................. 16 

M-i 
Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 4. Percent of Labor Earnings by Industry Sector for the Aggregated Nine-County Missoula 

BLM Planning Area in 2015 ................................................................................................. 17 

Figure 5.Timber Harvest Volume in Missoula BLM Planning Area ............................................ 19 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Value typologies................................................................................................................ 2 

Table 2. Livestock grazing, average annual, by alternative ............................................................ 5 

Table 3. Annual Recreation Visits................................................................................................... 5 

Table 4. Spending Profiles by trip segment type, dollars per party per trip.................................... 5 

Table 5. Estimated Annual Forest Product Volumes, by Alternative.............................................. 6 

Table 6. Missoula BLM planning area population estimates .......................................................... 9 

Table 7. Wildland-Urban interface, 2010...................................................................................... 11 

Table 8. 2016 PILT payments and acres ....................................................................................... 20 

Table 9. Current Contribution of the Missoula BLM, by Program Area, 2016 ............................ 20 

Table 10. Employment and labor income contributions, by major industry, average annual ....... 21 

Table 11. Environmental Justice Demographics, 2015 Estimates (percent of population)........... 24 

Table 12. Employment by Program Area, by Alternative, Average Annual................................. 25 

Table 13. Labor Income by Program Area, by Alternative, Average Annual............................... 26 

Table 14. Livestock grazing indicators, by alternative.................................................................. 31 

Table 15. Recreation indicators, by alternative ............................................................................. 32 

Table 16. Access indicators, by alternative ................................................................................... 32 

Table 17. Forest restoration and timber indicators, by alternative ................................................ 33 

Table 18. Selected Administrative Designations........................................................................... 34 

M-ii 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Introduction 

Certain defining features of every area influence and shape the nature of local economic and social 

activity. Among these are the local populations, the presence of or proximity to large cities or 

regional population centers, types of longstanding industries such as agriculture, predominant land 

and water features, and unique area amenities. The Missoula Field Office (Missoula BLM) operates 

as a steward of many of these area resources and opportunities and thus plays a role in the 

community. This discussion gives further insight on the character and extent of these community 

connections. 

The Resource Management Plan for the Missoula BLM has the potential to affect a wide range of 

constituents throughout and beyond the planning area. This includes anyone with connections to the 

BLM-administered lands, which contribute to peoples’ social and economic values. Some of the 

prominent interests and ways people are connected to the BLM-administered land in the planning 

area are livestock grazing, forest products, recreation, and minerals. These interests often provide 

jobs, income and contribute to the quality of life for residents and those benefiting from the use of 

the land. Many of these uses have been taking place for generations and also connect people to their 

past. These social and economic values will be discussed throughout the sections below. 

The social and economic analysis area is based upon the Missoula BLM planning area which 

includes the following nine counties in the western portion of Montana: Flathead, Granite, Lake, 

Lincoln, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders counties. Missoula is the largest town in 

the planning area, but the remainder of the planning area maintains a rural character. Within and 

across these nine counties there is diversity in population, economies, culture and lifestyle, amount 

of BLM surface lands, and the amount of BLM subsurface federal mineral acreage. Given this, the 

social and economic conditions report provides a general and broad overview of the planning area. 

Additionally, this report describes the methodology and data used to assess the socioeconomic 

impacts of public land management decisions on communities surrounding federal lands. 

Socioeconomic Analysis and Assumptions 

Indicators 

Social and economic characteristics of the planning area are described by the following indicators. 

Many of these indicators will then be used to explain the effects of the alternative management 

scenarios. For example, estimates of job and income contributions to the local economy by 

alternative are one way to understand socioeconomic impacts of different management alternatives 

on the local economies surrounding the Missoula BLM. 

• Land ownership 

• Land in farms, key crops 

• Rural classification 

• Population 

• Migration 

• Age/gender 

• Unemployment 

• Employment by sector 

M-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

• Labor income by sector 

• BLM related revenues 

• Environmental justice populations 

• Non-market values from protected natural and cultural resources 

In most cases, the social effects are described in terms of effects to quality of life and values 

towards natural resources which can be caused by changes in resource availability and use. These 

effects could include changes in the amount and quality of available resources, such as recreation 

opportunities or the protection of sensitive biological species. Other beliefs or values that could 

impact quality of life would include an individual’s sense decisions that affected the future 

preservation and management of public resources and a feeling that the government strived to act in 

ways that considered all present and future stakeholders’ needs. 

Methodology 

Social impacts are described by a list of potentially affected stakeholder groups presented in the 

Affected Environment section and considers the concerns of these groups and potential effects to 

these groups. Describing the planning area quality of life includes understanding the views and 

values held by individuals or groups that are affected by or interested in natural resource issues 

(stakeholders). Stakeholders base their views towards BLM resources, resource uses, and 

management actions on the values they hold. Oftentimes these values are put forth as an 

individual’s or group’s focus of interest, the basis for the agenda they bring forth, and/or determines 

what an individual or group finds valuable in contributing to their quality of life. 

There is considerable complexity involved in fully understanding the views and values of 

stakeholders. This is, in part, due to the fact that individuals and groups can hold multiple values, 

and at times those values could be in conflict with each other and it is up to that individual or group 

to prioritize those values in order to address the issue at hand. One way to understand possible 

views and values towards BLM resources, resource uses, and management actions is to identify a 

range of values that can be held by an individual or group. There are several ways one can discuss 

the range of possible value typologies, including work done by Brown and Reed (2000). Brown and 

Reed (2000) developed a list of thirteen value typologies as a way to understand stakeholder values 

toward natural resources. The adaptation of Brown and Reed’s list presented below highlights the 

variety of values a person may hold towards BLM resources, resource uses, and management Table 

1. 

Table 1. Value typologies 

Typology Value toward natural resources 

Aesthetic I value the BLM resources and uses because I enjoy the forest scenery, sights, 

sounds, smells, etc. 

Biological diversity I value the BLM resources because it provides a variety of fish, wildlife, plant life, etc. 

Life-sustaining I value BLM resources because they help produce, preserve, clean and renew air, soil, 

and water. 

Recreation I value BLM resources and resource uses because it provides a place for outdoor 

recreation activities. 

Moral/ethical I value BLM resources in and of themselves for their existence, no matter what I or 

others think about those resources. 

Historical/cultural I value BLM resources and resource uses because they have places and things of 

natural and human history that matter to me, others or the Nation and/or I value BLM 

M-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Typology Value toward natural resources 

resources and resource uses because it is a place for me to continue and pass down 

the wisdom and knowledge, traditions, and way of life of my ancestors. 

Therapeutic I value BLM resources and resource uses because it makes me feel physically and/or 

mentally better. 

Scientific/learning I value BLM resources because we can learn about the environment through scientific 

observation or experimentation. 

Spiritual I value BLM resources because they provide a sacred, religious, or spiritually special 

place to me or because I feel reverence and respect for nature there. 

Economic I value BLM resources and resource uses because they provide timber, fisheries, 

minerals, grazing, or tourism opportunities that provide economic contributions. 

Subsistence I value BLM resources because they provide necessary food and supplies to sustain 

my life. 

Future I value BLM resources because they allow future generations to know and experience 

these resources. 

While the above list of value typologies is not exhaustive, it does provide a glimpse at the variety of 

values individuals or groups may hold towards BLM resources and resource uses. All of these are 

valid values and many of us hold several to all of them. Conflicts surrounding BLM resources, 

resource uses, and management often stem from how individuals/groups prioritize their values— 

one may prioritize his/her value of recreational opportunities over his/her historical value of an 

area. Additionally, these are broad and somewhat simplistic value typologies and there can be 

conflicts within a value typology such as conflict between people’s values of different recreational 

opportunities. What people value and how they prioritize their values helps to determine their 

quality of life and if the values they prioritize exist in the surrounding area. 

Social effects are based on the interaction of the identified values (Table 1) with estimated changes 

to resource availability and uses. Indicators, such as acres, have been identified to help guide the 

assessment of values. The analysis is primarily qualitative. However, quantitative measures, such as 

acres available for recreation and AUMs are referenced, as appropriate. 

Economic impact analysis estimates the role of BLM resources, uses, and management activities 

on employment and income in the communities that surround the Missoula BLM. 

Economic contribution to counties local to the Missoula BLM was estimated with input-output 

analysis using the IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANning) modeling system (MIG 2016). The 

modeling system allows the user to build regional economic models of one or more counties for a 

particular year and estimates the economic consequences of activities, projects, and policies on a 

region. IMPLAN uses BLM data on expenditures and resource uses to estimate the economic 

consequences of Missoula BLM management. Quantitative inputs (e.g., animal unit months, 

recreation visits, and Department of Interior payments to counties) were obtained from Missoula 

BLM program areas for these analyses. The model for these analyses used 2016 IMPLAN data, 

which is the latest available dataset. The 2016 IMPLAN data provides a regional economic model 

based upon the local economy in the year 2016. 

Input-output analysis represents linkages between sectors in an economy. IMPLAN not only 

examines the direct contributions from the Missoula BLM but also indirect and induced effects. 

Indirect employment and labor income effects occur when a sector purchases supplies and services 

from other industries in order to produce their product. Induced effects are the employment and 

labor income generated as a result of spending new household income generated by direct and 

M-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

indirect employment. For example, visitors to BLM managed land spend money on accommodation 

and food. Accommodation and food service businesses buy supplies from other businesses in the 

local area. The employees of these firms spend their earnings on a variety of goods and services. 

These transactions result in direct, indirect, and induced effects, respectively, in the regional 

economy. 

Potential economic impacts are assessed using the Forest Economic Analysis Spreadsheet Tool 

(USFS 2018) developed by the U.S. Forest Service Inventory and Monitoring Institute in Fort 

Collins, Colorado. This tool uses a Microsoft Excel workbook as an interface between user inputs 

and data generated using the IMPLAN input-output modeling system (MIG 2016). 

The FEAST analysis assesses the economic impacts of the resource outputs projected under each 

alternative. Resource outputs in this context are the amount of a resource (forest products, AUMs, 

recreation visits, etc.) that would be available for use under each alternative. 

Regional economic impacts are estimated based on the assumption of full implementation of each 

alternative. The actual changes in the economy would depend on individuals taking advantage of 

the resource-related opportunities that would be supported by each alternative. If market conditions 

or trends in resource use were not conducive to developing some opportunities, the economic 

impact would be different from the estimates in this analysis. 

Study Area 

The Missoula BLM planning area encompasses approximately 162,376 acres of BLM-managed 

surface land. Over 99 percent of these surface acres are located in Granite, Missoula and Powell 

counties. In the Affected Environment Section social and economic characteristics of all nine 

counties within the Missoula BLM planning area are discussed. Additionally, within the Affected 

Environment Section and for the economic impact analysis section of the Environmental 

Consequences Section, a more focused economic study area is used that examines BLM-specific 

contributions to the more localized area in which BLM-related activities occur. This more focused 

study area includes Granite, Missoula, and Powell counties as mentioned above as well as Mineral 

County, Montana as this county contains the third of three large capacity sawmills with a hauling 

distance of less than 100 miles of these BLM-managed lands. The study area for the social impacts 

analysis corresponds to the nine-county planning area. 

Additional Assumptions for Economic Impact Analysis 

Resource specialists projected annual resource outputs based on the best available information and 

professional judgment. The purpose of the social and economic analysis is to compare the relative 

impacts of the alternatives. 

Grazing 

Table 2 provides the estimated AUMs available, by alternative. These are used to estimate the 

economic impact of the livestock-related activities occurring on BLM-managed lands. There are not 

currently any sheep or goat allotments. For the purposes of this analysis, this is assumed to continue 

for the duration of the planning period. Grazing revenues received by BLM and contributions of 

public land grazing in terms of AUMs were calculated using the public land grazing fee for 2016 of 

$2.11 per AUM and the 2016 Montana statewide average grazing fee on private land of $24.00 per 

AUM (NASS 2018). 

M-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 2. Livestock grazing, average annual, by alternative 

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

Cattle and horses (AUMs) 6,292 6,660 6,014 

Sheep and goats (AUMs) 0 0 0 

Total AUMs 6,292 6,660 6,014 

Recreation 

Total annual recreation visits obtained from the Recreation Management Information System (BLM 

2018) suggest more than 222,000 recreational visits annually to BLM administered lands within the 

Missoula BLM (Table 3). Recreation visits are distributed among use types according to the 

patterns observed on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The recreation staff determined 

that use on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest most closely resembled recreational uses on 

BLM-administered public lands within the Missoula BLM. The distribution of visitor type (i.e., 

local or non-local visitor) and use type (e.g., was the visit wildlife-related?) are used to estimate 

visitor spending (Table 4). Average visitor expenditures by type were obtained from the Forest 

Service’s National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM) program (White 2017). 

Table 3. Annual Recreation Visits 

Non-local 

segments 

Local 

segments Total 

Annual 

Visits Day Overnight

on BLM 

Overnight

off BLM 

Day Overnight

on BLM 

Overnight

off BLM 

Non-wildlife related 46,211 20,870 5,963 64,100 10,435 1,491 149,069 

Wildlife Related 16,968 5,164 9,591 36,149 4,426 1,475 73,773 

Share of Total Visits 28% 12% 7% 45% 7% 1% 222,842 

Table 4. Spending Profiles by trip segment type, dollars per party per trip 

Segment 

Non-local 

segments 

Local 

segments 

Spending Profiles Day Overnight

on BLM 

Overnight

off BLM 

Day Overnight

on BLM 

Overnight

off BLM 

Non-wildlife related $56.36 $171.70 $330.35 $35.40 $162.39 $203.02 

Wildlife Related $76.73 $300.93 $566.17 $45.34 $220.28 $208.70 

Source: White, 2017 

This analysis conducted for the revised Missoula BLM RMP examining the economic significance 

of outdoor recreation on planning area lands to the local economy includes the effects of spending 

by all visitors, both those who reside in the planning area and those who do not. The analysis shows 

the size and nature of economic activity associated with these recreational experiences to show the 

importance of recreation related economic activity is to the local economy. 

Minerals 

Locatable minerals, including gold, silver and copper are removed from the BLM-administered 

lands within the Missoula BLM. Most of the active mining claims are prospecting, and therefore, 

quantities of mineral removal are not reported to any government entities. Therefore the quantities 

M-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

removed are not reflected in the economic impact analysis and changes are not estimated for action 

alternatives. 

Timber 

Table 5 provides the estimated annual forest product volumes available, by alternative. These 

volumes are used to estimate the economic impact of timber-related activities on the Missoula 

BLM. This table will be referenced in alternative-specific descriptions of the economic 

consequences of forest product removal. 

Table 5. Estimated Annual Forest Product Volumes, by Alternative 

Forest Product Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative 

C 

Harvest-Softwood Sawtimber (CCF) 6,628 8,150 6,520 

Harvest-Softwood Pulp (CCF) 220.7 400 325 

Poles and Posts (CCF) 0.88 0.88 0.88 

Fuelwood (CCF) 227 227 227 

All Other Products - Christmas Trees (count)a 191 200 200 

a Christmas trees are not included in the economic impact analysis. 

Source: Missoula BLM Silviculture Staff 

BLM Operations 

The Missoula BLM’s annual budget (including expenditures and salaries) was approximately $4.2 

million in fiscal year 2017. Approximately two-thirds of the budget was spent on salaries in fiscal 

year 2017. The remaining third was spent on equipment and other non-salary expenditures that 

contribute to land management. The Missoula BLM’s operational expenditures contribute to 

economic activity in the communities that surround the lands. BLM employees live in these 

communities and spend their income on housing, food, and a variety of other local goods and 

services. The BLM’s non-salary expenditures generate economic activity in businesses that supply 

goods and services to support BLM programs. These non-salary–related expenditures, such as 

trailhead construction and range improvements, made by the Missoula BLM are assumed to be 

distributed among economic sectors in the same manner as the non-salary expenditures on 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests. 

Payments to Counties 

Public lands are not subject to property taxes. Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) have been paid to 

counties with public lands since 1976 to offset the decreased local tax base. PILT is meant to 

compensate counties that provide services used by federal agencies and public land users (such as 

road maintenance and law enforcement). These funds are put towards the county government 

general fund. PILT payments to Granite, Missoula and Powell counties included in the affected 

environment section and included in the economic impact analysis. 

Nonmarket Values 

Some of the value of land management is not captured in market transactions. Non-market goods 

and services, such as clean air and scenic vistas, have economic values. However, the monetary 

values of such goods and services are generally unknown. As a result, it is difficult to analyze 

potential tradeoffs between market and non-market values. In general, management actions that 

promote forest and range health will increase non-market values. Non-market values, including 

M-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

natural amenities, non-use values, and ecosystem services, are assessed in qualitative and noneconomic quantitative terms, as appropriate. This discussion is largely reflected in the social impact 

analysis. 

Affected Environment 

Social and Cultural Conditions 

This section discusses the social and cultural conditions in the planning area, which includes nine 

counties in western Montana. By explaining the social and cultural conditions in the planning area, 

people may better understand how those existing conditions could be affected by the Resource 

Management Plan alternatives. 

Land ownership 

Land ownership and composition can shed light on the attitudes people have for land management. 

As discussed in Section 1.1 of the RMP EIS, the Missoula BLM planning area encompasses 

approximately 162,376 acres of BLM-administered surface land. Over 99 percent of these surface 

acres are located in Granite, Missoula and Powell counties. The majority of the federal lands in the 

planning are managed by the U.S. Forest Service. Glacier National Park is also located in Flathead 

County, which attracts visitors and residents to the area for the natural amenities. The recreational 

opportunities, aesthetic values, and general quality of life derived from these federal lands 

contribute to social and economic conditions in the planning area, which will be discussed more 

below. 

Existing economic conditions are necessary to establish the baseline from which to estimate 

potential consequences of BLM management actions. The proceeding section analyzes the current 

economic contributions to the regional economy area related to the management of the Missoula 

BLM lands. 

The checkerboard land ownership pattern creates challenges and concerns for both the BLM and 

private landowners. A few examples of such issues are described below. The BLM tries to work 

with private landowners whenever such issues arise, but concerns for both parties may remain. 

• Widely dispersed parcels of public land are less efficient for the BLM to manage in terms of 

staff time and expenses, contractor expenses, etc. 

• The BLM requires clearance surveys of proposed development areas on public land to ensure 

sensitive species, cultural and historic sites, or other valuable resources are not affected. In 

some cases, private landowners do not like to provide access through their lands for these 

surveys. 

• Concerns may arise regarding access across public lands to private lands and trespass from 

public lands to private lands. 

• Land management objectives of the BLM and private landowners may differ in ways that 

create operational conflicts. The BLM land management objectives are directed by FLPMA, 

as amended. This is the BLM’s “organic act” that establishes the agency’s multiple-use 

mandate to serve present and future generations. It directs the BLM to manage for multiple 

uses, not just certain groups or individuals. With proper Consultation, Cooperation, and 

Coordination (CCC), the BLM and the public can achieve a healthy balance to prevent many 

operational conflicts. 

M-7 
Bureau of Land Management 

Rural character 

Missoula is the largest town in the planning area, but the remainder of the planning area maintains a 

rural character. Rural communities often depend on natural resource-related industries and could be 

affected by BLM planning efforts. Eight of the nine counties in the planning area are considered 

non-metro (rural). The only exception is Missoula County, which is considered metro (urban) 

(USDA ERS 2015).1 

Population and Demographics 

Population and demographic changes are instrumental to understanding a community, since they 

may drive many of the other community changes that can occur to such things as housing, 

community infrastructure, education and emergency services. Population changes due to in- or outmigration can affect local community ties and social relationships. A federal management action 

that may increase local communities’ populations or change demographics can have impacts that 

ripple throughout the social and economic contexts. For example, an action that can bring in a large 

workforce can have immediate impacts upon the housing availability, school enrollment, 

employment changes and income; and the magnitude of these impacts are often dependent upon 

current community capacity and infrastructure. Understanding the past and current trends occurring 

in a community provides a baseline for the impact analysis of the Missoula BLM RMP alternatives. 

The Missoula BLM planning area has seen an increasing trend overall in population in the past 

decade (see Table 6). In 2015, the Missoula BLM planning area had an estimated population of 

324,506 residents, which is 17 percent higher than the 276,875 residents estimated in 2000 (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2011, U.S. Census Bureau 2018). There is considerable diversity in population 

numbers of the specific counties as data indicates (Table 6). Over 77 percent of the population 

resided in Flathead, Missoula, and Ravalli counties in 2015 with the most residents located in 

Missoula County. Flathead and Missoula counties have seen a greater percent increase in population 

from 2000 to 2015 than the State of Montana as a whole (28.0%, 18.3%, 13.8%, respectively). The 

three least populated counties in 2015 in the Missoula BLM planning area were Granite, Mineral 

and Powell counties which had 3,164 residents, 4,184 residents, and 6,793 residents, respectively 

(U.S. Census Bureau 2018). Whereas Granite and Mineral counties had increases in population 

since 2000 (11.1 % and 7.9 %, respectively), Powell County was the only county in the Missoula 

BLM planning area to experience population decline (5.7%) from 2000 to 2015. Also contributing 

to the Missoula BLM planning area population are residents in Lake, Lincoln, and Sanders counties 

which had 2015 populations of 29,416 residents, 19,014 residents, and 11,286 residents, 

respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). 

1 Metro areas include all counties containing one or more urbanized areas: high-density urban areas containing 

50,000 people or more; metro areas also include outlying counties that are economically tied to the central counties, as 

measured by the share of workers commuting on a daily basis to the central counties. Nonmetro counties are outside the 

boundaries of metro areas and have no cities with 50,000 residents or more. 

M-8 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 6. Missoula BLM planning area population estimates 

20001 20051 20102 20152 % Change

2000-2015 

Median Age,

20003 

Median Age,

20152 

% Male, 

20152 

% Female, 

20152 

Montana 903,773 940,102 990,507 1,028,317 13.78% 37.5 39.7 50.3% 49.7% 

Flathead County 74,774 83,320 90,853 95,738 28.04% 39 42.3 49.8% 50.2% 

Granite County 2,849 3,009 3,080 3,164 11.06% 42.8 53.9 50.6% 49.4% 

Lake County 26,588 28,023 28,786 29,416 10.64% 38.2 42.4 49.5% 50.5% 

Lincoln County 18,818 19,180 19,696 19,014 1.04% 42.1 52.4 50.6% 49.4% 

Mineral County 3,877 4,133 4,223 4,184 7.92% 41.1 52.2 51.3% 48.7% 

Missoula County 96,178 102,298 109,432 113,780 18.30% 33.2 35.4 50.3% 49.7% 

Powell County 7,203 6,997 7,012 6,793 -5.69% 39.7 45.6 61.6% 38.4% 

Ravalli County 36,301 39,012 40,313 41,131 13.31% 41.1 48.6 49.6% 50.4% 

Sanders County 10,287 11,002 11,394 11,286 9.71% 44.2 53.2 51.2% 48.8% 

Source: 

1

U.S. Census Bureau 2011. 

2

U.S. Census Bureau 2018. 

3

U.S. Census Bureau 2000. 

M-9 
Bureau of Land Management 

Components of Population Change 

Fluctuations in population can occur due to in- or out-migration and/or natural increases (births) or 

decreases (deaths). Based upon cumulative estimates of components of population change during 

the time period of 2010 to 2016, in-migration of residents was the driving force behind the 

population increases in Granite, Ravalli, and Sanders counties (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). Both 

natural increase and in-migration influenced the population increases in Flathead, Lake, and 

Missoula counties during the time period of 2010 to 2016. 

Lincoln, Mineral, and Powell counties saw a decrease in population occur during the time period of 

2010 to 2016 which was driven by natural decreases (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). The largest net 

migrations were seen in Flathead and Missoula counties, both of which had net in-migrations of 

over 4,100 residents during the time period of 2010 to 2016 (U.S. Census Bureau 2017). These two 

counties also had the largest natural increases in the planning area during that same time period. 

Overall, from the time period of 2010 to 2016, the nine counties in the planning area have had 

different trends occur in population numbers as well as in what has driven those population 

changes. Population increases in Flathead, Missoula, and Ravalli counties have been, in part, driven 

by the natural amenities and services such as outdoor recreational opportunities, scenic views, clean 

air and wildlife. These types of non-market values are discussed further below. Changes in local 

economies can also influence population numbers in several ways including by attracting new 

residents with employment opportunities or by causing out-migration by residents looking for 

higher income employment. The current economic landscape is discussed further below. 

Some of the population increases could be due to an increase in seasonal residents, which affects 

the social character of the planning area. People that live in the area part-time might have different 

values for the land than those that live there year-round and rely on their community for lifesustaining resources and recreation. 

Age/Gender 

The age structure of the population is also relevant to land management decisions, as people of 

different ages tend to use federal lands in different ways. The median age of residents in the ninecounty Missoula BLM planning area has risen since 2000. Relative to the median age of 37.5 years 

for the State of Montana in 2000, only Missoula County had a lower median age (33.2 years). The 

median ages of the other eight planning area counties in 2000 ranged from 38.2 years (Lake 

County) to 44.2 years (Sanders County) (Table 6). Of the planning area counties, only Missoula, 

Lake, Flathead, and Powell counties had median ages younger than 40 years in 2000. The median 

age for the State of Montana in 2015 was 39.7 years, an increase of 2.2 years over the 2000 median 

age. Within the planning area, in 2015, Missoula County had the lowest median age, 35.4 years; the 

only planning area county to have a lower median age than the State of Montana as a whole. 

Additionally, Missoula County is the only planning area county that had a median age lower than 

40 years in 2015. The median age for Flathead, Lake, Powell and Ravalli counties ranged from 42.3 

years to 48.6 years in 2015 and the remaining four planning area counties had median ages over 50 

years (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). 

In 2015, eight of the nine planning area counties generally had an equal percent of males and 

females (Table 6). Within the planning area counties, the greatest disparity in gender occurred in 

Powell County where 61.6% of the population in 2015 was male (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). This 

M-10 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

disparity in Powell County is largely due to The Montana State Prison, which houses close to 1,500 

male inmates (MT Dept of Corrections 2015). 

Wildland-Urban Interface 

The cost of fighting wildfires increased over the past decade. A principal reason for the increasing 

cost is the growing number of homes located in the wildland-urban interface (WUI). Suppression 

activities are frequently undertaken when wildfire threatens private property. A century of fire 

suppression has led to increased frequency of high-intensity wildfire. The spread of the WUI has 

increased the probability that wildfires will occur near private residences. These two factors – the 

growth of the WUI and the use of suppression tactics – increase the cost of wildfire. Table 7 

presents the extent of the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in the study area counties and the western 

United States. 

Table 7. Wildland-Urban interface, 2010 

WUI 

Area 

with 

Homes 

WUI Homes 

as percent of 

Total Homes 

West-Wide 

Rank by 

Existing Risk 

Flathead County 27% 24% 10 of 414 

Granite County 6% 43% 121 of 414 

Lake County 12% 18% 77 of 414 

Lincoln County 15% 51% 14 of 414 

Mineral County 11% 74% 79 of 414 

Missoula County 8% 14% 45 of 414 

Powell County 1% 3% 213 of 414 

Ravalli County 18% 11% 80 of 414 

Sanders County 7% 34% 62 of 414 

Planning Area 12% 22% na 

West 16% 7% na 

Sources: Headwaters Economics 2018 

All counties, except Powell County have a greater share of homes in the WUI area than the western 

US average. Greater than fifty percent of homes in Lincoln County, nearly seventy-five percent of 

homes in Mineral County, and approximately forty percent of homes in Granite County are located 

within the WUI. These factors make it more likely that many counties within the planning area will 

experience large, expensive wildfires. 

Social Trends, Attitudes and Values 

This section focuses on social trends and attitudes that affect BLM land management. This 

information is important to decision makers because the trends and attitudes can affect relationships 

between the agency and its constituents, the ability to successfully implement plans, and the 

potential impacts to communities (both communities in the geographical sense and communities of 

interest). 

The major trends affecting BLM’s land management of the Missoula BLM area are described 

below. 

M-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

• The increasing popularity of BLM-administered land for recreation. A comprehensive report 

on recreation by Cordell et al. (1999) indicate that demand in the Rocky Mountain West for 

recreation activities will increase substantially by the year 2020, with non-consumptive 

wildlife activities, sightseeing, and visiting historic places increasing the most. 

• Differing views on how BLM resources and resource uses contribute to people’s quality of 

life. Conflicts surrounding BLM resources, resource uses, and management often stem from 

how individuals/groups prioritize their values—one may prioritize his/her value of 

recreational opportunities over another person’s aesthetic value of an area. As more people 

appreciate BLM resources and engage in resource uses, there is the likelihood of increased 

conflict due to people wanting different opportunities associated with BLM resources. 

• Aging population is another trend occurring in the nation and Montana. The percentage of 

people 65 or older is actually increasing more rapidly in states like Montana because young 

people are more likely to leave for advanced education, military service, and employment 

opportunities unavailable locally. 

A key aspect of the social effects analysis approach is to address impacts based on the varying 

points of view of key type of stakeholders. These categories reflect different linkages people have 

to public lands. The point of categorization is to allow differentiation of social impacts based on 

broad differences in view. This section discusses several groupings of stakeholders. It should be 

noted that these groupings generalize individuals’ actual beliefs and values. For instance, some 

ranchers engage in recreation and are particularly concerned about resource protection. 

Recreationists may engage in both motorized and non-motorized activities. Some individuals are 

concerned with resource development and resource protection. There is a lot of subjectivity in how 

a person will be affected by BLM management actions. 

Quality of life is often associated with communities, community infrastructure, relationships among 

residents, educational opportunities, and the like. Additionally, quality of life can be associated with 

the amount and quality of available resources such as recreation opportunities and resolution of 

problems related to resource activities. Other, less tangible beliefs that could affect social wellbeing include individuals having a sense of control over the decisions that affect their future, and 

feeling that the government strives to act in ways that consider all stakeholders’ needs. 

Different types of stakeholders have distinct sets of attitudes, beliefs, values, opinions, and 

perceptions about public resources and the effects of various management policies and actions. 

These views reflect different cultural as well as economic linkages people have to public lands. 

Interests in Livestock Grazing 

The amount of land in farms contributes to the rural character of the planning area, as well as 

illustrates the importance of farming operations. BLM manages land for livestock grazing, which 

can contribute to local ranch operations. In 2012, the land in farms was greatest in Lake (58%) and 

Powell (40%), and Granite (26%) counties (see Figure 1). However, the counties in the planning 

area all have less land in farms than Montana on average (NASS 2012). However, livestock grazing 

continues to be a way of life for many planning area residents and has been for generations. 

M-12 
70 64.2 

60 

so 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

~o -~e, 

;s--e, ~ 

~"~ 0'~ 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Figure 1. Land in Farms 2012 

Source: NASS 2012 

Scoping comments revealed that while many commenters acknowledged the economic 

opportunities that livestock grazing on BLM-managed land gives local communities, some 

commenters felt that the economic and social values the BLM assigns to this use is given 

disproportionate value in much of its analysis. They requested the BLM provide a more thorough 

analysis and disclosure of how conflicts between livestock and other uses effect the true value of 

grazing on public land. Furthermore, they requested the BLM consider not only the costs of 

administering livestock grazing, but the potential opportunities for recreation that could be created 

where livestock grazing is reduced or eliminated, and the cost of negative environmental 

consequences. Some commenters suggested that livestock grazing on grazing leases provides many 

benefits, including: economic opportunities for small family ranching operations and communities; 

improved wildlife habitat from lease improvement like stock watering points, and the re-growth of 

grazed forage; and reducing wildfire threat and severity. 

Interests in Recreation 

Recreation and tourism can influence the social nature of the area. Visitors to BLM-managed lands 

include those from local communities, and from outside the State of Montana, including 

international visitors. Residents of local communities have relied on public lands as a place to hunt, 

fish, float, camp, snowmobile, and enjoy the natural and cultural resources including Garnet Ghost 

Town, Coloma and the Blackfoot River. Visitors from outside Montana visit destination areas such 

as Garnet Ghost Town and the Blackfoot River. Other key areas for recreation use are Blackfoot 

Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA) Block Management, and Garnet National Winter 

Trail/Back Country Byway and associated snowmobile trails. 

Interests in Access 

According to scoping comments, some individuals want to reduce access and protect wildlife and 

forest vegetation by not building any new roads. Some commenters wanted to see as many gates 

and roads stay open as possible. Some particularly pointed out that as their age increases; it is 

harder to access areas without motorized vehicles. Some individuals want to see non-motorized 

M-13 
Bureau of Land Management 

areas expanded, additionally, some pointed out that hunters can still hunt in non-motorized access 

areas. 

The BLM received many scoping comments from individuals who have used public lands for years, 

but may be of an age and physical ability which makes accessing areas without motorized or 

mechanical vehicles extremely difficult. These individuals advocated for a reasonable amount of 

motorized opportunities to access areas of the backcountry so they don’t feel excluded. One 

individual wanted the BLM to consider allowing the use of battery-assisted bicycles behind gates 

during big game hunting season. 

Many commenters saw a direct correlation between motorized use and quality fish and wildlife 

habitat. They feel that increased motorized use degrades wildlife habitat, in particular they were 

concerned about roads discharging sediment into bull trout occupied streams, open road densities 

related to grizzly bear habitat, and big game security. 

Interests in Forest Restoration and Timber 

People have differing values for vegetation management in the planning area. Scoping comments 

revealed that some people feel that logging helps reduce the occurrence of wildfires. Indeed, 

wildfire risk is relatively high for the counties in the planning area (Table 7). Therefore many 

different stakeholder groups are interested in various approaches to reduce the risk of wildfires and 

the associated personal and economic losses. Others want to see the BLM maintain aggressive 

thinning treatments to restore forest health. Many individuals expressed their desire to see active 

forest management, noting that many forests on BLM-managed lands have become decadent and of 

poor wildlife habitat due to the lack of active management. 

Communities that have historically relied on federal lands for timber value a consistent supply that 

will sustain their milling operations. Harvest levels were relatively constant through the mid-1990s, 

and represented a well-established timber program regulated to produce a steady supply of wood to 

the timber industry. With a shift in Missoula BLM planning and emphasis in the late 1990s to a 

watershed restoration-based approach to land management, timber production generally moved to a 

byproduct of forest health and restoration projects. This shift caused timber production to occur in 

pulses, as watersheds were analyzed and treated, with a lag between treatments to analyze the next 

watershed. 

Economic Conditions 

Employment & Income 

The regional economy that encompasses the aggregated nine-county Missoula BLM planning area 

is diverse and provided over 190,000 jobs in 2015 (BEA 2016a). Diverse economies are generally 

more stable and offer greater number of opportunities for employment. Highly specialized 

economies (i.e., those that depend on a few industries for the bulk of employment and income) tend 

to be more prone to cyclical fluctuations and support more limited job opportunities. Assessing 

employment by industrial sector helps identify industries that are important to the regional 

economy. Industry sectors are categorized by the North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) code and employment represents the number of jobs, both full and part-time jobs, by 

place of work. Figure 2 shows the estimated aggregated nine-county planning area employment in 

2015 for different industry sectors as a share of total employment. In 2015, the top three industry 

sectors providing employment in the planning area were government and government enterprises 

M-14 
Government 

Retail trade 

Health care and social assistance 

Accommodation and food setvices 

Construction 

Real estate and rental and leasing 

Professional and technical setvices 

Other se1vices, except public administration 

Administrative and waste setvices 

Manufacturing 

Finance and insurance 

Arts, ente1iainment, and recreation 

Fa1m 

Transportation and warehousing 

Wholesale trade 

Forestry, fishing, & ag. services -

Educational services -

Infotmation -

Mining (including fossil fuels) -

Management of companies and enterprises  

Utilities  

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

(12.8%), retail trade (11.9%), and health care and social assistance (11.7%). Industry sectors often 

associated with natural resources include mining, forestry, and farming. Within the Missoula BLM 

planning area the mining, forestry and farming industry sectors provided less than 6 percent of total 

employment (jobs) in 2015 (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Percent of Total Employment by Industry Sector for the Aggregated Nine-County Missoula 

BLM Planning Area in 2015 

Source: BEA 2016a 

Unemployment is another indicator of economic well-being and also has implications for the social 

character of an area. If unemployment is high, people may rely more heavily on public lands for 

subsistence uses and the jobs and income they provide. In 2016, the unemployment rate for the U.S. 

was 4.9% and Montana was 4.1%. Lincoln County had the highest unemployment rate (9%), 

followed by Sanders (7.8%) and Mineral (7.6%) counties (U.S. DOL 2016), as shown in Figure 3. 

M-15 
10.0 

9.0 

8.0 

7.0 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0 

2.0 

1.0 

0.0 

Unemployment rate 2016 (%) 

Flathead Granite Lake Lincoln Mineral Missoula Powell Ravalli Sande rs 

Bureau of Land Management 

Figure 3. Unemployment rate (%) for 2016 in Missoula BLM Planning Area 

Source: U.S. DOL, 2016 

Personal income is income received from all sources, including income received from participation 

in production, as well as from government and business transfer payments. Total personal income 

includes labor earnings (sum of wage and salary disbursements, supplements to wages and salaries, 

and proprietors’ income (BEA 2014)) and non-labor income, which includes rent, dividends, 

interest, and transfer payments such as Social Security. In 2015, the total personal income for the 

aggregated nine-county Missoula BLM planning area was $12.5 billion (Table 8). Labor earnings 

accounted for approximately 53 percent of this total personal income with non-labor income 

representing about 47 percent. The three industry sectors within the aggregated nine-county 

planning area with the highest shares of labor earnings in 2015 were government and government 

enterprises (19.3%), health care and social assistance (16.8%) and construction (8.6%) (Figure 4). 

Rent, dividends, and interest comprised about 25 percent of total personal income in the aggregated 

nine-county Missoula BLM planning area in 2015 while transfer payments contributed almost 22 

percent (Table 8). The amount of non-labor income contributing to overall total personal income 

differed across the individual counties of the Missoula BLM planning area. As discussed above, 

labor earnings contributed over 50 percent to the overall aggregated nine-county Missoula BLM 

planning area total personal income in 2015, whereas for the individual counties of Granite, Lake, 

Lincoln, Powell, Ravalli, and Sanders, over fifty percent of total personal income came from nonlabor income (53.6%, 55.6%, 58.1%, 50.2%, 52.0%, and 57.7% respectively) (Table 8). High 

percent of non-labor income can indicate a place is a desirable retirement destination especially if 

the non-labor income is greatly dependent upon investment (rent, dividends, and interest) and agerelated transfer payments such as Social Security and Medicare. However, high non-labor income 

can also indicate areas with poor economies and economic opportunities if non-labor income is 

greatly dependent upon income maintenance type of transfer payments such as Medicaid, 

Supplemental Security Income, and unemployment insurance. 

M-16 
Government 

Health care and social assistance 

Constmction 

Retai 1 trade 

Professional and technical services 

Accommodation and food services 

Manufactming 

Finance and insmance 

Administrative and ,vaste services 

Wholesale trade 

Other services, except public administration 

Transportation and warehousing 

Real estate and rental and leasing -

Arts, entertainment, and recreation -

Inf01mation -

Forestry, fishing, & ag. services -

Utilities • 

Educational services • 

Management of companies and enterprises  

Mining (including fossil fuels)  

Farm 

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Table 8. Percent of Total Personal Income by Components, 2015 

Total Personal 

Income 

(thousands 2015$) 

Labor 

Earnings Non-Labor Income 

Dividends, 

Interest, & Rent 

Transfer 

Payments 

Flathead County $3,885,742 55.9% 24.2% 19.9% 

Granite County $117,225 46.4% 29.9% 23.7% 

Lake County $956,298 44.4% 26.2% 29.4% 

Lincoln County $614,598 41.9% 22.6% 35.5% 

Mineral County $138,870 50.0% 16.4 % 33.6% 

Missoula County $4,658,921 57.6% 25.1% 17.3% 

Powell County $250,394 49.9% 27.9% 22.3% 

Ravalli County $1,547,893 48.0% 26.7% 25.3% 

Sanders County $365,677 42.3% 22.5% 35.2% 

Missoula BLM Planning 

Area Total 

$12,535,618 53.3% 24.9% 21.8% 

Source: BEA 2016b. 

Figure 4. Percent of Labor Earnings by Industry Sector for the Aggregated Nine-County Missoula BLM

Planning Area in 2015 

Source: BEA 2016b. 

M-17 
Bureau of Land Management 

Diverse economies are generally more stable and offer greater number of opportunities for 

employment. Highly specialized economies (i.e., those that depend on a few industries for the bulk 

of employment and income) tend to be more prone to cyclical fluctuations and support more limited 

job opportunities. Assessing employment by industrial sector helps identify industries that are 

important to the local economy and those that could be affected by alternative management actions. 

Employment specialization can be examined using the ratio of the percent employment in each 

industry in the region of interest (9-county planning area) to the percent of employment in that 

industry for a larger reference region (the State of Montana). For a given industry, when the percent 

employment in the analysis region is greater than in the reference region, local employment 

specialization exists in that industry (USDA Forest Service 1998). Figure 2 shows local 

employment in different industry sectors as a share of total employment (BEA 2016a). Applying 

this criterion to 2015 employment data for the Missoula BLM planning area reveals that the region 

can be characterized as being most specialized with respect to the government, retail trade, and 

health care and social assistance sectors. Similarly, the government, health care and social 

assistance, and construction sectors comprised the greatest shares of labor earnings within the 

planning area (Figure 4). Although employment and earnings in these sectors is obtainable through 

a number of employers, a portion of employment in these sectors can directly be attributed to the 

Missoula BLM. In addition to employing workers to administer and maintain these public lands, 

non-salary expenditures associated with administering individual resource programs supports 

employment opportunities in the goods and services sectors. While changes in public land 

management may affect total employment in these highly specialized sectors, relatively small 

changes in employment are unlikely to affect specialization in the local economy. 

Another measure of key industries in the area is how dependent the region is on jobs and income, as 

classified by the USDA Economic Research Service. In the planning area as of 2015, Flathead, 

Granite, Lake, and Mineral counties were classified as recreation dependent2

, whereas Lincoln, 

Missoula, and Powell counties were classified as federal/state government dependent3

. Ravalli and 

Sanders counties were classified as nonspecialized4 (USDA ERS 2015). While other sectors 

contribute to employment and earnings, this measure helps identify significant contributors to the 

local economies, community, and relative importance of public lands. 

Opportunities for outdoor recreation on BLM administered lands within the Missoula BLM help 

bolster the local tourism and recreation industry and support employment opportunities in industries 

providing goods and services to recreationists. While employment associated with outdoor 

recreation cannot be measured in a single sector, tourism and outdoor recreation spending has been 

shown to support employment in the Arts, Entertainment & Recreation, Wholesale & Retail, 

Accommodation & Food Services and Transportation sectors (Marcouiller and Xia 2008). 

More than three out of every four Americans participate in active outdoor recreation each year and 

more than 140 million Americans make outdoor recreation a priority in their daily lives (Outdoor 

2 Recreation counties were identified by calculating the percentage employed; the percentage of total earnings in 

entertainment, recreation, accommodations, eating and drinking places, and real estate; and the percentage of vacant 

housing units intended for seasonal of occasional use reported in the 2010 Census of Population. The three variables 

measuring employment, earnings, income, and seasonal housing were converted to a weighted index, and counties scoring 

at least two-thirds of a standard deviation above the mean were considered to be recreation counties. 

3 Federal and State government accounted for 14% or more of the county's earnings or 9% or more of the employment 

averaged over 2010-2012. 

4 The county was not a farming, mining, manufacturing, government-dependent, or recreation county. 

M-18 
Timber Harvest Volume (MBF) 

450000 

400000 

350000 

300000 

250000 

200000 

150000 

100000 

50000 

0 

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Industry Association 2012). Proximity to undeveloped lands and opportunities for outdoor 

recreation are often attributed with improving quality-of-life and contributing to the vitality of rural 

communities. Montana’s undeveloped lands support a wide range of high quality outdoor 

experiences enjoyed by both local residents and out-of-state visitors. Outdoor recreationists spend 

money on gear, vehicles, trips, and travel-related expenses which support jobs and income, and 

generate tax revenues in local communities. On annual average, Montana’s outdoor recreation and 

tourism industry is valued at more than $5.8 billion, supporting approximately 64,000 jobs and 

generating nearly $403 million in tax revenue (Outdoor Industry Association 2012). 

Economic activity stimulated by recreation and tourism opportunities are primarily reflected in the 

services and retail trade sectors. As discussed earlier, outdoor recreation and nature- based tourism 

supports a portion of employment in the Arts, Entertainment & Recreation, Wholesale & Retail, 

Accommodation & Food Services and Transportation sectors. Together, these industries account for 

23 percent of the jobs in the planning area (BEA 2016a). In addition to stimulating economic 

activity in the recreation and tourism industry, outdoor recreation has also been generating activity 

in Montana’s real estate industry. Individuals interested in recreational values often look for 

properties in proximity to public lands to increase their access to recreational opportunities. 

The timber harvest on all lands in the Missoula BLM planning area has been relatively steady since 

2009 with an average annual harvest volume of 266,554 MBF, as seen in Figure 5. The harvest 

volume for 2016 in the planning area was 234,157 MBF. In 2016, Lincoln County had the greatest 

timber harvest volume in the planning area, followed by Flathead County (65,283 and 62,377 MBF, 

respectively) (BBER 2016). In the planning area, the only counties with BLM timber harvest in FY 

2016 were Granite, Lincoln, and Powell counties (40, 659, and 285 MBF cut, respectively) out of a 

total 228,823 MBF cut on BLM-administered lands in all of Montana (BLM 2016). While timber 

harvest remains a part of the local economy, BLM timber harvest plays a very small role in the 

overall supply of timber (e.g., Lincoln County BLM harvest was about 1% of total harvest in the 

county in 2016). 

Figure 5.Timber Harvest Volume in Missoula BLM Planning Area 

Source: BBER 2016 

M-19 
Bureau of Land Management 

Government revenues 

Tax revenue and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) payments contribute to local economies and are 

often a result of federal land ownership. PILT payments to counties in the planning area are detailed 

in Table 9. Flathead and Ravalli counties received the greatest amount of PILT payments in 2016 

($2.5 million and $2.2 million, respectively) (DOI 2016). However, Granite, Missoula, and Powell 

counties are the only counties in the planning area with acres eligible for PILT payments from 

BLM-administered land. 

Table 8. 2016 PILT payments and acres 

PILT Payment 2016 Total PILT Acres BLM acres 

Flathead County $2,531,972 2,442,403 0 

Granite County $255,019 701,291 38,423 

Lake County $431,940 175,166 0 

Lincoln County $635,059 1,746,388 0 

Mineral County $233,513 642,150 0 

Missoula County $1,687,735 867,850 22,854 

Powell County $550,535 743,031 94,545 

Ravalli County $2,238,057 1,120,238 0 

Sanders County $333,584 917,344 0 

Source: DOI 2016 

Missoula BLM Employment and Income Contributions by Program

Area 

Table 10 displays the economic contribution of Missoula BLM activities by program area. 

Recreation and BLM expenditures contribute the most to employment in the regional economy, 

supporting 78 and 85 jobs, respectively, on an average annual basis. Comparing with the labor 

income data shows differences in income per job by program area. For example, timber provides 

approximately similar labor income compared to recreation, despite providing close to half of the 

employment. While each timber-related job provides approximately $63,000 in labor income, and 

recreation-related jobs provide $30,000 in labor income per job. These findings reveal that jobs 

supported by timber program pay well compared to jobs supported by recreation activities on the 

Missoula BLM. Recreation-related employment is more likely to be seasonal, which contributes to 

the lower earnings. 

Table 9. Current Contribution of the Missoula BLM, by Program Area, 2016 

Program Area Employment Labor Income 

(thousands of 2016 Dollars) 

Recreation 78 $2,340 

Grazing 11 $357 

Timber 44 $2,774 

Payments to Counties 4 $176 

BLM Expenditures 85 $4,386 

Total 222 $10,033 

Percent of Regional Economy 0.25% 0.27% 

Source: Author generated using IMPLAN 2016 

M-20 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Employment supported by activities on the Missoula BLM would account for less than 0.3 percent 

of area employment and labor income. The employment contribution by program area translates 

into employment in varying sectors of the local economy (Table 11). The sector with the most 

Missoula BLM-related employment is government due to BLM expenditures. Missoula BLMrelated employment is also higher in retail trade and accommodation and food services sectors. 

Both of these sectors are associated with the recreation-tourism economy, which is supported by the 

Missoula BLM and other public and private lands in the study area. 

Table 10. Employment and labor income contributions, by major industry, average annual 

Industry sector Total Number of Jobs 

Contributed 

Labor Income 

($1,000 2016 dollars) 

Agriculture 18 $638 

Mining 0 $4 

Utilities 0 $56 

Construction 2 $86 

Manufacturing 11 $625 

Wholesale Trade 8 $606 

Transportation & Warehousing 5 $378 

Retail Trade 30 $874 

Information 2 $150 

Finance & Insurance 4 $244 

Real Estate & Rental & Leasing 7 $136 

Prof, Scientific, & Tech Services 16 $632 

Mngt of Companies 1 $94 

Admin, Waste Mngt & Rem Serv 6 $271 

Educational Services 1 $27 

Health Care & Social Assistance 11 $720 

Arts, Entertainment, and Rec 9 $164 

Accommodation & Food Services 34 $702 

Other Services 8 $319 

Government 48 $3,308 

Total Missoula BLM Management 

Contribution 

222 $10,033 

Source: Author generated using IMPLAN 2016 

This analysis considers only the market transactions that result from activities on the Missoula 

BLM. Numerous non-market social and economic values are associated with BLM-administered 

lands. The value of ecosystem services, such as, clean air and water, are not captured in the 

economic contribution analysis. Therefore, this analysis should not be conflated with a 

representation of the total economic value of the land. 

Non-market Values and Ecosystem Services 

Generally goods and services can be traded in markets where interactions between buyers and 

sellers dictate the price, or value, of a good through the unit prices and quantities sold. BLMadministered lands produce a wide range of environmental goods and services which society 

M-21 
Bureau of Land Management 

benefits from. Some goods, like forage for cattle, can easily be valued because livestock feed can be 

bought and sold in markets. Other resources provided by these lands, such as recreational 

opportunities, ecological processes, and habitat for unique species, cannot be bought and sold in 

traditional markets, which is why they are often characterized as non-market goods. 

Non-market values can be broken down into two categories, use and non-use values. The use-value 

of a non-market good is the value to society from the direct use of the asset; these values are 

derived from BLM-administered lands through recreational activities such as hiking, bird watching 

and OHV use. In addition to hunting, other non-market values exist for public goods such as air 

quality, scenery and water quality. The use of non-market goods often requires consumption of 

associated market goods, such as lodging and gas. 

Non-use, or passive use, values of a non-market good reflect the value of an asset beyond its current 

use. These can be described as existence, option and bequest values. Existence values are the 

amount society is willing to pay to guarantee that an asset simply exists. An existence value for 

BLM-administered lands might be the value associated with undeveloped scenic landscapes. In 

addition to implicit existence values, society's willingness to pay to preserve resources for future 

use attaches additional passive use values. The potential benefits people would receive from future 

use are referred to as option values when future use is expected to occur within the same generation 

and bequest values when preservation allows future generations to benefit from the resource use. 

Ecosystem services are the benefits that people receive from appropriate structure and function and 

are often categorized as provisioning (such as food and water), regulating (such as climate, disease 

regulation), cultural (such as viewsheds, spiritual), and supporting (such as soil formation) (MEA 

2003). Some ecosystem services may involve market goods such as timber while others, for 

example water quality and carbon sequestration, would be considered non-market goods/values. 

Consistent with IM 2013-131, no attempt has been made, within this planning process, to assign 

monetary values to non-market values within the Missoula BLM because these values are difficult 

to quantify at this analysis level (BLM 2013). While not quantified, relevant non-market values and 

ecosystem services are represented throughout the affected environment in other resource sections. 

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations, states “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental 

justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income populations...” (Executive Order 12898). 

Minority populations as defined by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997) include individuals in the following population 

groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic 

origin; or Hispanic. A minority population is identified where “(a) the minority population of the 

affected area exceeds 50 percent or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is 

meaningfully greater...” (CEQ 1997). Additionally, “[a] minority population also exists if there is 

more than one minority group present and the minority percentage, as calculated by aggregating all 

minority persons, meets one of the above-stated thresholds” (CEQ 1997). Low-income populations 

are determined by the U.S. Census Bureau based upon poverty thresholds developed every year. 

M-22 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

U.S. Census data is used to determine whether the populations residing in the planning area 

constitute an “environmental justice population” through meeting either of the following criteria: 

• At least one-half of the population is of minority or low-income status; or 

• The percentage of population that is of minority or low-income status is at least 5 percentage 

points higher than for the entire State of Montana. 

Data for the identification of low-income is from the U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and 

Poverty Estimates (SAIPE). The SAIPE program produces yearly single year poverty estimates for 

states, counties, and school districts and is considered the most accurate for these geographic scales, 

especially for areas with populations of 65,000 or less (U.S. Census Bureau 2014). As seen in Table 

12, in 2015, Lake and Lincoln counties had poverty rates estimated to be 20.8% and 20.3 %, 

respectively (U.S. Census Bureau 2016a). These counties meet the criteria for low-income 

environmental justice populations since they are at least 5 percentage points higher than for the 

State of Montana (14.4%). 

Minority populations are identified using the U.S. Census Population Estimates program which 

provides estimates for the resident population by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin at the national, 

state and county scales. Total minority population refers to that part of the total population which is 

not classified as Non-Hispanic White Only by the U.S. Census Bureau. By using this definition of 

minority population, the percentage is inclusive of Hispanics and multiple race categories and any 

other minority single race categories. This definition is most inclusive of populations that may be 

considered as a minority population under EO 12898. 

Based on the criteria mentioned above, Table 12 indicates that Lake County meets the criteria of 

having identified minority environmental justice populations due to the American Indian 

population. 

Overall, Lake and Lincoln counties in the planning area meet the criteria for environmental justice 

populations and therefore outreach and collaborative efforts with these populations will be 

conducted including tribal consultation. 

M-23 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 11. Environmental Justice Demographics, 2015 Estimates (percent of population) 

Geography 

Race Alone1 

Two or 

More 

Races1 

Hispanic1 Total 

Minority2 

Poverty, All 

Ages3 

White Black or 

African 

American 

American 

Indian and 

Alaska 

Native 

Asian Native Hawaiian 

and Other 

Pacific Islander 

Montana 89.2% 0.6% 6.6% 0.8% 0.1% 2.7% 3.6% 13.5% 14.4% 

Flathead County 95.2% 0.4% 1.4% 0.7% 0.1% 2.3% 2.7% 7.1% 14.0% 

Granite County 96.2% 0.5% 0.9% 0.3% 0.0% 2.1% 2.1% 5.7% 14.1% 

Lake County 67.4% 0.4% 24.2% 0.7% 0.1% 7.2% 4.2% 34.5% 20.8% 

Lincoln County 95.6% 0.4% 1.1% 0.4% 0.1% 2.4% 2.8% 6.8% 20.3% 

Mineral County 93.5% 0.6% 2.1% 0.8% 0.0% 3.1% 3.5% 9.5% 16.4% 

Missoula County 92.0% 0.6% 2.9% 1.6% 0.1% 2.8% 3.2% 10.5% 15.8% 

Powell County 92.2% 1.2% 4.7% 0.5% 0.0% 1.3% 2.3% 9.8% 18.1% 

Ravalli County 95.7% 0.4% 1.2% 0.7% 0.1% 1.9% 3.4% 7.0% 14.9% 

Sanders County 91.7% 0.4% 4.4% 0.5% 0.0% 2.9% 2.9% 10.5% 18.7% 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b. 

2 The term "total minority population" refers to the part of the total population which is not classified by the race/ethnicity category Non-Hispanic White Alone by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. This definition is most inclusive of populations that may be considered as a minority population under EO 12898. 

3 U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a. 

M-24 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Environmental Consequences 

The previous sections assessed current economic and social conditions. The following section will 

consider the potential consequences of alternative management scenarios on the economic and 

social environment. 

Summary of Effects 

Economic Impact Analysis 

Economic impact analysis estimates the employment and labor income consequences of 

management actions. The tables presented in this section will be referenced in the alternativespecific descriptions of economic impacts. 

Table 13 provides employment estimates, by alternative. BLM expenditures, recreation and timber 

programs account for the vast majority of Missoula BLM-related employment under all 

alternatives. 

Table 12. Employment by Program Area, by Alternative, Average Annual 

Number of Jobs 

Contributed 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation 78 78 78 

Grazing 11 11 10 

Timber 44 55 44 

Payments to States and Counties 4 4 4 

BLM Expenditures 85 85 85 

TOTAL 222 233 221 

Source: Author generated with IMPLAN 2016 

Under all alternatives, employment supported by activities on the Missoula BLM would account for 

less than 0.3 percent of area employment. The sector with the most Missoula BLM-related 

employment is government due to BLM expenditures. Missoula BLM-related employment is also 

higher in retail trade and accommodation and food services sectors. Both of these sectors are 

associated with the recreation-tourism economy, which is supported by the Missoula BLM and 

other public lands in the study area. 

Table 14 provides labor income estimates by alternative. As with the employment estimates, BLM 

expenditures account for the largest share of Missoula BLM contributions to local economic 

activity. 

M-25 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 13. Labor Income by Program Area, by Alternative, Average Annual 

Labor Income 

Contributed ($1,000) 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Recreation $2,340 $2,340 $2,340 

Grazing $357 $378 $341 

Timber $2,774 $3,461 $2,770 

Payments to States and 

Counties 

$176 $176 $176 

BLM Expenditures $4,386 $4,386 $4,386 

TOTAL $10,033 $10,741 $10,014 

Source: Author generated with IMPLAN 2016 

Social Consequences 

A number of social values can be associated with the BLM-managed lands including: recreation, 

economic, aesthetic and cultural (Table 1). For some, BLM lands provide economic opportunities in 

rural communities. To others, BLM lands are valued for leisure. This binary classification, however, 

ignores the nuances of peoples’ values. Furthermore, many individuals are likely to rely on the 

BLM-managed lands for both economic opportunities and leisure pursuits. 

For individuals who primarily value the BLM-managed lands for its contribution to the local 

economy, Alternative B is likely to be favored. Alternative B provides the highest resource use 

related employment and would therefore enhance the quality of life for stakeholders who value 

using BLM-resources for economic gain. Those who give a high priority to resource use include 

many local residents concerned about economic development and its potentially positive effects on 

the social environment and quality of life of small communities. 

For individuals who primarily value BLM lands for natural, undisrupted open space Alternative C is 

likely to be favored. Alternative C provides the greatest number of acres that are unavailable to 

timber and grazing, as well as acres withdrawn from mineral entry. Alternative C emphasizes the 

conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and conservation of cultural and historic resources. These 

management objectives provide values to stakeholders including, but not limited to: aesthetic, 

therapeutic, moral/ethical, recreation, future and/or spiritual. 

Alternative C also may be favored by stakeholders who value dispersed recreation opportunities. 

Management action under Alternative C place a greater emphasis on conservation of fish and 

wildlife habitat which in turn supports wildlife–related recreation opportunities. Alternative C 

designates four back country areas and two recreation management areas. 

Economic Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Recreation: There are approximately 222,000 recreation visits to the Missoula BLM annually. The 

expenditures of local and non-local visitors to the Missoula BLM would support approximately 78 

jobs and $2.3 million in labor income, annually. BLM-administered lands within the Missoula BLM 

would continue to support a wide range of recreational experiences which contribute to the local 

quality of life and stimulate economic activity under all alternatives. Based on trends in regional 

population growth and FO visitation, recreational use of public lands administered by the Missoula 

M-26 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

BLM is anticipated to increase under all alternatives. This increase was not included in the 

economic impact modeling because this change is not a direct result of management by the FO. 

Minerals: Locatable minerals, including gold, silver and copper are removed from the BLMadministered lands within the Missoula BLM. Most of the active mining claims are prospecting and 

therefore no quantities of mineral removal are reported to any government entities. Therefore the 

quantities removed are not reflected in the economic impact analysis and no mineral quantities are 

estimated for alternatives to be included in the economic impact analysis. Never-the-less, this 

activity will continue to contribute income and raw materials to the local economy. 

Payments to States/Counties and Forest Expenditures: As noted in the Affected Environment 

section, payments to local governments are made through the PILT program. These payments 

would support approximately 4 jobs and $176,000 in labor income annually under all alternatives. 

In addition, Missoula BLM salary and non-salary expenditures support approximately 85 jobs and 

$4.4 million in labor income in the local economy annually. 

Social Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Growing populations and development will place greater demand on public land resources and may 

affect the perceived aesthetics and uses associated with BLM lands. Public lands management can 

expect to be tasked with maintaining the quality of visitors’ experiences while providing forest 

products and cultural and recreational experiences to a greater number of people. 

Increased population of residential areas surrounding the BLM land also increases the region’s need 

for infrastructure and may place greater pressure on the BLM to provide utility right-of-ways, for 

example, to meet the region’s growing infrastructure needs. These pressures may threaten the 

public lands role in contributing to sense of place and the quality of life in surrounding 

communities (Stedman 2003). 

Payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) have been paid to counties with public lands since 1976 to offset 

the decreased local tax base. PILT payments are put towards the county government general fund 

and used to pay for roads, school and other county services. BLM-managed acres do not vary by 

alternative and therefore these payments are not expected to vary by alternative. 

Environmental Justice Effects Common to All Alternatives 

As indicated earlier there are minority populations and low-income populations within the planning 

area that meet the criteria to be identified as environmental justice populations. The BLM has 

continued to consult and coordinate with Tribes to identify whether any Native American cultural 

values, religious beliefs, or traditional practices could be affected. Analysis of potential 

disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects to environmental justice 

populations can be correlated to resource and resource use effects, in particular to the amount and 

location of surface-disturbing or other disruptive activities allowed under each alternative. 

Although there are identified environmental justice populations in the planning area, no particular 

BLM actions under any of the alternatives have been identified as causing disproportionate adverse 

impacts to these populations. This is due to the programmatic nature of the management plan 

alternatives, which do not identify exact locations of future implementation actions. Implementing 

decisions and authorizing on-the-ground activities would require appropriate site-specific NEPA 

review in order to proceed. This would include additional screening to identify the location of 

potential environmental justice populations relative to the location of future actions and analysis to 

M-27 
Bureau of Land Management 

determine whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects to environmental justice populations. The BLM will continue to ensure that 

opportunities for effective public participation by potentially affected low-income populations, 

minority populations, or Tribes are provided. If disproportionately high and adverse effects are 

identified, the BLM will encourage members of affected environmental justice populations to help 

develop and comment on ways to modify the action(s) to avoid or mitigate these effects, and/or 

consider other actions that could mitigate the effects. 

Alternative A: No Action 

Economic Impacts 

Alternative A would continue Missoula BLM management according to the 1986 Garnet Resource 

Area RMP. Management actions under alternative A support 222 jobs and approximately $10 

million in labor income in the local economy. 

Range: 

The forage available for livestock grazing would remain the same as is currently available. 

Prescriptive grazing could be used as a management tool to reduce fine fuels assisting in the 

reduction of frequency and intensity of wildland fire. In addition, prescriptive grazing can be used 

to achieve specific habitat objectives such as the reduction of noxious weeds. 

Alternative A would permit 6,292 AUMs annually. On an average annual basis, this level of grazing 

would support approximately 11 jobs and $357,000 in labor income. However, actual use would 

vary based on local forage and market conditions and therefore the economic impact of grazing 

would also vary. 

The collective contribution to permittees resulting from the public land grazing fee ($2.11/AUM in 

2016) being below the cost of competitively priced AUMs would be $137,732. If Missoula BLM 

public land grazing permittees had to replace their public forage with private forage, the collective 

annual forage cost of grazing would be $151,008 (6,292 AUMs at $24.00 per AUM). With BLM 

forage, permittees collectively pay $13,276. Therefore, the economic effect to ranchers is not fully 

captured in the employment and labor income figures presented above. However, this effect to 

ranchers can also be seen as a cost to providers of private forage. This also assumes that private 

forage opportunities would be both available and located in places practical for utilization to the 

ranchers. Not factored into the private forage costs are any costs associated with transporting 

livestock to lands available for grazing. Similarly, this assumes the ranchers neighboring the BLM 

lands are of a size and means to utilize the available AUMs. 

Timber and Forest Management: 

Softwood sawtimber and pulp, poles, posts, and fuelwood are removed from the Missoula BLM for 

both commercial and personal use. Alternative A treatment levels are roughly similar to those in 

Alternative C. Based on the forest product removal estimates listed in Table 5, forest product 

removal under Alternative A would support 44 jobs and $2.8 million in labor income in the local 

economy annually. 

Christmas tree permits are also sold for personal use. Revenues collected for these permits would 

be $955 (191 trees at $5 per permit). Assuming the cost of a competitively priced Christmas tree is 

$30 the collective benefit to permittees is $4,775. However, this can also be seen as a cost to private 

M-28 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Christmas tree sales. The economic impact of Christmas tree permits is not captured in the 

employment and labor figures above. In addition, the gathering of a Christmas tree from public 

lands, may provide additional value and well-being in terms of recreation, family outings, 

contribute to people’s quality of life. 

Social Impacts 

Interests in Livestock Grazing: 

The forage available for livestock grazing would remain the same as is currently available. This 

alternative would maintain the quality of life for livestock permittees and other stakeholders who 

value using BLM resources. Ranching provides noneconomic benefits, such as support for tradition 

and heritage. 

Conversely, other stakeholders find concern with the environmental impacts of or user conflicts 

with grazing livestock. This alternative does not address these stakeholder concerns. 

Interests in Recreation: 

Recreation management would continue as it has in the past. This alternative does not address the 

increasing community emphasis on recreation opportunities. Users would continue to enjoy their 

existing recreation opportunities in the same manner and conditions as has been available in the 

past. 

Interests in Access: 

This alternative would maintain the quality of life experienced by stakeholders under the current 

management. However, stakeholders believe reduced access would better protect wildlife and forest 

vegetation which is an important value to many stakeholders. Conversely, an aging population or 

those with physical ability which make accessing areas without motorized vehicles difficult may 

desire increased motorized access to recreational areas of interest. 

Interests in Forest Restoration and Timber: 

This alternative would maintain the quality of life experienced by stakeholders under the current 

management. However, for some stakeholders this alternative does not adequately address the need 

for fire-resilient forests or may not provide adequate levels of forest products. Currently, some 

forest vegetation and ecosystem conditions are outside the natural range of variability. Stakeholders 

who value healthy ecosystems, the resulting ecosystems services they provide, nature study among 

value types would be better off if these conditions were addressed through management actions. 

Non-market values: 

Administrative designations and the protection of resources promote non-market and ecosystem 

service values. This alternative would maintain the current provision of these values. However, 

because some forest vegetation and ecosystem conditions are outside the natural range of variability 

this alternative may not sustain the current provision of ecosystem services if they are not 

maintained or improved. 

M-29 
Bureau of Land Management 

Alternative B: Proposed Alternative 

Economic Effects 

Alternative B places a priority on active restoration of vegetative communities to achieve the 

natural range of variability, and to achieve fire-resilient forests providing for community and 

wildland firefighter safety. Management actions under Alternative B are expected to support 233 

jobs and between $10.7 million in labor income in the local economy. 

Range: 

Alternative B emphasizes treating vegetative communities, including use of prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatments, to achieve desired forage conditions for big game and domestic livestock. In 

addition, native species are used in restoration projects, when feasible. Alternative B also provides 

the greatest number of acres available to livestock grazing, mostly as a result of more acres being 

available for prescriptive grazing as a management tool. This is estimated to result in the greatest 

level of AUMs in the considered alternatives at 6,660 AUMs annually. Again, actual use would vary 

based on local forage and market conditions. 

The estimated impact of this level of annual AUMs to the regional economy is 11 jobs and 

$378,000 in labor income annually. 

The collective contribution to permittees resulting from the public land grazing fee ($2.11/AUM in 

2016) being below the cost of competitively priced AUMs would be $145,787. If Missoula BLM 

public land grazing permittees had to replace their public forage with private forage, the collective 

annual forage cost of grazing would be $159,840 (6,660 AUMs at $24.00 per AUM). With BLM 

forage, permittees collectively pay $14,053. Therefore, the economic effect to ranchers is not fully 

captured in the employment and labor income figures presented above. However, this effect to 

ranchers can also be seen as a cost to providers of private forage. This also assumes that private 

forage opportunities would be both available and located in places practical to the ranchers. Not 

factored into the private forage costs are any costs associated with transporting livestock to lands 

available for grazing. 

Timber and Forest management: 

Alternative B would be expected to have a higher forest product removal volume than Alternatives 

A and C, and would therefore, increase local employment and labor income related to timber 

activities on the BLM-administered lands. Based on the estimated annual forest product volumes 

listed in Table 5, forest product removal under Alternative B would support 55 jobs and $3.5 

million in labor income in the local economy annually. 

Christmas tree permits sold for personal use are expected to be higher under Alternatives B and C 

relative to Alternative A. Revenues collected for these permits would be $100 (200 trees at $5 per 

permit). Assuming the cost of a competitively priced Christmas tree is $30 the collective benefit to 

permittees is $5,000. However, this can also be seen as a cost to private Christmas tree sales. The 

economic impact of Christmas tree permits is not captured in the employment and labor figures 

above. In addition, the gathering of a Christmas tree from public lands, may provide additional 

value and well-being in terms of recreation or family outings, and contribute to people’s quality of 

life. 

M-30 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Social Impacts 

Interests in Livestock Grazing: 

Alternative B emphasizes treating vegetative communities to achieve desired forage conditions for 

big game and domestic livestock, including prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. Alternative 

B provides the greatest number of acres available to livestock grazing (145,559 acres), mostly as a 

result of more acres being available for prescriptive grazing as a management tool. This is estimated 

to result in the greatest level of AUMs in the considered alternatives at 6,660 AUMs annually 

(Table 14). This alternative would maintain or enhance the quality of life for livestock permittees 

and other stakeholders who value using BLM resources. Ranching also provides noneconomic 

benefits, such as support for tradition and heritage. 

Table 14. Livestock grazing indicators, by alternative 

Alternative A (Current) Alternative B Alternative C 

AUMs (average annual) 6,292 6,660 6,014 

Acres unavailable to livestock grazing 44,810 (28%) 17,027 (11%) 55,244 (36%) 

Job impacts to local economy (direct+indirect, 

average annual) 

3 4 3 

Labor income Impacts to local economy (direct 

+ indirect) (thousands 2016$, average annual) 

$97 $103 $93 

Conversely, because this alternative has the highest number of acres available to grazing other 

stakeholders who find concern with the environmental consequences of or user conflicts with 

grazing livestock may find this alternative does not meet their needs relative to Alternatives A and 

C. 

Interests in Recreation: 

This alternative emphasizes dispersed recreation opportunities, especially for hunting and fishing. 

Recreation would be a priority in the same areas as Alternative A. The Lewis and Clark National 

Historic Trail corridor would be 1 mile, consistent with other segments of the trail in BLMadministered lands, and similar to how it is currently managed. Many users would continue to enjoy 

their existing recreation opportunities in the same manner and conditions as has been available in 

the past. 

This alternative may provide improvements in quality of life for a variety of recreation stakeholders 

relative to Alternative A due to the new designations of management areas which provide more 

clarity and assurance of the recreation experience. Relative to Alternative A this alternative is 

preferred by stakeholders who value more undisturbed lands due to mineral exploration, but 

increased timber cut, as a result of active forest management, might counteract this outcome. 

Therefore, stakeholders valuing the greatest amount of undisturbed lands for aesthetic, sounds, 

biological, moral/ethical, or other beliefs may ultimately prefer Alternative C Table 15). 

M-31 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 15. Recreation indicators, by alternative 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Lands with wilderness characteristics - Protected 

management (acres) 

n/a 0 2,523 (2%) 

Areas of critical environmental concern (acres) 1,225 (<1%) 6,692 (4%) 6,712 (4%) 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail Corridor (acres) n/a 6,830 (4%) 12,827 (8%) 

Disturbance due to mineral exploration (acres) 410 400 380 

Backcountry Conservation Areas (BCA) 0 0 46,382 (29%) 

Closed to Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile 25,562 (16%) 28,341 (17%) 30,422 (19%) 

Job impacts to local economy (direct, average annual) 57 57 57 

Labor income Impacts to local economy (direct) 

(thousands 2016$ average annual) 

$1,531 $1,531 $1,531 

Interests in Access: 

Alternative B has fewer acres closed to off-highway (OHV) and snowmobile (OSV) use relative to 

Alternative C (Table 16. This would positively impact the quality of life of individuals of an age or 

physical ability which make accessing areas without motorized vehicles difficult, or any users 

wishing to access BLM lands with motorized assistance. Conversely, some stakeholders are 

concerned about the negative impact motorized use had on fish and wildlife habitat and therefore 

these individuals will be adversely impacted by this aspect of Alternative B. Similarly, the quality 

of life of non-motorized users may be lower than found in Alternative C. 

Table 16. Access indicators, by alternative 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Rights-of-way exclusion area (acres) 21,317 (13%) 22,977 (14%) 38,987 (24%) 

Rights-of-way avoidance area (acres) 533 (<1%) 49,430 (30%) 55,036 (34%) 

Closed to Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile 25,562 (16%) 28,341 (17%) 30,422 (19%) 

This alternative has fewer exclusion and avoidance areas for right-of –way allocations than 

Alternative C. This will have the same distribution of impacts as the OHV/OSV closures: some 

stakeholders who desire greater motorized access will prefer this alternative, while others who 

believe roads and rights-of-way are detrimental to wildlife and forest vegetation will prefer 

Alternative C. 

Interests in Forest Restoration and Timber: 

This alternative would enhance the quality of life for stakeholders who value using BLM-resources 

for economic contributions as this alternative is expected to have the highest forest product removal 

volume and related jobs and income impacts on the local economy. Those who give a high priority 

to resource use include local residents concerned about economic development and its potentially 

positive effects on the social environment and quality of life of small communities. 

The forest product removal volume is, in part, a result of vegetation restoration activities. The forest 

management under Alternative B emphasizes ecological integrity, terrestrial and aquatic wildlife 

species habitat needs, properly functioning watersheds while simultaneously providing forest 

M-32 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

products and creating ecosystems resilient to disturbances such as wildland fire and epidemic insect 

outbreaks (Table 17). This provides value to a wide array of stakeholders—those who value the 

existence of healthy ecosystems, the ecosystem services these systems provide, the reduction in fire 

threats and the recreation activities supported by healthy ecosystems (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing, nature study, for example). 

Table 17. Forest restoration and timber indicators, by alternative 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative B Alternative C 

Average annual forest products cut (CCF) 6,850 8,551 6,846 

Lands available for forest management 105,020 101,669 (63%) 100,465 (62%) 

Job impacts to local economy (direct; 

average annual) 

18 22 18 

Labor income impacts to local economy 

(direct; thousands 2016$; average annual) 

$871 $1,081 $865 

Conversely, active forest management will have negative quality of life impacts to stakeholders 

who value natural processes, and/or those who are concerned by the disruptions that these 

management actions cause. For example, the aesthetic and noise disturbances caused by active 

management, the smoke and possible health impacts caused by prescribed burns, or the recreation 

interruptions from management in preferred recreation locations may all decreases, possibly only 

temporarily, the quality of life of some stakeholders relative to Alternative C. 

Non-market Values: 

Administrative designations and the protection of resources promote non-market and ecosystem 

service values. Although the precise economic value of the goods and services protected by 

administrative designations and other management decisions is unknown, a positive relationship 

between protected acres and non-market/ecosystem service values is a reasonable assumption. 

Table 18 shows selected administrative designations as indicators of the supply of non-market 

values and ecosystem services. Many of these designations do not vary across alternatives and 

therefore each alternative is expected to provide non-market and ecosystem service value. However, 

Alternative B provides fewer acres under specific administrative designations designed to protect 

via special management designations than Alternative C, such as backcountry conservation areas 

and protected lands with wilderness characteristics. Therefore, Alternative B may provide lower 

levels of non-market values relative to Alternative C. 

M-33 
Bureau of Land Management 

Table 18. Selected Administrative Designations 

Alternative A: 

Current 

Acres (percent) 

Alternative B 

Acres 

(percent) 

Alternative C 

Acres 

(percent) 

Total BLM-administered acres: legal -- 162,376 --

Lands with wilderness characteristics: 

Protected 

n/a 0 2,523 (2%) 

Lands with wilderness characteristics: No 

special management 

n/a 2,523 (2%) 0 

Backcountry conservation areas n/a 0 46,389 (29%) 

Wilderness study areas 22,977 (14%) 22,977 (14%) 22,977 (14%) 

Areas of critical environmental concern 1,225 (<1%) 640 (<1%) 660 (<1%) 

Wild and scenic river segments: eligible 

(miles) 

0 27.6 27.6 

Alternative C 

Economic Effects 

Alternative C emphasizes the greatest degree of conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and 

conservation of cultural and historic resources. It also places an emphasis on allowing natural 

processes to occur in moving towards attainment of natural range of variability in forested 

ecosystems. 

Management actions under alternative C are expected to support 221 jobs and between $10 million 

in labor income in the local economy annually. This is not substantively different than Alternative 

A. 

Range: 

Alternative C has the lowest level of permitted AUMs at 6,014 annually. Therefore, the economic 

contribution of grazing on the BLM-administered lands would decrease minimally to 10 jobs and 

$341,000 million in labor income annually. 

The collective contribution to permittees resulting from the public land grazing fee ($2.11/AUM in 

2016) being below the cost of competitively priced AUMs would be $131,646. If Missoula BLM 

public land grazing permittees had to replace their public forage with private forage, the collective 

annual forage cost of grazing would be $144,336 (6,014 AUMs at $24.00 per AUM). With BLM 

forage, permittees collectively pay $12,690. Therefore, the economic effect to ranchers is not fully 

captured in the employment and labor income figures presented above. However, this effect to 

ranchers can also be seen as a cost to providers of private forage. This also assumes that private 

forage opportunities would be both available and located in places practical to the ranchers. Not 

factored into the private forage costs are any costs associated with transporting livestock to lands 

available for grazing. 

Timber: 

The average estimated annual forest product volume removal is roughly similar under Alternative C 

to that of Alternative A, although the distribution of products are somewhat different (Table 5). 

Alternative C would support 44 jobs and $2.8 million in labor income in the local economy 

M-34 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

annually. This is similar to the estimated employment and labor income supported by forest product 

harvesting under Alternative A. 

Christmas tree permits sold for personal use are expected to be higher under Alternatives B and C 

relative to Alternative A. Revenues collected for these permits would be $100 (200 trees at $5 per 

permit). Assuming the cost of a competitively priced Christmas tree is $30 the collective benefit to 

permittees is $5,000. However, this can also be seen as a cost to private Christmas tree sales. The 

economic impact of Christmas tree permits is not captured in the employment and labor figures 

above. In addition, the gathering of a Christmas tree from public lands, may provide additional 

value and well-being in terms of recreation or family outings and contribute to people’s quality of 

life. 

Social Impacts 

Interests in Livestock grazing: 

Alternative C has the lowest level of permitted AUMs at 6,014 annually (Table 14). Therefore, the 

economic contribution of grazing on the BLM-administered lands would decrease minimally 

relative to other alternatives. This alternative may provide decreased quality of life for livestock 

permittees and other stakeholders who value using BLM resources for economic gain. Ranching 

provides noneconomic benefits, such as support for tradition and heritage. Therefore, this 

alternative, which provides the least acres available to grazing and AUMs annually than 

Alternatives A and B and therefore may be less preferred to these stakeholder groups. 

Conversely, other stakeholders find concern with the environmental impacts of or user conflicts 

with grazing livestock. This alternative has the lowest number of acres available to grazing (see 

Table 14) and therefore some stakeholders may find this alternative preferred relative to 

Alternatives A and B. 

Interests in Recreation: 

Alternative C may be favored by stakeholders who value dispersed recreation opportunities. This 

alternative emphasizes dispersed recreation opportunities, especially hunting and fishing. Special 

designations— Backcountry Conservation Areas (BCAs)—make conservation of fish and wildlife 

habitat which in turn support wildlife–related recreation opportunities (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

viewing) a priority (Table 15). Alternative C designates four backcountry areas and two recreation 

management areas. 

Alternative C has the greatest number of acres closed to off-highway (OHV) and snowmobile 

(OSV) use (Table 16). Therefore, the proposed action would improve quality of life for nonmotorized recreation users on who prefer to have areas separated from motorized users. The 

increase in acres closed to OHV and OSV use may alleviate any concerns by non-motorized 

recreation users related to vehicle exhaust fumes, disparities in speed, and noise. Some OSV and 

OHV users may feel that the reduction in open acres adversely affects their quality of life. 

Interests in Access: 

Alternative C has the greatest number of acres closed to off-highway (OHV) and snowmobile 

(OSV) use. This would adversely impact the quality of life of individuals of an age or physical 

ability which make accessing areas without motorized vehicles difficult. Conversely, some 

stakeholders were concerned about the negative impact motorized use had on fish and wildlife 

habitat and therefore these individuals will prefer this aspect of this alternative. 

M-35 
Bureau of Land Management 

Similarly, this alternative has the greatest number of exclusion and avoidance areas for right-of-way 

allocations. This will have the same distribution of impacts as the OHV/OSV closures. Some 

stakeholders who desire greater motorized access will not prefer this alternative, while other who 

believe roads and right of way are detrimental to wildlife and forest vegetation will prefer this 

alternative. 

Interests in Forest Restoration and Timber: 

This alternative would maintain the quality of life for stakeholders who values using BLMresources for economic contributions relative to the no-action alternative, as Alternative C has 

roughly equivalent forest product removal volume and related jobs and income impacts on the local 

economy as Alternative A. Those who give a high priority to resource use include many local 

residents concerned about economic development and its potentially positive effects on the social 

environment and quality of life of small communities. In this respect, this alternative provides 

lower benefits relative to Alternative B. 

The forest product removal volume is in part a result of vegetation restoration activities. The forest 

management under Alternative C places greater emphasis on allowing natural processes to occur in 

moving towards attainment of natural range of variability in forested ecosystems. This provides 

value to a wide array of stakeholders—those who value the existence of healthy ecosystems, the 

ecosystem services these systems provide, the reduction in fire threats and the recreation activities 

supported by healthy ecosystems (hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, nature study, for example). 

This management approach will improve quality of life for stakeholders who value natural 

processes, and/or those who are concerned by the disruptions that the greater degree of active 

management, as prescribed in Alternative B could cause. 

Non-market Values: 

Alternative C emphasizes the greatest degree of conservation of fish and wildlife habitat, and 

conservation of cultural and historic resources. Based on administrative designations as a proxy for 

non-market and ecosystem service values Alternative C provides a greater number of acres under 

specific administrative designations designed to protect via special management than Alternative B, 

such as backcountry conservation areas and protected lands with wilderness characteristics. 

Therefore, Alternative C may provide greater non-market and ecosystem service values. 

Cumulative Effects – All Alternatives 

The timeframe for the socio-economic cumulative effects analysis is the next 20 to 30 years and the 

geographic scope for the economic cumulative effects analysis is the Missoula BLM planning area 

with a particular focus on the four-county region identified in the affected environment section. 

This analysis considers how past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on lands 

throughout the region may interact with decisions made under the proposed plan to affect the social 

and economic environment. The economic analysis of the proposed plan is unique among the 

resources and uses in that the effects occur primarily off the BLM lands. In this way, the economic 

effects described above are cumulative in nature—they evaluate the role of BLM decisions under 

the proposed plan both on and off the BLM-administered lands. However, the effects analysis does 

not address how actions taken on adjacent lands or how trends occurring in the local region will 

affect the social and economic consequences of the proposed plan. 

M-36 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Interests in Livestock Grazing: 

In reasonably and foreseeable future, sale, subdivision, and residential development of rangeland on 

private lands adjacent to BLM-managed lands will likely increase and reduce the amount of 

livestock grazing in the planning area. Subdividing would primarily impact individual grazing 

allotments and could result in breaking an allotment into smaller units or in canceling the grazing 

lease entirely. This may lead to a shift away from ranching and negatively affect the quality of life 

for those who value ranching as an important way of life of their communities. 

Interests in Recreation: 

The recreation-related effects identified in the social and economic environmental consequences 

section may be influenced by trends and activities that occur off BLM-administered lands. Shifts in 

the availability of large tracts of private lands for recreational use may shift this demand to lands 

remaining open to public use. 

Continued population growth will increase the demand for recreation opportunities in the planning 

area and may require agencies to increase recreation-related expenditures. This will also contribute 

additional jobs and income to the local economy. 

Interests in Access: 

As the population ages, demand for easily accessible recreation opportunities will increase. 

Shifts in the availability of large tracts of private lands for recreational use may affect access to 

remaining lands. Consequently, there will be an increased demand for recreational access, whether 

through access easements, conservation easements that provide access, or land exchange proposals 

that enhance access. 

M-37 
Bureau of Land Management 

References 

Bureau of Business and Economic Research (BBER). 2016. Timber Harvest Volume for 

Ownerships. University of Montana. http://www.bber.umt.edu/FIR/HarxOwnRpt.aspx 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2016a. Table CA25N: Total Full-Time and Part-Time 

Employment by NAICS Industry. Release date November 17, 2016. 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2016b. Table CA05N: Personal Income by Major 

Components and Earnings by NAICS Industry. Release date November 17, 2016. 

BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 2014. Local Area Personal Income Methodology. Release 

date November 2014. Available at: http://www.bea.gov/regional/methods.cfm 

BLM. 2016. Bureau Wide Timber Data, Transaction Data Report Cumulative through Fourth 

Quarter of Fiscal Year 2016 Reports. Dated 10/1/2016. 

https://www.blm.gov/or/resources/forests/blm-timber-data.php 

BLM. 2013. IM 2013-131: Guidance on Estimating Nonmarket Environmental Values. 

Brown, G. and Reed, P. 2000. Validation of a forest values typology for use in national forest 

planning. For. Sci. 46(2): 240-247. 

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington D.C., 40 p. 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USFS). 2018. Forest Economic Analysis 

Spreadsheet Tool. Inventory and Monitoring Institute, Fort Collins, Colorado 

Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USFS). 2018. 2015 Visitor Use Monitoring 

(NVUM) Report – Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF. 

Headwaters Economics. 2018. A Profile of Development and the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). 

Produced by Economic Profile System (EPS). Headwaters Economics Economic Profile 

System https://headwaterseconomics.org/tools/economic-profile-system/ Based upon work 

by Gude, P.H., Rasker, R., and van den Noort, J. 2008. Potential for Future Development on 

Fire-Prone Lands. Journal of Forestry 106(4):198-205. 

Marcouiller, D.W. and X. Xia. 2008. Distribution of income from tourism sensitive employment. 

Tourism Economics 14, 3: 545-565. 

MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A 

Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press. Also available online at 

http://www.maweb.org/en/Framework.aspx#download. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). (2016). IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0. 

Montana Department of Corrections (MT Dept of Corrections). 2015. 2015 Biennial Report. 

Available at: http://cor.mt.gov/publications 

M-38 
-

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

NASS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2018. 17 State 

Grazing Fees Animal Unit. Retrieved June 19, 2018 from 

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Grazing_Fees/gf_am.php 

NASS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (National Agricultural Statistics Service). 2012. Table 8. 

Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Land and Buildings, and Land Use: 2012 and 2007. 2012 

Census of Agriculture, Montana County Data. 

https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_Cou 

nty_Level/Montana/st30_2_008_008.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. Table PEPAGESEX. Annual Estimates of the Resident Population for 

Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States, States, Counties and Puerto Rico 

Commonwealth and Municipios: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2017. U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population Division. Released June 2018. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. Cumulative Estimates of the Components of Resident Population 

Change for Counties of Montana: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016. Release date March 2017. 

https://factfinder.census.gov/ 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016a. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE): 2015 Poverty and 

Median Household Income Estimates - Counties, States, and National. Release date 

December 2016. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b. Table PEPSR6H: Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, 

Race, and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and Counties: April 1, 2010 to July 

1, 2015. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. Release date June 2016. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. U.S. Census, Poverty: Description of Income and Poverty Data Sources. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/datasources/description.html 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. Table 1. Intercensal Estimates of the Resident Population for Counties 

of Montana: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010 (CO-EST00INT-01-30). U.S. Census Bureau, 

Population Division. Released September 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Table DP-1: Profile of General Characteristics: 2000. Census 2000 

Summary File 1 (SF1). April 2000. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2015 ERS County Typology Codes 

Update. Data for 2015, revised May 2017. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/countytypology-codes/ 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2016. Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). County Payments. 

https://www.nbc.gov/pilt/counties.cfm 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016 Local Area Unemployment Statistics 

https://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables. Release date April 21, 2017. 

White, Eric M. 2017. Spending Patterns of Outdoor Recreation Visitors to National Forests. General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-961. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forest Service. 

BLM 2018 – RIMS citation 

M-39 
Bureau of Land Management 

Appendix 1: 260 (of 536) sectors present in the four-county economic study area 

Industry Employee Proprietor 

Code Description Employment Output Compensation Income 

0 Total 89,405.47 $10,546,504,005 $3,348,360,120 $433,388,520 

2 Grain farming 11.42 $1,601,970 $55,685 $195,368 

3 Vegetable and melon farming 11.84 $565,549 $333,076 -$504,970 

4 Fruit farming 9.62 $172,139 $155,295 $38,672 

5 Tree nut farming 0.07 $2,783 $3,124 $811 

6 Greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture production 66.93 $2,460,329 $1,980,357 -$8,576 

10 All other crop farming 434.84 $11,242,968 $5,761,238 $655,567 

11 

Beef cattle ranching and farming, including feedlots and dualpurpose ranching and farming 574.42 $33,292,930 $1,617,428 $1,275,672 

12 Dairy cattle and milk production 3.47 $339,176 $38,968 $62,324 

13 Poultry and egg production 2.66 $499,156 $88,786 -$129,637 

14 Animal production, except cattle and poultry and eggs 158.02 $4,843,590 $998,808 -$1,881,533 

15 Forestry, forest products, and timber tract production 26.90 $2,516,921 $401,977 $935,220 

16 Commercial logging 380.58 $32,712,254 $11,381,936 $5,676,451 

18 Commercial hunting and trapping 50.79 $2,478,472 $0 $1,615,101 

19 Support activities for agriculture and forestry 1,537.12 $99,164,024 $69,793,480 $8,272,191 

20 Extraction of natural gas and crude petroleum 184.92 $21,598,798 $31,992 $2,935,971 

24 Gold ore mining 3.31 $959,656 $128,755 $637 

31 Sand and gravel mining 58.94 $12,802,366 $1,755,647 $168,188 

37 Drilling oil and gas wells 37.82 $6,844,497 $693,119 $416,783 

38 Support activities for oil and gas operations 13.39 $967,041 $64,059 $157,164 

39 Metal mining services 22.45 $4,671,834 $2,006,049 $13,910 

49 Electric power transmission and distribution 98.96 $120,276,776 $13,650,364 $106,621 

50 Natural gas distribution 19.97 $11,052,479 $2,356,859 $164,785 

51 Water, sewage and other systems 51.13 $8,985,074 $2,464,836 $913,720 

52 Construction of new health care structures 107.85 $15,028,291 $3,758,366 $1,427,360 

M-40 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

53 Construction of new manufacturing structures 229.43 $24,027,758 $9,802,118 $1,203,880 

54 Construction of new power and communication structures 381.12 $45,377,632 $11,023,269 $7,298,146 

55 Construction of new educational and vocational structures 214.76 $35,527,636 $5,935,964 $4,362,323 

56 Construction of new highways and streets 246.81 $37,359,212 $8,780,981 $3,085,064 

57 

Construction of new commercial structures, including farm 

structures 463.04 $52,218,276 $18,258,378 $3,525,611 

58 Construction of other new nonresidential structures 678.84 $82,844,848 $23,540,520 $8,884,441 

59 Construction of new single-family residential structures 669.90 $82,067,896 $21,336,690 $7,657,081 

60 Construction of new multifamily residential structures 162.15 $23,540,448 $5,440,092 $2,359,279 

61 Construction of other new residential structures 563.22 $157,833,568 $2,282,408 $25,009,884 

62 

Maintenance and repair construction of nonresidential 

structures 604.32 $82,492,352 $19,455,896 $9,624,991 

63 Maintenance and repair construction of residential structures 252.92 $37,038,524 $8,617,577 $3,546,435 

64 

Maintenance and repair construction of highways, streets, 

bridges, and tunnels 205.26 $28,017,574 $6,607,616 $3,268,830 

76 Nonchocolate confectionery manufacturing 0.27 $119,731 $21,248 $0 

77 Chocolate and confectionery manufacturing from cacao beans 3.51 $2,216,573 $145,446 $33,820 

78 Confectionery manufacturing from purchased chocolate 85.20 $25,530,932 $1,753,167 $13,203 

89 Animal, except poultry, slaughtering 12.96 $8,295,703 $272,526 $858 

90 Meat processed from carcasses 165.75 $82,219,536 $5,837,659 $7,737 

94 Bread and bakery product, except frozen, manufacturing 234.63 $27,206,356 $6,529,319 $144,490 

95 Frozen cakes and other pastries manufacturing 5.70 $862,670 $159,305 $8,816 

101 Coffee and tea manufacturing 60.67 $37,411,680 $1,361,859 $33,047 

105 All other food manufacturing 33.07 $10,227,548 $841,171 $6,606 

107 Manufactured ice 27.48 $3,030,764 $768,100 -$903 

108 Breweries 248.17 $122,588,152 $8,409,770 -$109,592 

109 Wineries 8.55 $2,210,840 $78,071 -$8,134 

110 Distilleries 6.44 $4,630,966 $39,684 -$967 

112 Fiber, yarn, and thread mills 4.23 $1,111,358 $40,608 -$67,835 

M-41 
Bureau of Land Management 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

120 Curtain and linen mills 2.81 $475,577 $95,310 $2,841 

121 Textile bag and canvas mills 4.70 $553,535 $73,213 -$18,525 

122 Rope, cordage, twine, tire cord and tire fabric mills 2.76 $650,143 $95,754 $2,372 

123 Other textile product mills 5.54 $640,847 $156,906 -$12,684 

128 Women’s and girls’ cut and sew apparel manufacturing 24.93 $3,643,494 $150,260 $25,299 

130 Apparel accessories and other apparel manufacturing 15.00 $1,183,211 $58,938 -$113,921 

132 Footwear manufacturing 5.16 $654,285 $65,883 -$497 

133 Other leather and allied product manufacturing 15.53 $1,834,786 $309,392 -$56,431 

134 Sawmills 445.83 $120,815,896 $20,631,600 -$592,489 

135 Wood preservation 16.56 $9,355,098 $597,817 -$17,210 

138 Reconstituted wood product manufacturing 111.99 $63,554,568 $8,965,414 -$209,169 

140 Cut stock, resawing lumber, and planing 18.79 $5,266,647 $831,199 -$41,386 

141 Other millwork, including flooring 5.54 $999,586 $107,652 -$52,947 

142 Wood container and pallet manufacturing 23.39 $3,372,731 $532,254 -$32,140 

143 Manufactured home (mobile home) manufacturing 8.82 $1,198,579 $96,239 -$157,410 

144 Prefabricated wood building manufacturing 5.86 $820,023 $81,196 -$39,516 

145 All other miscellaneous wood product manufacturing 36.22 $4,584,182 $322,098 -$303,816 

149 Paperboard container manufacturing 1.89 $700,835 $0 $20,953 

154 Printing 107.55 $15,024,144 $3,544,893 $260,262 

155 Support activities for printing 26.83 $2,759,873 $1,092,996 $30,605 

157 Asphalt paving mixture and block manufacturing 2.66 $2,300,556 $0 $829,964 

165 Other basic organic chemical manufacturing 35.29 $53,125,072 $3,164,707 $3,226 

166 Plastics material and resin manufacturing 1.64 $2,976,528 $914,262 $0 

171 Fertilizer mixing 15.29 $8,849,073 $797,555 $8,983 

173 Medicinal and botanical manufacturing 167.34 $60,989,852 $10,875,907 $1,145 

174 Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing 5.00 $4,930,079 $244,320 $2,009 

179 Soap and other detergent manufacturing 23.30 $18,555,838 $894,157 $26,695 

182 Toilet preparation manufacturing 7.18 $4,003,183 $61,633 $19,063 

M-42 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

186 Photographic film and chemical manufacturing 6.93 $3,891,966 $259,444 $17,575 

190 Plastics pipe and pipe fitting manufacturing 30.50 $12,578,388 $1,368,949 -$9,624 

195 Other plastics product manufacturing 35.38 $9,143,071 $1,922,121 -$13,589 

204 Glass product manufacturing made of purchased glass 6.65 $1,125,758 $20,338 $824 

207 Concrete block and brick manufacturing 15.91 $4,504,370 $909,443 $0 

209 Other concrete product manufacturing 26.78 $5,417,718 $1,190,396 -$101 

213 Cut stone and stone product manufacturing 4.82 $438,557 $36,512 $6,677 

230 Nonferrous metal foundries 2.29 $150,642 $0 -$183,488 

235 Cutlery, utensil, pot, and pan manufacturing 4.58 $1,775,800 $141,558 -$33,046 

236 Handtool manufacturing 25.00 $4,427,932 $924,533 -$67,659 

239 Plate work manufacturing 28.30 $5,663,805 $1,799,759 -$62,927 

241 Sheet metal work manufacturing 11.21 $2,032,243 $560,813 -$78,747 

242 Ornamental and architectural metal work manufacturing 33.80 $4,998,666 $722,090 -$176,563 

243 Power boiler and heat exchanger manufacturing 2.45 $546,668 $83,511 -$8,927 

249 Machine shops 19.54 $2,285,394 $841,597 -$48,055 

252 Metal coating and nonprecious engraving 16.90 $3,220,994 $642,567 -$75,354 

257 Small arms ammunition manufacturing 1.33 $281,444 $20,210 -$3,409 

259 Small arms, ordnance, and accessories manufacturing 34.54 $9,120,651 $1,919,175 -$87,546 

261 Other fabricated metal manufacturing 12.38 $2,425,222 $676,049 -$23,188 

262 Farm machinery and equipment manufacturing 1.03 $467,528 $9,412 $69,037 

264 Construction machinery manufacturing 7.69 $4,720,916 $517,090 $63,029 

273 Photographic and photocopying equipment manufacturing 1.54 $371,384 $12,314 $37,311 

274 Other commercial service industry machinery manufacturing 1.61 $454,775 $0 $46,953 

275 Air purification and ventilation equipment manufacturing 40.56 $8,009,327 $1,409,116 $84,452 

276 Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) manufacturing 4.95 $1,108,751 $84,639 $92,353 

278 Industrial mold manufacturing 11.50 $1,461,636 $468,212 $31,574 

283 Turbine and turbine generator set units manufacturing 5.15 $1,858,335 $192,250 $88,038 

300 

Scales, balances, and miscellaneous general purpose 

machinery manufacturing 23.02 $5,692,413 $1,308,795 $73,919 

M-43 
Bureau of Land Management 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

302 Computer storage device manufacturing 0.32 $369,224 $0 -$3,561 

305 

Broadcast and wireless communications equipment 

manufacturing 1.17 $368,475 $86,011 -$21,236 

314 Electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing 6.14 $2,593,354 $468,603 -$12,624 

319 Electricity and signal testing instruments manufacturing 5.96 $2,186,700 $508,400 -$21,429 

322 

Watch, clock, and other measuring and controlling device 

manufacturing 3.01 $661,630 $77,928 -$8,911 

324 Software and other prerecorded and record reproducing 3.86 $970,359 $298,537 -$20,057 

326 Lighting fixture manufacturing 0.78 $97,116 $0 -$55,799 

333 Motor and generator manufacturing 0.32 $155,255 $46,196 $0 

340 Wiring device manufacturing 16.86 $6,409,254 $1,519,015 $599 

342 

All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and component 

manufacturing 8.79 $2,017,619 $362,611 $416 

349 Travel trailer and camper manufacturing 95.51 $29,907,918 $5,900,325 -$784,547 

359 Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing 28.55 $5,530,410 $1,633,938 -$1,174,576 

364 Boat building 1.00 $193,423 $0 -$114,029 

368 Wood kitchen cabinet and countertop manufacturing 63.16 $7,083,422 $1,284,312 $260,280 

370 Nonupholstered wood household furniture manufacturing 7.16 $651,834 $94,037 $43,143 

372 Institutional furniture manufacturing 35.52 $5,500,958 $1,112,611 $21,090 

379 Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing 17.15 $5,838,350 $1,104,310 $5,748 

380 Surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing 8.88 $2,560,024 $281,529 $4,211 

381 Dental equipment and supplies manufacturing 138.21 $37,086,156 $7,819,824 $15,852 

385 Sporting and athletic goods manufacturing 80.24 $21,267,060 $6,206,280 $32,623 

388 Sign manufacturing 79.09 $6,698,807 $1,220,792 $117,298 

391 Fasteners, buttons, needles, and pins manufacturing 33.71 $5,912,687 $1,773,073 $44,387 

394 All other miscellaneous manufacturing 37.29 $4,876,604 $713,521 $52,871 

395 Wholesale trade 2,392.74 $499,219,712 $146,191,888 $5,948,308 

396 Retail - Motor vehicle and parts dealers 832.11 $83,959,288 $43,859,968 $1,144,351 

397 Retail - Furniture and home furnishings stores 353.17 $33,134,170 $13,089,779 $273,787 

M-44 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

398 Retail - Electronics and appliance stores 343.62 $17,996,612 $14,304,127 $493,076 

399 

Retail - Building material and garden equipment and supplies 

stores 944.41 $88,149,456 $36,657,952 $1,139,374 

400 Retail - Food and beverage stores 1,340.52 $82,240,416 $36,315,896 $2,045,260 

401 Retail - Health and personal care stores 441.46 $32,811,592 $13,081,658 $771,285 

402 Retail - Gasoline stores 762.91 $40,403,536 $17,701,408 $1,584,365 

403 Retail - Clothing and clothing accessories stores 718.52 $50,453,420 $13,843,798 $1,101,039 

404 

Retail - Sporting goods, hobby, musical instrument and book 

stores 707.72 $31,195,672 $13,458,290 $666,523 

405 Retail - General merchandise stores 1,626.58 $106,702,336 $52,199,580 $694,840 

406 Retail - Miscellaneous store retailers 998.55 $39,951,728 $13,438,183 $11,994,428 

407 Retail - Nonstore retailers 1,051.36 $96,886,128 $10,676,412 $1,545,637 

408 Air transportation 42.95 $15,277,204 $1,869,517 $402,437 

409 Rail transportation 407.64 $195,794,800 $48,797,920 $0 

410 Water transportation 2.61 $1,407,086 $0 $64,268 

411 Truck transportation 1,027.18 $167,997,104 $46,496,532 $18,183,820 

412 Transit and ground passenger transportation 316.13 $18,297,798 $5,659,054 $507,795 

413 Pipeline transportation 7.29 $2,435,407 $545,765 $43,845 

414 

Scenic and sightseeing transportation and support activities for 

transportation 207.40 $30,269,718 $9,547,494 $906,101 

415 Couriers and messengers 325.16 $37,708,488 $14,116,561 $358,478 

416 Warehousing and storage 72.62 $5,229,260 $1,723,344 $217,333 

417 Newspaper publishers 165.61 $19,272,348 $6,116,872 $203,601 

418 Periodical publishers 18.98 $3,372,797 $192,238 $150,454 

419 Book publishers 39.50 $17,155,156 $1,850,171 $199,224 

420 Directory, mailing list, and other publishers 32.15 $8,510,818 $967,417 $136,066 

422 Software publishers 126.38 $24,888,536 $5,956,726 $386,501 

423 Motion picture and video industries 243.00 $64,070,816 $12,774,432 $2,604,027 

424 Sound recording industries 12.76 $2,573,651 $37,814 $864,784 

M-45 
Bureau of Land Management 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

425 Radio and television broadcasting 238.58 $48,734,504 $10,794,110 $1,440,455 

426 Cable and other subscription programming 0.00 $0 $0 $0 

427 Wired telecommunications carriers 305.68 $138,928,208 $26,265,396 $8,784 

428 Wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) 21.26 $41,551,468 $689,437 $6,729 

Satellite, telecommunications resellers, and all other 

429 telecommunications 7.05 $362,618 $30,318 $3,953 

430 Data processing, hosting, and related services 152.58 $35,078,272 $7,157,331 $299,587 

431 

News syndicates, libraries, archives and all other information 

services 2.18 $1,700,823 $82,741 $46,952 

432 Internet publishing and broadcasting and web search portals 15.64 $6,675,576 $598,259 $369,007 

433 Monetary authorities and depository credit intermediation 865.71 $204,951,024 $59,568,140 $253,724 

434 Nondepository credit intermediation and related activities 214.99 $30,556,446 $9,508,664 $1,698,101 

435 

Securities and commodity contracts intermediation and 

brokerage 321.58 $34,021,216 $21,786,692 $141,315 

436 Other financial investment activities 475.72 $65,221,352 $3,273,956 $208,114 

437 Insurance carriers 149.80 $64,575,256 $12,707,300 $65,486 

438 Insurance agencies, brokerages, and related activities 1,018.04 $172,626,128 $54,567,276 $4,614,519 

439 Funds, trusts, and other financial vehicles 217.21 $49,769,724 $7,114,907 $70,403 

440 Real estate 4,349.92 $780,671,168 $28,508,694 $31,037,916 

441 Owner-occupied dwellings 0.00 $579,417,856 $0 $0 

442 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 150.93 $27,157,582 $3,373,636 $1,523,274 

443 

General and consumer goods rental except video tapes and 

discs 100.54 $8,185,693 $2,344,669 $2,108,606 

444 Video tape and disc rental 19.35 $3,661,094 $182,904 $200,695 

445 

Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment rental and 

leasing 139.43 $24,393,250 $2,161,866 $4,614,350 

446 Lessors of nonfinancial intangible assets 80.39 $98,170,880 $1,220,942 $670,573 

447 Legal services 1,007.87 $133,149,016 $54,494,888 $5,734,206 

448 Accounting, tax preparation, bookkeeping, and payroll services 689.22 $50,081,540 $21,589,970 $6,745,761 

449 Architectural, engineering, and related services 883.22 $125,539,144 $54,384,300 $3,867,249 

M-46 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

450 Specialized design services 158.86 $9,973,681 $1,376,585 $2,833,614 

451 Custom computer programming services 407.61 $56,769,604 $19,923,120 $3,464,139 

452 Computer systems design services 362.56 $31,775,860 $20,728,330 $1,585,226 

453 

Other computer related services, including facilities 

management 105.61 $11,569,407 $5,295,509 $703,949 

454 Management consulting services 482.37 $41,762,036 $13,084,594 $6,614,594 

455 Environmental and other technical consulting services 274.91 $18,961,192 $9,459,036 $3,156,429 

456 Scientific research and development services 575.56 $113,184,880 $33,909,416 $1,327,456 

457 Advertising, public relations, and related services 317.80 $48,572,560 $6,814,364 $2,842,804 

458 Photographic services 118.61 $5,404,101 $194,952 $2,073,322 

459 Veterinary services 219.91 $20,368,320 $6,528,333 $587,714 

460 

Marketing research and all other miscellaneous professional, 

scientific, and technical services 563.51 $26,186,324 $927,744 $10,139,062 

461 Management of companies and enterprises 289.07 $57,811,560 $25,227,746 -$67,201 

462 Office administrative services 491.53 $36,580,932 $24,079,172 $1,821,692 

463 Facilities support services 86.07 $15,545,932 $4,350,420 $80,552 

464 Employment services 566.27 $40,355,628 $19,055,282 $452,704 

465 Business support services 1,016.80 $60,840,308 $40,985,376 $1,706,444 

466 Travel arrangement and reservation services 64.70 $10,952,271 $2,656,571 $226,402 

467 Investigation and security services 147.03 $10,174,425 $6,937,850 $285,232 

468 Services to buildings 903.30 $31,514,650 $10,880,820 $4,810,395 

469 Landscape and horticultural services 424.85 $20,847,596 $7,842,971 $2,196,975 

470 Other support services 179.36 $15,152,915 $5,594,908 $1,125,621 

471 Waste management and remediation services 242.44 $53,636,712 $16,584,160 $1,808,828 

472 Elementary and secondary schools 286.46 $12,480,708 $8,299,761 $238,983 

473 Junior colleges, colleges, universities, and professional schools 110.50 $5,542,628 $1,463,498 $244,266 

474 Other educational services 787.55 $21,260,262 $8,289,414 $1,834,914 

475 Offices of physicians 1,359.77 $222,658,464 $142,665,488 $12,377,816 

476 Offices of dentists 495.95 $59,644,908 $26,276,946 $2,916,093 

M-47 
Bureau of Land Management 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

477 Offices of other health practitioners 950.55 $93,803,368 $29,366,566 $28,281,952 

478 Outpatient care centers 666.46 $92,436,160 $28,965,616 $2,370,070 

479 Medical and diagnostic laboratories 59.22 $6,005,296 $2,207,733 $1,122,886 

480 Home health care services 1,002.57 $46,514,780 $27,680,080 $11,001,677 

481 Other ambulatory health care services 279.36 $28,361,528 $12,134,338 $3,673,017 

482 Hospitals 2,421.61 $401,369,312 $208,782,160 $10,905,597 

483 Nursing and community care facilities 983.96 $63,332,856 $32,904,358 $391,032 

Residential mental retardation, mental health, substance abuse 

484 and other facilities 776.99 $28,636,712 $20,313,342 $77,209 

485 Individual and family services 1,078.99 $37,236,732 $26,961,828 $2,893,752 

486 

Community food, housing, and other relief services, including 

rehabilitation services 629.65 $50,984,148 $20,674,744 $215,087 

487 Child day care services 720.93 $28,829,104 $10,078,094 $6,443,132 

488 Performing arts companies 205.76 $24,776,848 $4,173,486 $735,783 

489 Commercial Sports Except Racing 180.71 $10,912,195 $2,414,487 $2,296,427 

491 

Promoters of performing arts and sports and agents for public 

figures 118.13 $12,719,137 $1,285,932 $685,430 

492 Independent artists, writers, and performers 701.42 $21,363,090 $2,458,305 $7,036,229 

493 Museums, historical sites, zoos, and parks 44.02 $2,847,475 $1,054,130 -$219,972 

494 Amusement parks and arcades 5.47 $228,719 $42,910 $12,610 

495 Gambling industries (except casino hotels) 946.45 $130,164,840 $19,392,426 $1,900,534 

496 Other amusement and recreation industries 500.00 $22,797,592 $7,031,185 $563,967 

497 Fitness and recreational sports centers 445.63 $14,545,591 $4,562,974 $251,420 

498 Bowling centers 60.22 $2,562,150 $879,992 $16,256 

499 Hotels and motels, including casino hotels 1,166.50 $106,384,240 $26,374,596 $4,104,591 

500 Other accommodations 285.36 $13,369,109 $5,473,095 $1,975,999 

501 Full-service restaurants 2,985.59 $129,323,104 $53,721,952 $5,070,490 

502 Limited-service restaurants 2,465.69 $188,910,576 $40,122,192 $5,012,572 

503 All other food and drinking places 1,965.08 $72,181,064 $32,762,622 $9,976,024 

M-48 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Industry

Code Description Employment Output 

Employee 

Compensation 

Proprietor 

Income 

504 Automotive repair and maintenance, except car washes 912.22 $74,349,072 $36,846,632 $6,533,823 

505 Car washes 197.62 $9,691,862 $3,342,012 $2,634,087 

506 Electronic and precision equipment repair and maintenance 107.14 $12,626,487 $4,414,244 $1,349,636 

507 

Commercial and industrial machinery and equipment repair and 

maintenance 157.02 $18,355,658 $7,175,111 $1,214,314 

508 Personal and household goods repair and maintenance 217.51 $16,552,870 $3,293,961 $5,342,554 

509 Personal care services 693.24 $22,804,610 $6,960,646 $9,976,244 

510 Death care services 47.59 $3,701,315 $1,408,094 $138,905 

511 Dry-cleaning and laundry services 105.02 $6,837,700 $3,530,533 $103,081 

512 Other personal services 566.73 $17,648,890 $2,586,470 $9,773,484 

513 Religious organizations 551.38 $10,744,901 $15,875,534 $674,637 

514 Grantmaking, giving, and social advocacy organizations 744.61 $103,769,952 $32,775,424 $649,647 

515 Business and professional associations 76.90 $10,204,382 $3,790,095 $132,660 

516 Labor and civic organizations 464.73 $25,768,276 $9,825,039 $205,114 

517 Private households 662.53 $4,454,306 $4,454,306 $0 

518 Postal service 256.74 $23,785,084 $20,111,186 $0 

519 Federal electric utilities 9.03 $10,852,313 $1,523,517 $0 

524 Local government passenger transit 104.69 $6,061,269 $5,272,891 $0 

526 Other local government enterprises 17.75 $4,908,578 $933,670 $0 

531 * Employment and payroll of state govt, non-education 2,571.38 $196,850,832 $170,906,976 $0 

532 * Employment and payroll of state govt, education 3,270.61 $170,840,768 $148,930,096 $0 

533 * Employment and payroll of local govt, non-education 1,815.80 $127,577,440 $110,575,488 $0 

534 * Employment and payroll of local govt, education 2,645.35 $176,665,776 $153,148,256 $0 

535 * Employment and payroll of federal govt, non-military 1,219.96 $180,228,096 $132,988,904 $0 

536 * Employment and payroll of federal govt, military 619.25 $24,449,764 $19,481,136 $0 

Source: MIG 2016 

M-49 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix 2: Employment, jobs contributed by program by alternative, average annual 

Resource 

Total Direct Indirect/Induced 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Non-fish and wildliferelated recreation 

42.6 42.6 42.6 30.8 30.8 30.8 11.8 11.8 11.8 

Wildlife and Fish-related 

Recreation 

35.7 35.7 35.7 25.8 25.8 25.8 9.9 9.9 9.9 

Grazing 10.7 11.4 10.3 3.4 3.6 3.3 7.3 7.7 7.0 

Timber 44.1 54.5 43.6 17.7 21.9 17.5 26.4 32.6 26.1 

PILT County Payments 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 

BLM Salary 

Expenditures 

64.0 64.0 64.0 42.0 42.0 42.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 

BLM Non-salary 

Expenditures 

20.8 20.8 20.8 14.8 14.8 14.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 

Total Missoula BLM 

Management 

221.5 232.6 220.6 137.0 141.4 136.7 84.5 91.2 83.9 

Percent Change from 

Current 

--- 5.0% -0.4% --- 3.2% -0.2% --- 7.9% -0.7% 

M-51 
Bureau of Land Management 

Appendix 3: Labor Income, by program, by alternative, average annual (thousands of 2016 

dollars) 

Resource 

Total Direct Indirect/Induced 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Alternative A 

(Current) 

Alternative 

B 

Alternative 

C 

Non-fish and wildliferelated recreation $1,274.8 $1,274.8 $1,274.8 $834.4 $834.4 $834.4 $440.4 $440.4 $440.4 

Wildlife and Fish-related 

Recreation 

$1,065.7 $1,065.7 $1,065.7 $696.2 $696.2 $696.2 $369.5 $369.5 $369.5 

Grazing $356.9 $377.8 $341.1 $96.9 $102.5 $92.6 $260.0 $275.2 $248.5 

Timber $2,774.3 $3,460.7 $2,770.5 $871.5 $1,081.2 $865.4 $1,902.8 $2,379.4 $1,905.1 

PILT County Payments $175.8 $175.8 $175.8 $135.0 $135.0 $135.0 $40.7 $40.7 $40.7 

BLM Salary Expenditures $3,682.0 $3,682.0 $3,682.0 $2,842.8 $2,842.8 $2,842.8 $839.2 $839.2 $839.2 

BLM Non-salary 

Expenditures 

$703.9 $703.9 $703.9 $480.5 $480.5 $480.5 $223.4 $223.4 $223.4 

Total Missoula BLM 

Management 

$10,033.0 $10,741.0 $10,014 $5,957.3 $6,172.7 $5,946.9 $4,076.0 $4,567.8 $4,066.8 

Percent Change from 

Current 

--- 7.0% -0.2% --- 3.6% -0.2% --- 12.1% -0.2% 

M-52 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix N: Summary of No-action Alternative 

Management 

Background/Introduction 

The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP was approved on January 10, 1986, and has been amended six 

times as of February 24, 2006. The plan amendments are: 

• Garnet Acquired Lands RMP Amendment/EA, February 2, 1994 

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Amendment/EIS, August 1997 

• Lower Blackfoot Exchange Amendment/EA, September 2001 

• Montana BLM’s Statewide Fire Management Plan and RMP Amendment/EA July 2003 

• Canada Lynx Amendment/EA, November 2004 

• Wind Energy Development Program and Land Use Plan Amendment/EIS December 2005 

Other environmental documents that supplement or are used in conjunction with the RMP include: 

• Final Northwest Area Noxious Weed Control Program EIS dated December 1985, and the 

Supplement to the Northwest Area Noxious Weed Program Final EIS, March 1987. 

• Final Environmental Impact Statement Vegetation Treatment on BLM Lands in Thirteen Western 

States, May 1991 

• Garnet Final Wilderness EIS, January 11, 1991 

• Adoption of Interim Bull Trout Habitat Conservation Strategy, signed by BLM’s Montana State 

Director, May 1996 

Air Quality 

The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP goals were to (1) meet air and water quality standards established 

by Montana, and (2) pursue maintenance and/or enhancement of water and air quality and site 

productivity on all public lands in the resource areas. 

N-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

Endangered Species Act 

In July 1998, bull trout was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. On January 14, 2010, 

the USFWS designated streams, lakes and reservoirs in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and 

Nevada as critical habitat for bull trout. In 2015, the USFWS published the Recovery Plan for the 

Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout. 

Aquatic Habitat and Special Status Species 

The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP established two management areas associated with riparian habitat. 

Both zones have goals of being managed to maintain or enhance their value for wildlife, recreation, 

fishery, and aquatic habitat. Riparian protection zones (1,000 acres) are managed as areas unavailable for 

woodlands product harvest, whereas the riparian multiple-use zone (2,500 acres) is managed to provide 

suitable and available commercial forest land with operational restrictions that maintain or improve 

riparian zone values. The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP did not mention special status fish, 

amphibians, aquatic reptiles, nor aquatic invertebrates, so a new list of attributes is important in defining 

habitat conditions for these species reflecting recent science and current agency guidelines needed to be 

developed. Allowable uses pertinent to aquatics resources include: livestock grazing, oil and gas leasing, 

mineral material permits, herbicide and insecticide use, recreation activities, locatable minerals, roads, 

utility corridors, firewood collection, and forest management activities. 

INFISH 

The Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) was a broad reaching document that amended land management 

plans across the west to improve their conservation function in response to concerns about stream habitat 

degradation. INFISH was meant to be used as interim guidance for managing aquatic habitat until an Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy was written and incorporated into a unit’s next land management plan 

In 1998, with the listing of bull trout, the BLM adopted the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) in 

watersheds managed by the Missoula Field Office. INFISH bolstered conservation of riparian areas and 

those areas influencing aquatic habitat. A Framework for Incorporating the Aquatic and Riparian Habitat 

Component of the Interior Columbia Basin Strategy into BLM and Forest Service Plan Revision (USDA 

Forest Service et al. 2014) is subsequent guidance for incorporating the central themes of INFISH into 

land management plans and has been integral to developing desirable habitat conditions for aquatic 

special status species. 

One of the key concepts of INFISH is the delineation of riparian conservation areas, those areas 

influencing aquatic habitat. These areas are delineated by features on the ground and distances from 

water, and represent zones where management activities are meant to enhance, restore, or maintain the 

physical and biological characteristics. 

Cave and Karst Resources 

The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP does not address cave and karst resources. According to the Federal 

Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988 (FCRPA), a cave is defined as any naturally occurring void, 

cavity, recess, or system of interconnected passages occurring beneath the surface of the Earth or within a 

cliff or ledge large enough to permit an individual to enter, whether or not the entrance is naturally formed 

or human-made. Karst is a type of landscape with characteristic features (fissures, sinkholes, collapsed 

caverns, etc.) that are a result of the dissolution of soluble rock at or near-surface. 

N-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Cave and karst resources are fragile because they are associated with other resources such as groundwater 

systems, biological communities, fossils, cultural values, and mineral formations. An integral part of cave 

management on federal lands is the evaluation and designation of significant caves. Under the Federal 

Cave Resources Protection Act, a cave is considered significant if it meets one or more of the following 

six criteria: biota; cultural; geological, mineralogical, and paleontological; hydrological; recreational; and 

educational or scientific. 

Under the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act and cave management regulations, it is the duty of the 

BLM to secure, protect, and preserve significant caves on federal lands for the perpetual use, enjoyment, 

and benefit of all people and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between 

governmental authorities and those utilizing caves located on federal lands for scientific, educational, or 

recreational purposes. All caves are managed as significant until an evaluation is completed. 

Climate Change 

Climate change was not discussed in the 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP. 

Cultural Resources 

Current management consists of specific management direction for Management Area 11 (MA 11). 

Included within this direction are Garnet Ghost Town, Reynold’s City, Coloma, Blackfoot City, Copper 

Cliff, Blackfoot City, Beartown, Bearmouth and other sites eligible for the National Register. The 

management guidelines for MA 11 included recommending mineral withdrawals for Garnet, Coloma, 

Reynold’s City, Copper Cliff, Blackfoot City, Beartown and other eligible sites (160 acres). Designate the 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail as a Special Recreation Management Area. 

Forest Vegetation and Special Status Plant Species 

Management emphasis for forest vegetation in the 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP, as amended focuses 

on timber production (maximizing growth and yield) and big game habitat management. Some of the key 

management objectives include: maintain or enhance site productivity on all commercial forest land 

available for harvest; minimize insect and disease losses by harvesting and with management practices; 

precommercially thin stands to maximize growth on crop trees; and offer approximately 7,300 Mbf of 

timber for sale annually. Timber volume harvest emphasis was made a lower priority on 20 percent of the 

commercial forest landbase to make the management focus big game habitat and riparian vegetation 

management and recreation emphasis areas in the Missoula Field Office. Key management actions from 

the 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP include implementation of a 5-year timber sale program (allowing 

for agency and industry planning), prioritization of opportunities to apply intensive forest management, 

and to eliminate a reforestation backlog. 

Definition: 

Natural range of variation (NRV) refers to a spectrum of ecological vegetative states and the spatial and 

temporal variation in these states. Modeling was used to develop a quantified estimate of the NRV and 

knowledge of historical conditions helped corroborate the model results. 

Since the RMP was signed, forest vegetation management has shifted from a focus on timber production 

to an emphasis on multiple goals including managing for ecological integrity, terrestrial and aquatic 

wildlife species habitat management and properly functioning watersheds while simultaneously 

N-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

harvesting wood products. Fire and other disturbance processes were important in shaping vegetation 

structure and composition in the planning area for thousands of years until approximately 1940, when fire 

suppression was effective enough to limit the role of natural fire throughout the region. Management 

actions in the revised RMP reflect the shift in focus. 

Lands with Wilderness Characteristics 

Lands with wilderness characteristics were not addressed in the 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP. 

Definitions: 

Size: The assessments of wilderness characteristics are based on roadless tracts of BLM-managed land of 5,000 

acres or larger, or are adjacent to recommended wilderness and possess characteristics of naturalness, 

solitude, and/or primitive recreation. 

Naturalness: Lands with naturalness characteristics are affected primarily by the forces of nature, and are areas 

where the imprint of human activity is substantially unnoticeable. 

Solitude: Visitors may have outstanding opportunities for solitude when the sights, sounds, and evidence of 

other people are rare or infrequent; and where visitors can be isolated, alone, or secluded from others. 

Primitive Recreation: Outstanding opportunities for primitive and unconfined types of recreation are 

encountered where the use of the area is primarily through nonmotorized or nonmechanical means, and 

characterized by undeveloped types of recreational activities where developed recreational facilities are not 

required or present. 

Noxious and Invasive Species 

Prior to 2008, little noxious and invasive species guidance was given in the 1986 Garnet Resource Area 

RMP. In 2003, an EA was written to address that need, and in 2008, the Integrated Weed Management 

Environmental Assessment MT-100-2008-019 was written. Since then, Montana/Dakotas BLM has used 

that EA to guild its noxious weed treatment program. The Missoula Field Office currently cooperates with 

Missoula and Powell Counties through assistance agreements to manage and control noxious weeds on 

BLM-managed land. The majority of the BLM weed control efforts are through these weed cooperative 

agreements. The BLM develops a yearly project list and provides the funding for implementation. 

Projects are determined cooperatively with each county prior to field season, this assures that both BLM 

and counties benefit from the work done. 

Integrated Weed Management: A management approach that uses all suitable methods in a 

compatible manner to reduce weed populations to levels below those causing unacceptable 

economic or ecological consequences. 

Biological Control Agent: Managed living agents that can decrease the number of noxious weeds by 

feeding on the plant, modifying the plant, or by reducing nutrients available to the plant. 

Noxious Weed: Noxious weeds are those plant species designated as such by state law. Noxious 

weeds generally possess one or more of the characteristics of being aggressive and difficult to 

manage, parasitic, a carrier or host of serious disease, and being non-native, new to, or not common 

to the United States or an area in the United States. 

Special designation areas: 

N-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Paleontological Resources 

The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP is silent on paleontological resources management. BLM policy is 

to manage paleontological resources for scientific, educational, and recreational values and to protect or 

mitigate these resources from adverse impacts. 

Paleontological resources (fossils) are any evidence of past life. Legal authority for the BLM to manage 

fossils primarily comes from the Paleontological Resources Preservation subtitle of the Omnibus Public 

Land Management Act of 2009. Commonly known as the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act, it 

directs federal land managers to manage and protect fossils using scientific principles and expertise. 

The collection of vertebrate or other scientifically significant fossils on public lands is regulated through a 

permit system. Qualified paleontologists and academic institutions can obtain permits from the BLM for 

collecting. Permits are not necessary for fossils that are not scientifically significant, so the public is 

allowed to collect reasonable amounts for personal noncommercial use. 

BLM uses a coding system to rank a formation’s probability of containing significant fossils. This system 

is the Potential Fossil Yield Classification, a numerical ranking from 1 (low potential) to 5 (very high 

potential). This system allows land managers to predict where significant fossils will likely occur in order 

to make informed planning decisions with regard to fossil resources. 

Grassland and Shrubland Vegetation 

The goal of the 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP was to maintain, where practicable, and enhance site 

productivity on all public land available for livestock grazing. The intention was to (a) maintain current 

vegetative conditions in maintenance (M) and custodial (C) category allotments; (b) improve 

unsatisfactory vegetative conditions by one condition class in certain improvement (I) category allotments 

(Appendix L); (c) prevent noxious weeds from invading new areas; and (d) limit utilization levels to 

provide for plant maintenance. 

Soil, Water, and Riparian-Wetlands 

Regulations and policy drive the general programmatic management of these resources and is therefore 

common to all alternatives. Implementation is most often criteria-based to account for natural variations 

as well as resource conditions or potential. In the course of plan implementation, on-the-ground 

management tools, techniques, and adaptive strategies are developed and evolve over time to stay current 

with contemporary knowledge and science, and are practiced at the project level to help ensure project 

success, and therefore, a rational approach toward meeting goals and objectives. 

Riparian areas are transitional between terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and are distinguished by 

gradients in biophysical conditions, ecological processes, and biota. They are areas through which surface 

and subsurface hydrology connect waterbodies with their adjacent uplands. They include those portions of 

terrestrial ecosystems that significantly influence exchanges of energy and matter with aquatic ecosystems 

(i.e., a zone of influence). Riparian areas are adjacent to perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams; 

lakes; and estuarine-marine shorelines. 

(National Academy of Sciences 2002) 

The 1986 Garnet Resource Area RMP goals, objectives, and general management direction are: 

• Maintaining, enhancing, or restoring site productivity, water quality, and stream stability. 

N-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

• Managing riparian areas to maintain or enhance value for wildlife, recreation, fishery, and aquatic 

habitat. Riparian and upland areas must meet, or make significant progress toward meeting, proper 

functioning condition. 

• Managing riparian to provide some elements of old-growth or mature forest for wildlife habitat. 

• Providing opportunities to improve wildlife and fisheries habitat through specifically prescribed 

vegetative manipulation. 

• Meeting state water quality standards. Restoring water quality, and rehabilitating site productivity and 

stream stability through reclamation. Maintaining soil and site productivity. 

• Using best management practices for the protection of water quality and riparian features. Riparian 

influence zones are determined on a site-specific basis. 

Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support and which, under normal circumstances, 

do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 

conditions. Wetlands include marshes, shallows, swamps, bogs, muskegs, wet meadows, 

estuaries and riparian areas. 

(BLM Manual 1737) 

Management direction is further specified by management area (MA). Two MAs were developed around 

riparian areas: MA 1 (riparian zones and adjacent lands of specified sections of the Clark Fork and 

Blackfoot Rivers, Rock Creek, Belmont Creek, and Flint Creek), and MA 2 (riparian areas of other 

streams and aquatic habitat, including areas 75 feet on each side of these features). 

Allowable uses pertinent to soil, water, and riparian resources include: livestock grazing, oil and gas 

leasing, mineral material permits, herbicide and insecticide use, recreation activities, locatable minerals, 

roads, utility corridors, firewood collection, and forest management activities. 

Relevant changes in management direction since 1986 include; 

• Inland Native Fish Strategy and Biological Opinion for Bull Trout (xxxx 1995), which required the 

development of site-specific Riparian Management Objectives that give primary emphasis to ripariandependent resources when activities are proposed in riparian conservation areas. 

• Water Quality Memorandum-of-Understanding with State of Montana (USDI 2010), which outlined 

the responsibilities of the BLM and the Montana DEQ with regard to water quality management on 

BLM-managed lands. 

• Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) and Water Quality Improvement Plans developed by the State 

of Montana under direction of the Federal Clean Water Act and the Environmental Protection Agency 

(Montana DEQ 2018). 

• Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing, which amended the RMP and 

added management direction for soils, water quality, and riparian function (USDI 1997). 

• Coordinated Riparian Policy Statement (USDI 1993). 

Wildlife Habitat and Special Status Species 

The BLM is responsible for managing wildlife habitat in partnership with Montana Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks (MFWP), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). These two agencies are charged with 

the management of fish and wildlife populations within the planning area, which includes licenses/permits 

for hunting and fishing. The USFWS also provides regulatory oversight for species listed as threatened or 

N-6 
 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Additional designations under the ESA include: 

candidate species warranted, but precluded from listing, species proposed for listing, and critical habitat 

essential for the conservation and management of listed species. The USFWS also administers the Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which protects hunted and nonhunted migratory birds. 

The RMP for the Garnet Resource Area was published in May 1986 and amended. The RMP was based 

on the concept of Management Areas (MAs) developed by the Lolo National Forest Plan (USFS 1982). 

As of the Garnet Resource Area MAs have wildlife management goals and MA 4 (elk summer and fall 

habitat components), MA 5 (big game summer and fall range), and MA6 (big game winter range) are 

specifically big game wildlife-driven. The existing plan and amendments do not explicitly identify desired 

future conditions, but the mandated management prescriptions in the RMP and amendments indicate the 

intention is to manage so that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species; and management activities maintain or improve 

wildlife habitat conditions. 

Wildlife and wildlife habitat management prescriptions would consist of stabilizing or improving habitat 

conditions, maintaining and improving elk summer and fall habitat components, and balancing forage and 

cover for big game summer and fall ranges. Roughly 80,450 acres managed primarily to emphasize big 

game habitat. Wildlife habitat would be evaluated at project level planning. No activities would be 

permitted in habitat for threatened and endangered species jeopardizing continued species existence. The 

USFWS and MFWP would be consulted prior to actions affecting threatened and endangered species 

habitat. Surveying occupied and potential threatened and endangered habitat would continue on the 

resource area. Road and area closures would be pursued for wildlife security, and habitat goals and 

objectives would be included in all resource activity plans and projects affecting wildlife habitat. 

Visual Resources 

The visual resource management (VRM) classes are based on a process that considers scenic quality, 

sensitivity to changes in the landscape and distance zone. The four VRM classes are numbered I to IV; the 

lower the number, the more sensitive and scenic the area. Each class has a management objective which 

prescribes the level of acceptable change in the landscape. The objectives are guidelines to be used with 

the visual resource contrast rating system during new project-level planning. 

The Garnet RMP allocated areas to the VRM classes and also allocated visual corridors. However, the 

majority of the lands acquired after the date of the RMP did not get a VRM classification. Visual 

resources were to be evaluated as part of activity and project plans using the VRM guidelines in an 

appendix. Maintain or improve the visual quality within areas of high visual sensitivity and high scenic 

quality (MA-12). 

N-7 
Bureau of Land Management 

Wildland Fire Management 

Wildland fire and fuels management is an important component of healthy forests and the wellbeing of 

surrounding communities. Wildland fire management direction is based on the National Cohesive 

Strategy, an interagency effort aimed at creating resilient landscapes, fire adapted communities, and safe 

and effective wildfire response. 

Wildland Fire: Any non-structure fire that occurs in vegetation or natural fuels. Wildland 

fires are categorized into two distinct types: Wildfires which are unplanned ignitions or 

prescribed fires that are declared wildfires, and prescribed fires, which are planned 

ignitions. 

Approximately 70,000 acres (43%) of the planning area is within the wildland-urban interface (WUI). 

This number is expected to increase as more homes are built in the WUI. 

Firefighter and public safety is the highest priority in all alternatives. 

The degree to which wildland fire is used to manage the vegetation composition, structure, and density 

will vary by alternative. The degree to which forest management is used as a tool to influence fire 

intensity and severity (fuels reduction) will vary by alternative. 

The following fire management zones (FMZs) have been developed to guide wildland fire management 

decisions. FMZ determination will not dictate exactly how every wildland fire is to be managed, but 

rather guides and prioritizes wildland fire and fuels management. Full suppression is always an option for 

any wildland fire in any FMZ. The suppression strategy for any wildland fire depends on many factors 

including the FMZ, current vegetation conditions, time of year, condition of fuels, risk management, 

resource availability, safety, protection agency, regional and national wildland fire activity, and smoke 

impacts. 

- FMZ1: High values at risk, or areas at high risk of catastrophic fire due to current vegetation 

conditions, where an unplanned wildland fire is likely to cause negative effects. These lands 

would generally be under a full suppression strategy. These lands are adjacent to and close 

proximity to the WUI, intermingled with private and state lands, and contain important cultural, 

recreational, economic, or biological resources. Fuels treatments including mechanical and -

prescribed fire will play a major role in these areas. 

- FMZ2: Wildland fire is desired to manage ecosystems, but there are constraints to using wildland 

fire. Constraints are many and vary greatly including current vegetation conditions, time of year, 

condition of fuels, risk management, resource availability, safety, protection agency, regional and 

national wildland fire activity, and smoke impacts. Prior vegetation treatments will aid in 

allowing wildland fire to be utilized to manage ecosystems, and wildland fire is needed to 

maintain some of these prior vegetation treatments. The full range of fuels treatments including 

mechanical and prescribed fire on lands in this category will be important to the success of 

wildland fire management. 

- FMZ3: Wildland fire is desired to manage ecosystems, and there are fewer constraints to using 

wildland fire. In these areas wildland fire could be allowed to play its natural role on the 

landscape. These lands include wilderness study areas, lands with wilderness characteristics, 

areas geographically far from values at risk, and where current vegetation conditions are 

favorable for wildland fire use. While fuels treatments can and could occur here, wildland fire 

would be the preferred treatment method. 

N-8 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI): Any area where the combination 

of human development and vegetation have a potential to result in 

negative impacts from wildfire on the community. 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP): a community-based 

plan that identifies local wildfire risk, what is at risk, and actions 

the community must take to address its wildfire risk. 

The 1986 Garnet RMP continued the historic full suppression fire management policy on BLM lands and 

stated that fire could be used as a tool for vegetation and fuels management. Fire management and control 

actions in the WSAs were to be consistent with the BLM’s Wilderness Management Policy, so 

suppression actions do not impair wilderness values, which essentially restricts the use of some 

equipment in those areas. 

In 2003, the Garnet RMP was amended by the Fire/Fuels Management Plan EA. This brought the Garnet 

RMP in alignment with the 2001 Federal Fire Policy and the National Fire Plan. It assigned fire 

management zones and categories, broad levels of treatment, and provided guidance for fire suppression 

and fuels management needed to protect resource values. 

Energy and Minerals: Renewable and Non-renewable 

The Bureau of Land Management recognizes that public lands are an important source of the nation’s 

energy and mineral resources. It is BLM policy to make public lands available for orderly and efficient 

development of these resources in an environmentally sound manner under the principles of multiple use 

management and sustainable development. 

Members of the public can explore for and develop energy and mineral resources under a variety of laws 

and provisions. The type of resource and designation of public land (either public domain or acquired 

lands) determines what authority is used. The following overview summarizes the three classifications of 

management for energy and minerals. 

Locatable minerals are those that are open to mining claim location under the General Mining Law of 

1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. §22-54 and 611-615). Locatable minerals include, but are not limited to, 

precious and base metals (gold, silver, copper), nonmetallic minerals (gemstones and fluorspar), and other 

uncommon variety minerals (gypsum and chemical grade limestone or silica). Because of the wide variety 

of potentially locatable minerals, there is no definitive list. Rather, minerals are considered locatable only 

if they constitute a valuable mineral under the definition of discovery as outlined through case law. 

Except for areas withdrawn or otherwise segregated from mineral entry, all BLM-managed mineral estate 

under public domain remains open to exploration and development for locatable minerals. Any 

withdrawal segregation from appropriation under the mining laws is subject to the valid existing rights of 

any current mining claimants; however, no new mining claims can be located in a withdrawn or 

segregated area. A withdrawal is the only mechanism to remove public lands from future locatable 

mineral entry. Congress can designate withdrawals, or the BLM can undertake a withdrawal process 

where the final decision is signed by the Secretary of the Interior. 

In cases where lands were subject to conveyance under section 206 of the FLPMA prior to November 21, 

2000, minerals reserved to the United States remain subject to interminable “temporary” segregation from 

entry under the mining laws. These section 206 conveyances included sale or exchange under 43 U.S.C. 

682(b) (Small Tracts Act), 43 U.S.C. 869 (Recreation and Public Purposes Act- R&PP), 43 U.S.C. 1713 

N-9 
Bureau of Land Management 

(sale), or 43 U.S.C. 1716 (exchange). In accordance with 43 CFR 3809.2(a), BLM will restore the lands 

under interminable “temporary” segregations to mineral entry if not recommended for withdrawal. 

Leasable energy and mineral resources are the resources which are developed under the Mineral 

Leasing Act of 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. §181); and the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands of 

1947, as amended (30 U.S.C. §351). These types of resources can be separated under two categories: 

energy and non-energy. 

Energy solid leasable minerals include coal and oil shale. Energy fluid leasable minerals include 

nonrenewable (oil, gas, coal bed natural gas) and renewable (geothermal) resources. Within the planning 

area, very little to no demand for energy leasable mineral resources is anticipated, so no management 

direction is being developed under this land use plan. 

Non-energy leasable minerals include, but are not limited to: phosphate and any chlorides, sulfates, 

carbonates, borates, silicates, or nitrates of potassium and sodium. Mineable commodities referred to as 

“hard rock minerals” also fall under the category of non-energy leasable minerals. In terms of leasing, 

hard rock minerals are the mineral commodities that would usually qualify as locatable on public domain 

lands, but may only be obtained through mineral lease when on acquired lands. Authority to development 

mineral resources owned by the U.S. is through issuance of a competitive lease in known leasing areas or 

by prospecting permit and preference right lease in unknown leasing areas. 

Salable minerals, also referred to as mineral materials, are common variety minerals such as sand, 

gravel, clay, borrow material, and building stone. The Minerals Materials Act of 1947 (30 U.S.C. §601) 

provides the BLM the authority to dispose of mineral materials at fair market value, using both 

competitive and noncompetitive sales or through free use permit. The BLM’s policy is to make these 

materials available for the public and local government agencies whenever possible if environmentally 

acceptable. The BLM has discretion over the development and utilization of mineral material sources, so 

a “withdrawal” from these activities in a land use planning effort is not necessary to limit development. 

Under the current management alternative, the BLM recommends 820 acres for withdrawal. These acres 

of withdrawal would include the Limestone Cliffs ACEC (20 ac), Phil Wright Rock ACEC (640 ac), and 

the cultural/historic sites around the ghost towns of Coloma, Garnet, Blackfoot City, and Reynolds City 

(up to 160 ac, total). Of these recommendations, the Limestone Cliffs ACEC has been withdrawn. 

The 1986 Garnet RMP also identified Management Areas 1, 2, and 10 as “generally closed” to mineral 

material permits in order to protect other resources. Because the management action does not expressly 

close these areas, these lands are assumed open at the planning level while the disapproval of a potential 

mineral material permit remains at the discretion of the Field Manager at the project level. 

Forest Products 

In the 1986 RMP, as amended 40,300 acres are available for commercial forest management, 7,440 acres 

are reserved (unavailable) from commercial forest product management, and 64,720 acres have reduced 

amounts of allowable commercial forest product management with harvest volumes reduced by 20%. 

The allowable annual harvest level is 7,300 thousand board feet (MBF) per year. There have been an 

additional 18,141 acres added to the Missoula Field Office land base since 1986 and these lands have 

been managed according to adjacent BLM-managed lands’ allocations and direction. BLM provides 

special forest product sale opportunities that maintain a balance between public demand and desired 

vegetation conditions. This practice will continue with the revised RMP. Examples of special forest 

N-10 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

product sales include, but are not limited to: firewood, Christmas trees, house logs, posts and poles, 

vegetative cuttings, and conifer boughs. 

Livestock Grazing 

BLM is responsible for administering livestock grazing on public land within the planning area. Livestock 

grazing can include the grazing of cattle, sheep, horses, goats and bison. BLM lands are important to local 

ranch operations in Granite, Missoula, and Powell Counties. The BLM lands are commonly intermingled 

with private and state lands and usually grazed as one unit or allotment. All grazing allotments within the 

planning area are classified as leases as defined under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. 

The goal of the 1986 Garnet RMP was to provide a level of livestock grazing commensurate with 

resource objectives. 

Recreation and Visitor Services 

The BLM identifies Recreation Management Areas. 

- Special Recreation Management Areas (SRMAS) are managed to protect and enhance a targeted 

set of activities, experiences, benefits and desired recreation setting characteristics. SRMAs may 

be subdivided into recreation management zones (RMZs) to further delineate specific recreation 

opportunities. Within an SRMA, recreation and visitor services management is a recognized and 

predominant land use plan focus, where specific recreation opportunities and recreation setting 

characteristics are managed to be protected on a long-term basis. 

- Extensive Recreation Management Areas (RMAs) are administrative units that require specific 

management consideration in order to address recreation 

The Garnet RMP focused on maintaining and enhancing the present variety and quality of recreation sites 

to contribute to public enjoyment of the resource area; providing a broad range of outdoor recreation 

opportunities for all segments of the public commensurate with demand; and maintaining the recreation 

potential of undeveloped recreation sites. The Garnet RMP had four Special Recreation Management 

Areas, and no Extensive Recreation Management Areas. 

N-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

Travel Management 

All public land will be designated as either open, limited, or closed to motorized vehicle use under 

authority of Executive Order 11644. 

- Open: Motorized vehicle travel is permitted year-long anywhere within an area designated as 

“open” to OHV use. Open designations are used for intensive OHV use areas where there are no 

special restrictions or where there are no compelling resource protection needs, user conflicts, or 

public safety issues to warrant limiting cross-country travel (see 43 CFR 8340.05). 

- Limited: Motorized vehicle travel within specified areas and/or on designated routes, roads, 

vehicle ways, or trails is subject to restrictions. The limited designation is used where OHV use 

must be restricted to meet specific resource management objectives. Examples of limitations 

include: number or type of vehicles; time or season of use; permitted or licensed use only; use 

limited to designated roads and trails; or other limitations if restrictions are necessary to meet 

resource management objectives, including certain competitive or intensive use areas that have 

special limitations (see 43 CFR 8340.05). 

- Closed: Motorized vehicle travel is prohibited in the area. Access by means other than motorized 

vehicle is permitted. Areas are designated closed if closure to all vehicular use is necessary to 

protect resources, promote visitor safety, or reduce use conflicts (see 43 CFR 8340.05). 

The Garnet RMP allocated a total of 137, 052 acres as limited. The Garnet RMP allocated approximately 

8,660 acres (MA8 & 9) as roadless, nonmotorized recreation; this includes Wales Creek, Cottonwood 

Meadows, Limestone Cliffs, and Quigg West WSAThe Garnet RMP allocated approximately, 5040 acres 

in the Ram and Karshaw Mountain areas are roaded but unavailable to motorized recreation. The Garnet 

RMP allocated 54,770 acres of public land, as shown on the Motorized Recreation Restriction Map in the 

back packet of the draft RMP/EIS in cooperative road closure programs. 

The Garnet RMP allocated 25,562 acres as closed to OHV. 

N-12 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Withdrawals and Other Segregations 

A withdrawal creates a title encumbrance on the land restricting BLM’s ability to manage public land 

under multiple use management principles. The restrictions generally segregate (defined below) the lands 

from the public land laws and the mining and mineral laws for a specific period of time— generally 

20 years for withdrawals under Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) authority. 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA) and Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). 

FLTFA: FLTFA monies accrue from disposal of BLM lands by sale. 20% of the fund covers administrative costs 

and the remaining 80% is designated for acquisition. FLTFA requires that 80% remain in state (i.e., of the 80% 

designated for acquisition, 80% must be spent in-state). 

LWCF: LWCF monies come from the Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing royalties, GSA surplus property 

sales, and federal motorboat fuel tax, and are used for the purchase of land which meets the established 

criteria. Congress annually appropriates the funds between competing proposals submitted from the BLM, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service. 

Perpetual Exclusive Easement: A perpetual exclusive easement is a perpetual right acquired by the United 

States to use land of another for a particular purpose, such right being acquired exclusively by the United 

States and excluding others from enjoying the same privilege unless specifically authorized by the United 

States. An exclusive road easement grants control to the United States and may allow it to authorize third 

party use and set road use rules. (BLM Handbook H-2100-1) 

When obtaining a road easement, the BLM’s preferred option is to gain an exclusive easement in order to 

obtain the right for the general public. 

Segregative Effect: The term "segregation," as it pertains to withdrawals, refers to the closure of lands to 

the operation of all or some of the public land and mining laws. Public land laws authorize some means to 

dispose of the surface estate, whereas the mineral laws authorize disposal of the subsurface estate. The 

segregative effect of a withdrawal is stated in the order itself, or it is prescribed by the authority under 

which a withdrawal is made. Many withdrawals, particularly pre-FLPMA ones, have been subsequently 

amended by statute or by other administrative orders. Consequently, interpretation of the current 

segregative effect of many withdrawals can be difficult. 

As stated in FLPMA, the Secretary of Interior is authorized to make, modify, extend, or revoke 

withdrawals up to 5,000 acres. Through land use planning decision, the BLM can recommend areas for 

administrative withdrawal, modification, extension, or revocation, but the final withdrawal decision 

authority lies with the Secretary. Withdrawals greater than 5,000 acres are made through either a 

legislative action by Congress in the form of public law (Wilderness designations, National Parks, etc.) or 

Presidential Proclamation (National Monuments). 

Under the Garnet RMP, the BLM recommends 820 acres for withdrawal. These withdrawals would 

include the Limestone Cliffs ACEC (20 ac), Phil Wright Rock ACEC (640 ac), and the cultural/historic 

sites around the ghost towns of Coloma, Garnet, Blackfoot City, and Reynolds City (up to 160 ac, total). 

Of these recommendations, the Limestone Cliffs ACEC has been withdrawn. 

N-13 
Bureau of Land Management 

Lands and Realty 

Land Tenure 

In the 1986 RMP, there were two categories, Retention and Other. Retention zones generally will remain 

in public ownership and be managed by the BLM. Transfers to other public agencies will be considered 

where improved management efficiency would result, and exchanges may be permitted based on sitespecific criteria. Sales would be permitted only by amending the RMP. Other Lands are generally isolated 

tracts which are considered difficult and economic to manage. Such tracts may be considered for 

retention, exchange, sale, or transfer to another agency. The majority of the BLM-managed land in the 

planning area is zoned for retention. 

Access 

Overview 

Access is acquired from willing landowners on a case-by-case basis as needs or opportunities arise. The 

Field Office uses acquisitions of road and trail easements as the primary means of obtaining legal access 

to BLM-managed land where it does not currently exist. 

Perpetual easements and rights-of-way are a prominent tool to provide legal access to federal and private 

lands between the U.S. and private landowners as authorized by the FLPMA and other federal regulations. 

The Garnet RMP called for improve access to public lands to meet resource objectives and public needs. 

Land Use Authorizations 

Land use authorizations on BLM-managed land include right-of-way grants, temporary use permits, 

leases, and easements under several different authorities including: Section 302 of the FLPMA; airport 

leases under the Federal Public Airport Act of May 24, 1928, as amended (43 U.S.C. 30, § 1441-1443); 

and the Recreation and Public Purposes (R&PP) Act of 1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869). 

Right of Way Corridor: Designated right-of-way corridor: a parcel of land with specific 

boundaries identified by law, Secretarial order, the land-use planning process, or other 

management decision, as being a preferred location for existing and future rights-ofway and facilities. The corridor may be suitable to accommodate more than one type 

of right-of-way use or facility or one or more right-of-way uses or facilities which are 

similar, identical, or compatible (43 CFR 2801.5(b)(9)). 

Lands may be classified as exclusion or avoidance areas in an RMP. 

- Avoidance Areas: Public land within avoidance areas generally (How to word this, there are 

exceptions)will not be available for large scale infrastructures; Exceptions may be permitted 

based on type of and need for facility proposed; conflicts with other resource values and uses, 

including potential values and uses; and availability of alternatives and/or design features. Rightsof-way may also be allowed if they support or promote management objectives for the area and/ 

or if the right-of-way does not impact the goals and objective of the area. 

- Exclusion Areas: Public land within identified exclusion areas will not be available for rights-ofway. 

N-14 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

In the 1986 RMP as amended specifically talked about Right of Corridors. Avoidance and Exclusion 

areas were as follows: 

Avoidance: 

• Management Area 1- Riparian Protection Zone. 

• Management Area 4- Elk and Summer and Fall Habitat Components. 

• Management Area 9- Special Management Areas. 

• Management Area 10- Developed and Undeveloped Recreation Sites. 

• Management Area 11- Historical and Cultural Sites. 

Exclusion: 

• All land recommended for wilderness (Quigg West- 514acres). 

• ACEC designation (Limestone Cliffs, 20 acres). 

Common to All Alternatives 

Goals 

1. Consider all request for right of way, land use permits and lease 

Roads, Infrastructure, and Facilities 

• Road and trail construction and maintenance will continue to be conducted in support of resource 

management objectives. Construction and maintenance requirements and priorities will be 

determined on a yearly basis as a part of the annual work planning process. 

• Investment of public funds for road and trail construction generally will be permitted only on land 

identified for retention in public ownership. Exceptions may be allowed where investment costs can 

be recovered as a part of land disposal actions. Acquiring access or building roads to tracts outside 

the retention zones may be required for resource management activities such as timber sales. 

• Specific road and trail construction standards will be determined based on consideration of resource 

management needs; user safety; impacts to environmental values, including but not limited to 

wildlife and fisheries habitat, soil stability, recreation, and scenery; and construction and 

maintenance costs. 

Special Designations 

Areas of Critical Environmental Concern 

ACECs are a land use planning designation the BLM can apply to an area where special management 

attention is needed to protect and prevent irreparable damage to relevant and important historical, cultural, 

and scenic values, or fish and wildlife or other natural resources. ACECs can also be designated to protect 

human life and safety from natural hazards. 

In the Garnet RMP, ACECs were found under Management Area 9. Not all Management Area 9s were 

ACECs though. Goals are dependent on the special area and unique features or values for the particular 

area. In addition, each area would maintain, enhance or restore site productivity, water quality, and stream 

stability. 

N-15 
Bureau of Land Management 

Back Country Byways 

The BLM byway program is a part of the national scenic byway system. It includes the BLM designated 

scenic and back country byways and the nationally designated all-American roads and national scenic 

byways. The primary focus of the BLM byway program shall continue to be on the designation and 

management of back country byways. 

The Garnet Winter Backcountry Byway was designated after the Garnet RMP was written. It is part of the 

Garnet National Winter Recreation Trail (see that section for further information.) The goals and 

objectives for the Garnet Winter Backcountry Byway is the same in all Alternatives. In the RMP the 

Garnet Winter Backcountry Byway was 12 miles. According to GIS, it is actually 13 miles. 

National Trails 

The Missoula Field Office has two National Trails— the Garnet National Winter Recreation Trail 

(designated by the Secretary of Interior) and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (designated by 

Congress) 

The Garnet RMP recommended that the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail/Blackfoot River be 

managed as a Special Recreation Management Area. A Recreation Activity plan would provide more 

specific management guidance for recreation and other resources. Public lands adjacent to the Blackfoot 

River would be managed with a primary emphasis on the scenic quality. Efforts would be made to acquire 

additional public access to key tracts along the Blackfoot River. 

The Garnet National Winter Trail was to be managed as a Special Recreation Management Area. As such, 

the management of the Garnet National Winter Recreation trail along with the existing network of 

snowmobile trails was to be kept up and continued. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

The Garnet RMP did not identify eligible and suitable segments to recommend for inclusion into the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. 

Wilderness Study Areas 

The original wilderness review process outlined under Section 603 of FLPMA had three phases: 

inventory, study, and reporting to Congress. The inventory and study phases have been completed and a 

report has been sent to Congress with recommendations as to suitability or unsuitability of each WSA for 

designation for wilderness. The Missoula Field Office has three Wilderness Study Areas – Hoodoo 

Mountain, Quigg West and Wales Creek. In the report to Congress (1991 Montana Statewide Wilderness 

Study Report), the Hoodoo Mountain and Wales Creek WSAs were recommended to be released from 

study and managed for multiple use. The Quigg West WSA was recommended to be designated 

wilderness if the adjacent Forest Service area was also designated. 

Designated wilderness is managed to “preserve wilderness character” unlike WSAs where FLPMA 

mandates that the BLM “not impair the suitability” of WSAs. The Garnet RMP allocated the Quigg West 

WSA to Management Area 8 and gave multiple allocations to the Hoodoo Mountain and Wales Creek 

WSAs – MA 4, 5, 6 and 9. However, management at that time was to follow the Interim Management 

Policy. 

N-16 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix O: Supplemental Rules 

Introduction 

The focus of a Resource Management Plan (RMP) is to guide the management of resources, both 

protection and utilization, and to address issues related to public health and safety. Throughout the 

RMP, decisions concerning restrictions, prohibitions, and allowable uses are presented to address 

identified issues or achieve management goals and objectives. In order for these decisions to be 

effectively put into practice, enforcement is often needed, first to ensure the management decision is 

properly understood and followed and second to provide for civil and criminal penalties should these 

restrictions and prohibitions not be followed. 

Although many of management decisions can be implemented through existing laws and regulations, 

often, unique and site-specific restrictions and prohibitions need to be clearly spelled out for ease of 

understanding and clarity. The BLM’s tools to achieve this are closure and restriction orders, 

supplementary rules, and special rules. 

How to Read and Use this Document 

This document addresses the process by which the supplementary rules will be enacted, including public 

involvement opportunities and the proposed supplementary rules themselves as they pertain to the 

proposed plan alternative B. Similar rules would be implemented under other alternatives, although the 

size, scope, and levels of restriction would change. These supplementary rules for the other alternatives 

are not presented, so as to not confuse or reduce the clarity of the proposed rules 

Summary 

The proposed supplementary rules include all closure and restriction orders, and supplementary rules 

presented throughout Alternative B. This includes rules divided into geographic areas for ease of 

understanding, implementation, and enforcement. The justification and reasoning behind each restriction 

or prohibition is presented throughout the RMP in Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Chapter 3 - Affected 

Environment and Environmental Consequences. 

Authority 

The regulations that allow for the creation and enforcement of closure and restriction orders, 

supplementary rules, and special rules are issued in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 43 CFR, 

under the provisions of the following: 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C., 1701 et seq.); 

Sikes Act (16 U.S.C., 670g); 

Taylor Grazing Act (43 U.S.C., 315a); 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C., 1281c); 

Act of September 18, 1960, as amended (16 U.S.C., 877 et seq.); 

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (16 U.S.C., 460l-6a); and 

National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C., 1241 et seq.). 

O-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

The authority is specifically given in the following regulations: 

Supplementary Rules (43 CFR, 8365.1-6); 

Closure and Restriction Orders (43 CFR, 8364.1); and 

Special Rules (43 CFR, 8341.2 and 8351.2-1). 

Process 

The process of creating and enacting supplementary rules and closure or restriction orders, involves 

several steps, including creation and development of rules, public comment and feedback, and final 

publication. 

Rule Creation 

The process of creating supplementary rules begins with the management actions presented in Chapter 2, 

Alternatives of the RMP. These decisions essentially create restrictions and prohibitions that need to be 

backed with written rules to ensure they are fully understood and enforceable. 

In many cases the process of creating rules is intuitive, e.g., a restriction on access to a specific area for 

protection of a resource result in a rule stating access to that area is prohibited; as such, the justification 

behind the rules is self-explanatory. 

In some cases the proposed rules respond to specific identified issues, which may or may not be directly 

addressed in the RMP, but respond to an existing need. For efficiency, this type of rule is included with 

the rules resulting from specific RMP decisions to provide a complete version of the proposed 

supplementary rules that would go into effect. 

Public Process 

In order for special rules to be implemented, a public process is required to be undertaken. As outlined in 

43 CFR, 8365.1-6, specific steps are taken to ensure interest groups and public lands users are adequately 

informed of newly proposed rules before they go into effect. 

The first step of this process is the publication of a proposed set of rules and then a period for public 

response and comment. This appendix within the RMP and the associated notices, press releases, and 

public meetings serve as the opportunity for the public to review and comment on the proposed rules, 

along with the RMP as a whole. This appendix has also been made available as a stand-alone document at 

the BLM’s Missoula Field Office and various other locations throughout the region. In addition, the RMP 

and this appendix are available for download on the BLM’s eplanning website. 

During the public process, reviewers are encouraged to comment on several elements of the proposed 

rules, including consistency and clarity. Specifically as it relates to clarity, Executive Order 12866 

requires each agency to write regulations that are simple and easy to understand. As such, comments on 

how to make these supplementary rules easier to understand are encouraged, including answers to the 

following questions: 

Are the requirements in the supplementary rules clearly stated? 

• Do the supplementary rules contain technical language or jargon that interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the supplementary rules (for example, grouping and order of sections, use of 

headings, and paragraphing) aid or reduce their clarity? 

O-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

• Would the supplementary rules be easier to understand if they were divided into more (but shorter) 

sections? 

After public comments have been addressed and in conjunction with the Notice of Availability for the 

Final RMP, final supplementary rules will be made available through similar channels as the proposed 

rules, including press releases, publication in the Federal Register, the BLM’s eplanning website, and at 

BLM locations through which the public can receive information. 

Public Comment Procedures 

Written comments on the proposed supplementary rules should be specific, should be confined to issues 

pertinent to the proposed supplementary rules, and should explain the reason for any recommended 

change. Where possible, comments should reference the specific section or paragraph of the rule that the 

comment is addressing. The BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the Administrative Record for 

the proposed supplementary rules (a) comments that the BLM receives after the close of the comment 

period, unless they are postmarked or electronically dated before the deadline, or (b) comments delivered 

to an address other than those listed. 

All comments on the proposed rules should be mailed or hand-delivered to Maggie Ward, Planning and 

Environmental Coordinator, BLM, Missoula Field Office, 3255 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, Montana. 

Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the BLM’s Missoula Field Office, 3255 Fort Missoula Road, during regular 

business hours, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Before including your address, 

telephone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should 

be aware that your entire comment―including your personal identifying information―may be made 

publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Other Procedural Matters 

In addition the public process described, creation and enactment of additional regulations is guided by a 

myriad of legislation. As such, the following we’re given consideration as part of the development of 

these proposed supplemental rules: 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

These rules have been developed in conjunction with the RMP and associated EIS. The rules themselves 

and the actions to support and justify do not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the 

quality of the human environment under Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C., 4332(2)(C). The public 

is invited to comment on the RMP, along with these rules, in accordance with the public comment 

procedures outlined. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended, 5 U.S.C., 601-612, to ensure 

that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. The RFA 

requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule would have a significant economic impact, either 

detrimental or beneficial, on a substantial number of small entities. These rules establish allowable, 

restricted and prohibited uses and rules of conduct for public use of specific public lands. Therefore, the 

BLM has determined under the RFA that these rules would not have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

O-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

These proposed supplementary rules do not constitute a “major rule,” as defined at 5 U.S.C., 804(2). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C., 1531 et seq.) 

These proposed supplementary rules do not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year; nor do these supplementary rules 

have a significant or unique effect on state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights (Takings) 

These proposed supplementary rules do not represent a government action capable of interfering with 

constitutionally protected property rights. The supplementary rules do not address property rights in any 

form and do not cause the impairment of one's property rights. Therefore, the BLM has determined that 

these proposed supplementary rules would not cause a “taking” of private property or require further 

discussion of takings implications under this Executive Order. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The proposed supplementary rules will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the 

relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government. These supplementary rules do not conflict with 

any Montana state law or regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, the BLM has 

determined that these supplementary rules do not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform 

Under Executive Order 12988, the BLM Montana State Office has determined that these proposed 

supplementary rules would not unduly burden the judicial system and that they meet requirements of 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

In accordance with Executive Order 13175, the BLM has found that these proposed supplementary rules 

do not include policies that have tribal implications. The supplementary rules do not affect Indian 

resource, religious, or property rights. 

Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

These proposed supplementary rules do not comprise a significant energy action. The rules will not have 

an adverse effect on energy supply, production, or consumption and have no connection with energy 

policy. 

Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation 

In accordance with Executive Order 13352, the BLM has determined that the proposed supplementary 

rules will not impede facilitating cooperative conservation, will take appropriate account of and consider 

the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural 

resources, will properly accommodate local participation in the federal decision making process, and will 

provide that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety. 

These rules merely establish rules of conduct for recreation on certain public lands. 

O-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

These proposed supplementary rules do not contain information collection requirements that the Office of 

Management and Budget must approve under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., 3501 et seq. 

Information Quality Act 

In developing these proposed supplementary rules, the BLM did not conduct or use a study, experiment, 

or survey requiring peer review under the Information Quality Act (Section 515 of Pub. L. 106-554). 

Proposed Supplementary Rules 

The following constitute the proposed supplementary rules, closures, and restriction orders and special 

rules to be enacted concurrently with the final RMP. For clarity and ease of understanding, the rules are 

broken down into subsections by geographic area. Definitions used throughout the rules are provided first. 

Definitions 

(a) Public lands mean any lands owned by the United States and administered by the Secretary of the 

Interior through the Bureau of Land Management without regard to how the United States 

acquired ownership. This includes paved or unpaved parking lot or other paved or unpaved area 

where vehicles are parked or areas where the public may drive a motorized vehicle, paved or 

unpaved roads, roads, routes, or trails. 

(b) Firearms means any weapon capable of firing a projectile, including but not limited to a rifle, 

shotgun, handgun, BB-gun, pellet gun, or paintball gun. 

(c) Airsoft and Paintball activities mean any recreational activity that involves the use of replica 

firearms to fire non-lethal, plastic or form pellets, or paint-laden capsule, through the use of 

compressed gas or electric and/or spring driven pistons. Activities may include shooting targets or 

games/combat situations involving multiple people. 

Prohibited Acts on all BLM administered public lands within the planning area 

On all public lands, you must not: 

(a) Burn treated lumber and woody materials containing hardware (nails and screws) on public lands 

unless approved by the authorized officer. 

(b) Use Airsoft and paintball across any designated route of travel or across any body of water, 

including flowing rivers and streams, lakes, and ponds; Use Airsoft and paintball within 150 

yards of any man-made object, structure, camp, or dwelling, unless such structure is specifically 

designed and permitted for use in those activities; Use anything other than Biodegradable 

ammunition; leave materials associated with air-soft and paintball after completion of the 

activities 

(c) Establish, erect, or define a memorial site on public lands without prior written authorization from 

the BLM. Memorial sites include the erection of religious symbols, creation of shrines, the 

placement of placards or other items identifying persons, events, animals, or other things that may 

be memorialized. 

(d) Leave personal property unattended without prior authorization for 72 hours or longer. At that 

time it is deemed abandoned and can be duly removed and disposed of by the United States 

Government, the Bureau of Land Management, or any person acting on its behalf. 

Seasonal Closure within the Sperry Grade Area 

In union with the rules Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks in which have been established for the 

Blackfoot-Clearwater Game Range, the public lands in T. 15 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lots 1 to 6, 

inclusive, N1⁄2NE1⁄2, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, Less that portion conveyed in 

O-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

56 Deeds, at page 448: Less SE1⁄4NE1⁄4(Lot 7) and NE1⁄4SE1⁄4 conveyed in 57 Deeds at page 404: and less 

that portion conveyed in 81 Deeds, at page 79 (COS No. 331), P.M.M., 

(a) Are closed to all public use from November 11 to May 14 

Prohibited Acts within the Dupont Acquired Lands 

On public lands in Government Lots 3 and 4, S 1⁄2 NW 1⁄4 of Section 1, Township 14 North, Range 14 

West, P.M.M., of Missoula County, Montana and Tract A of Certificate of Survey No. 3396 located in the 

SW 1⁄4 of Section 1, Township 14 North, Range 14 West, P.M.M., you must not: 

(a) Camp within the described area. 

(b) Light or maintain a warming fire or campfire. 

(c) Operate a motor vehicle within the described area unless for administrative purposes. 

(d) Collect firewood except for predetermined authorized use established by the authorizing officer. 

(e) Discharge a firearm or projectile (except for legal game hunting purposes as established by the 

Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks) or engage in other recreational shooting including but not 

limited to plinking, target shooting, or shooting varmints etc. 

Prohibited Acts within Bear Creek Flats 

On public lands in Sec 1, 2 and 11 T. 14N., R.14W., P.M.M., that are within one-quarter mile on the south 

side of the Blackfoot River, you must not: 

(a) Camp outside of designated sites or areas. 

(b) Light or maintain a fire except in designated areas or established by government fire rings. 

(c) Collection of firewood except for other than onsite use. You may only burn dead and down wood. 

(d) Discharge a firearm or projectile (except for legal game hunting purposes as established by the 

Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks) or engage in other recreational shooting including but not 

limited to plinking, target shooting, or shooting varmints etc. 

(e) Violate a posted regulation pertaining to the protection of natural resources or public safety. 

Prohibited Acts within Garnet Ghost Town 

On public lands in Secs. 2 and 3 of T. 12 N., R. 14W., P.M.M., within one-half of a mile of the town 

site, you must not: 

(a) Dig for, remove, destroy, damage, disturb, or possess artifacts, or other cultural resources, or use 

any device for detecting metal, except when allowed by permit. 

(b) Camp unless permitted by an authorized officer. 

(c) Discharge of firearms, other weapons and fireworks. 

(d) Bring an animal into such an area unless the animal is on a leash not longer than 6 feet and 

secured to an object or under control of a person or is otherwise physically restricted at all times. 

(e) Light or maintain a fire except in designated areas or established by government fire rings 

(f) Smoke in the buildings 

Prohibited Acts within the Blackfoot River Recreation Corridor 

On public lands in Secs. 18 and 19 of T. 14N., R. 15W., Secs. 4, 5 and 6 of T. 13N., R. 16W., and Secs. 13 

and 14, 20 to 29, inclusive, 32 and 33 of T. 14N., R.16W., P.M.M, that are within one-quarter mile on 

either side of the Blackfoot River or McNamara Road, or both, you must not: 

(a) Occupy Daigles Eddy Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

(b) Occupy Sheep Flats Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

(c) Occupy Thibodeau Rapids Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

O-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

(d) Occupy Whitaker Bridge Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

(e) Occupy Red Rock Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

(f) Occupy Belmont Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

(g) Occupy River Bend Day Use Site from the hours of 10:00 pm to 5:00 am 

(h) Jump from any bridge over the Blackfoot River 

Prohibited Acts within the Limestone Cliffs Area 

On public lands in Sec. 9 of T. 11N., R. 13W., P.M.M. within the Limestone Cliffs area, you must not: 

(a) Install new, permanent climbing hardware for new or existing routes unless approved by the 

authorized officer. 

(b) Discharge a firearm or projectile (except for legal game hunting purposes as established by the 

Montana Fish and Wildlife and Parks) or engage in other recreational shooting including but not 

limited to plinking, target shooting, or shooting varmints etc. 

(c) Bring an animal into such an area unless the animal is on a leash not longer than 6 feet and 

secured to an object or under control of a person or is otherwise physically restricted at all times. 

Penalties 

Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C., 1733(a), if you violate or fail to 

comply with these supplementary rules, you may be subjected to imprisonment for not more than 

12 months, or a fine in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3571, other penalties in accordance with 43 U.S.C., 

1733, or both. 

O-7 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix P: Design Features and Best Management

Practices 

INTRODUCTION 

The following Design Features and Conservation Actions are a compilation of design features, Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), and/or operating procedures used by the BLM to meet statutory 

requirements for environmental protection and comply with resource specific Goals and Objectives set 

forward in this land use plan. The BLM will apply design features, mitigation measures, and conservation 

actions to modify the operations of authorized lands uses or activities to meet these obligations. 

These measures and actions will be applied to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, and compensate for 

impacts if an evaluation of the authorization area indicates the presence of resources of concern which 

include, but are not limited to air, water, soils, cultural resources, national historic trails, recreation values 

and important wildlife habitat in order to reduce impacts associated with authorized land uses or activities 

such as road, pipeline, or powerline construction, mineral development, range improvements, and 

recreational activities. The mitigation measures and conservation actions for authorizations will be 

identified as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, through interdisciplinary 

analysis involving resource specialists, project proponents, government entities, landowners or other 

Surface Management Agencies. Those measures selected for implementation will be identified in the 

Record of Decision (ROD) or Decision Record (DR) for those authorizations and will inform a potential 

lessee, permittee, or operator of the requirements that must be met when using BLM-administered public 

lands and minerals to mitigate impacts from those authorizations. Because these actions create a clear 

obligation for the BLM to ensure any proposed mitigation action adopted in the environmental review 

process is performed, there is assurance that mitigation will lead to a reduction of environmental impacts 

in the implementation stage and include binding mechanisms for enforcement (CEQ Memorandum for 

Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies 2011). 

Because of site-specific circumstances and localized resource conditions, some mitigation measures and 

conservation actions may not apply to some or all activities (e.g., a resource or conflict is not present on a 

given site) and/or may require slight variations from what is described in this appendix. The BLM may 

add additional measures as deemed necessary through the environmental analysis and as developed 

through coordination with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies. Application of 

mitigation measures and conservation actions is subject to valid existing rights, technical and economic 

feasibility. 

Implementation and effectiveness of design features and conservation actions would be monitored to 

determine whether the practices are achieving resource objectives and accomplishing desired goals. 

Timely adjustments would be made as necessary to meet the resource goals and objectives. 

The list included in this appendix is not limiting, but references the most frequently used sources. The 

BLM may add additional site-specific restrictions as deemed necessary by further environmental analysis 

and as developed through coordination with other federal, state, and local regulatory and resource 

agencies. Because mitigation measures and conservation actions change or are modified, based on new 

information, the guidelines will be updated periodically. As new publications are developed; the BLM 

may consider those BMPs. In addition, many BLM handbooks (such as BLM Manual 9113-Roads and 

9213-Interagency Standards for Fire and Aviation Operation) also contain BMP-type measures for 

P-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

minimizing impacts. These BLM-specific guidance and direction documents are not referenced in this 

appendix. The EIS for this RMP does not decide or dictate the exact wording or inclusion of these 

mitigation measures and conservation actions. Rather, they are used in the RMP and EIS process as a tool 

to help demonstrate at the land use plan scale how they will be applied in considering subsequent activity 

plans and site-specific authorizations. These mitigation measures and conservation actions and their 

wording are matters of policy. As such, specific wording is subject to change, primarily through 

administrative review, not through the RMP and EIS process. Any further changes that may be made in 

the continuing refinement of these mitigation measures and conservation actions and any development of 

program-specific standard procedures will be handled in another forum, including appropriate public 

involvement and input. 

Table 1. Implementation-level design features 

Resource Design Features (DF) Objective 

Source Water DF-01. For any surface-disturbing activities located in To protect human health by 

Protection State-designated source water protection areas, the BLM 

will complete a Source Water Protection Plan. 

minimizing the potential 

contamination of public water 

systems. Source water is 

untreated water from streams, 

rivers, lakes, or aquifers used to 

supply public water systems. 

Ensuring that source water is 

protected from contamination can 

reduce the costs of treatment and 

risks to public health. This 

practice would protect the Statedesignated source water 

protection areas that protect 

public water systems from 

potential contamination. 

WSAs DF-02. Avoid using retardant in WSAs, protected lands 

with wilderness characteristics, Exemptions will require line 

officer approval. 

To avoid impacts to wilderness 

values from wildfire suppression 

impacts 

Historic Areas DF-03. The use of heavy equipment for wildland fire 

management would not be allowed in historic properties 

eligible for the National Register of Historic Places unless 

approved by line officer due to extraordinary circumstances 

(e.g. wildfire imminent in Garnet Ghost Town or Coloma). 

DF-04. Select fire suppression methods to minimize or 

eliminate the impact on historical site values. 

To protect historic properties 

eligible for the National Register 

of Historic Places from wildfire 

suppression impacts. 

ACECs DF-05. Avoid using retardant in ACECs. Exemptions will 

require line officer approval. 

DF-06. Select fire suppression methods to minimize or 

eliminate the impact on ACEC values. 

To protect relevant and important 

values of the ACECs. 

P-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Resource Design Features (DF) Objective 

Forest DF-07. Timber salvage project areas would have some 

Products areas that are left untreated as retention patches to 

maintain wildlife habitat. 

DF-07. Only standing dead and dying trees would be 

allowed to be taken as firewood unless live trees cutting 

area are designated. The BLM could designate specific 

areas for firewood cutting of live trees to meet resource 

objectives or BLM authorized uses such as leases and 

right-of-way. 

DF-08. To protect snag habitat for wildlife, dead trees 

greater than 24 inches DBH would not be permitted to be 

cut for firewood unless they are within 2 tree lengths of an 

open road. 

Special Status DF-09. Management actions within Riparian Conservation To ensure healthy aquatic and 

Species, Areas will not retard or prevent the attainment of Riparian riparian habitats are maintained in 

Aquatics Management Objectives 

DF-10. Fish key watersheds receive restoration priority 

and along streams with the 

potential for native fish 

reintroductions and restoration. 

Special Status DF-11. Design livestock grazing management (allotments, To ensure healthy aquatic and 

Species, animal unit months (AUMs), suspension, etc.) to minimize riparian habitats are maintained in 

Aquatics & negative impacts to and retain resiliency of riparian and along streams with the 

Riparian - vegetation and aquatic habitat (GM-1) potential for native fish 

Grazing DF-12. Develop and implement grazing practices to avoid 

or restrict trampling of developing young (eggs or 

individuals) in areas of known or suspected aquatic special 

status species breeding habitat. (GM-1) 

DF-13. Locate livestock handling and/or management 

facilities (corrals, etc.) outside of RCAs if they are 

preventing the attainment of RMOs (GM-2) 

reintroductions and restoration. 

Special Status DF-14. Avoid locating mineral project-related infrastructure To ensure healthy aquatic and 

Species, within the RCAs Where no alternative to placing facilities in riparian habitats are maintained in 

Aquatics & RCAs exists, locate and construct facilities in ways that and along streams with the 

Riparian - avoid impacts to RCAs and streams and adverse effects on potential for native fish 

Minerals native fish and sensitive aquatic species. Where no 

alternative to road construction exists, keep roads to the 

minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity. 

Close, revegetate, and obliterate any roads within the 

RCAs that are no longer required for mineral or land 

management activities. (MM-1, MM-2) 

DF-15. Solid and sanitary waste facilities in RCAs are 

prohibited. If no alternative to locating mine waste (waste 

rock, spent ore, tailings) facilities in RCAs exists, prevent 

releases, and ensure stability, then apply BMPs and project 

design features, and make adjustments based on sitespecific information and riparian management objectives. 

(MM-3) 

DF-16. Maintain, protect, and rehabilitate aquatic habitat 

affected by mineral activity within an RCA. Final 

reclamation will meet the objectives of the RCA. If the 

proposed activity and reclamation cannot meet the RMOs 

of the RCA, BLM Missoula Field Office will not recommend 

the project. (MM-1) 

reintroductions and restoration. 

P-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

Resource Design Features (DF) Objective 

Special Status DF-17. Design, construct, and operate recreation facilities, To protect riparian conservation 

Species, including trails and dispersed sites, in a manner that does areas and riparian management 

Aquatics & not retard or prevent attainment of the desired RMOs and objectives. And to ensure healthy 

Riparian – avoids adverse effects on aquatic special status species. aquatic and riparian habitats are 

Recreation (RM-1, RM-2) 

DF-18. Avoid placing new facilities or infrastructure within 

an RCA to extent practicable. Where new facilities must 

occur in an RCA (e.g., road stream crossings, boat ramps, 

docks, trails), complete watershed or site specific analysis 

so as to assure location does not retard or prevent 

attainment of RMOs. (RM-1) 

maintained in and along streams 

with the potential for native fish 

reintroductions and restoration. 

Special Status DF-19. Provide and maintain fish passage at new, To protect riparian conservation 

Species, replacement, and reconstructed road crossings of existing areas and riparian management 

Aquatics & and potential fish-bearing streams, unless barriers are objectives. And to ensure healthy 

Riparian – determined beneficial for native fish and/or sensitive aquatic and riparian habitats are 

Roads aquatic species conservation. 

DF-20. Avoid locating new roads or road-related facilities in 

RCAs. Exceptions may be granted upon watershed or site 

specific analysis focused on how road design features 

would minimize or avoid adverse effects to aquatic and 

riparian resources at site-specific, reach, and watershed 

scales. (RF-2a, b, c) 

DF-21. Avoid side-casting of road surface material into 

areas where it may reach RCAs. 

maintained in and along streams 

with the potential for native fish 

reintroductions and restoration. 

Special Status DF-22. Apply silvicultural practices in RCAs to acquire To protect riparian conservation 

Species, desired vegetation characteristics where needed to attain areas and riparian management 

Aquatics & RMOs. Apply practices in a way that does not retard objectives. And to ensure healthy 

Riparian – Fire attainment of RMOs and avoids adverse effects to native 

fish. (TM-1b) 

DF-23. Design prescribed burns to contribute to the 

attainment of RMOs. (FM-4) 

DF-24. Avoid placing wildland fire operations within the 

RCAs to the extent practicable. Exceptions may be granted 

following a review and recommendation by a resource 

advisor, and the line officer will prescribe the location, use 

conditions, and rehabilitation requirements with avoidance 

of adverse effects to native fish and sensitive aquatic 

species as a primary goal. (FM-1, FM-2) 

DF-25. Avoid delivery of chemical retardant, foam, or 

additives to surface waters. If an exception is granted by 

resource advisor or fishery biologist or a misapplication 

occurs, monitor water quality and aquatic resources as 

soon as possible. (FM-3) 

DF-26. Immediately establish an emergency or BAER team 

and develop a rehabilitation treatment plan to attain RMOs 

whenever RCAs have been significantly damaged by a 

wildfire. (FM-5) 

aquatic and riparian habitats are 

maintained in and along streams 

with the potential for native fish 

reintroductions and restoration. 

P-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Resource Design Features (DF) Objective 

Terrestrial DF-27. Retain snags at a level appropriate for multiple To improve wildlife habitat and 

wildlife: Big species and create large-diameter snags for cavity nesters, specific habitat components for 

Game, if feasible. priority wildlife habitat (big game, 

Sensitive 

species DF-28. Identify maintenance or replacement of features 

that maintain continuous representation of mature forest 

T&E species, Bureau sensitive 

species, raptors) 

components. Examples of features that should be retained 

include: dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody 

debris), and diverse stand structures located across 

landscapes that shift in location over time. 

DF-29. Scatter fine materials not utilized (seedlings, 

saplings, tops, branches, cull logs, and some down woody 

material) on the forest floor where and when it would not 

contribute to fire hazard in order to maintain nutrient 

cycling, provide for wildlife features, and discourage crosscountry motorized travel. 

DF-30. Whenever possible, plant openings larger than 20 

acres in size resulting from forest treatment or large scale 

events in forested habitats when natural regeneration does 

not become established to desired levels within 15 years or 

cannot be reasonably expected in 15 years. 

DF-31. Design treatments to maintain wildlife corridors 

within home ranges, between seasonal home ranges, and 

for dispersal. Wildlife travel corridors typically follow ridges, 

saddles, and riparian corridors. 

Migratory Birds DF-32. Implement project design features to avoid or 

minimize impacts from ground-disturbing activities. 

To avoid or minimize impacts to 

migratory bird nesting. 

Soils – all DF-33. Implement these measures at project-level planning To minimize and reduce potential 

programs and through stipulations in leases, permits, and other 

authorizations. 

Revegetate disturbed soils to stabilize and reduce the 

introduction or spread of invasive or noxious weed species. 

Provide for conservation and protection of soil and 

vegetation during periods of drought. 

Consider the intensity of the disturbance for activities 

proposed on unstable slopes or soils. Evaluate hazard and 

risk, and apply special BMPs or design features to avoid or 

lessen hazard and risk. 

Apply seasonal or other criteria-based restrictions on 

activities authorized by BLM in areas with higher soil 

compaction or erosion hazards. 

Manage activities and uses to maintain normal surface 

infiltration, with normal ranges of organic matter and waterholding capacity based on site-specific conditions and 

capability. 

Manage BLM resource activities and uses to minimize soil 

erosion, mass wasting, and compaction from multiple-use 

management activities. 

soil erosion, and to provide for soil 

stability. 

P-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

Resource Design Features (DF) Objective 

Soils – all DF-34. For general planning purposes, use riparianprograms wetland inventories and mapping products. 

DF-35. For project-level planning: 

Identify potentially affected riparian-wetland areas. 

Develop riparian management objectives for desired 

riparian, stream channel, and habitat characteristics. 

Define RCAs wherein riparian-dependent species receive 

primary emphasis, and maintenance and/or enhancement 

of riparian values will be emphasized as per 43 CFR 4180. 

Visual DF-36 Design forest management activities in undeveloped To maintain or reduce impacts 

Resources – and developed recreation areas to maintain or improve from forest management to visual 

Forest visual qualities. resources and recreation 

Management DF-37 Complete disposal of thinning and timber harvest 

slash will be required to maintain scenic quality and 

recreation opportunities. 

experience. 

GENERAL mitigation measures and conservation actions 

Air Resource BMPs 

Developed by: Bureau of Land Management 

Publication reference: BLM/WO Updated May 9, 2011 

Available from: Online at: 

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/best_management_practices/technical_informatio 

n.html 

Description: Identifies a range of typical Best Management Practices for protecting air resources during 

oil and gas development and production operations. 

• See WLF 

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Field Manual 

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices Construction Field Manual 

was developed to assist in design, construction, and post-construction phases of MDT projects. This 

manual provides background to concepts of Erosion and Sediment Control. Most of MDTs Best 

Management Practices are listed within the manual based on application categories. Each BMP is 

described; its applications and limitations are listed, as well as its design criteria. Construction phase and 

post-construction phase BMPs are described. This manual is a field guide and condensed version of the 

Erosion and Sediment Control Design Construction Best Management Practices Manual. For more 

detailed discussion on topic found within, refer to the Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Best 

Management Practices Manual. 

P-6 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Erosion and Sediment Control Practices: Reference Manual 

Developed by: Prepared for the Montana Department of Transportation 

Publication reference: FHWA/MT-030003/8165 

Available from: National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 21161 

Description: The Erosion and Sediment Control Construction Best Management Practices Manual was 

developed to assist in the design, construction, and post-construction phases of Montana Department of 

Transportation (MDT) projects. This manual provides background to State and Federal regulations 

associated with erosion and sediment control practices including a general overview of the erosion and 

sediment processes. Best management practices are listed within the manual based on application 

categories. Each BMP is described; its applications and limitations are listed, as well as its design criteria. 

The design phase includes development of construction plans, notice of intent (NOI), and stormwater 

pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Construction phase includes the finalization of the SWPPP, NOI, and 

the implementation of BMPs. Post-construction phase includes monitoring, maintenance, and removal 

activities. 

Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law 

Developed by: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Service Forestry Bureau, in 

cooperation with Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Logging Association, 

Montana Wood Products Association, Plum Creek Timber LP, USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of 

Land Management 

Publication reference: Revised November 2006 

Available from: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 2705 Spurgin Road, 

Missoula MT 59801-3199, (406)542-4300, or local MT DNRC field office. 

Description: The Montana Guide to the Streamside Management Zone Law is a field guide to compliance 

with State of Montana Law 77-5-301[1] MCA.) Complementary BMPs are found in the Water Quality 

BMPS for Montana Forests (also referenced in this appendix). Provides definitions, stream classifications, 

and guidelines on the seven forest practices prohibited by Montana law in SMZs (broadcast burning, 

operation of wheeled or tracked vehicles except on established roads, the forest practice of clearcutting, 

the construction of roads except when necessary to cross a stream or wetland; the handling, storage, 

application, or disposal of hazardous or toxic materials in a manner that pollutes streams, lakes, or 

wetlands, or that may cause damage or injury to humans, land, animals, or plants; the side casting of road 

material into a stream, lake, wetland, or watercourse; and the deposit of slash in streams, lakes, or other 

water bodies. 

Montana Non-Point Source Management Plan 

Developed by: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, 

Watershed Protection Section 

Publication reference: 2012 

Available from: Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Planning Bureau, 

Watershed Protection Section, P.O. Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901. 

P-7 
Bureau of Land Management 

Online at: 

http://deq.mt.gov/Portals/112/Water/WPB/Nonpoint/Publications/NPSPlan_Complete_07162012.pdf 

Description: This document describes the Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) 

updated strategy for controlling nonpoint source (NPS) water pollution, which is the state’s single largest 

source of water quality impairment. NPS pollution is contaminated runoff from the land surface that can 

be generated by most land use activities, including agriculture, forestry, urban and suburban development, 

mining, and others. Common NPS pollutants include sediment, nutrients, temperature, heavy metals, 

pesticides, pathogens, and salt. The purpose of the Montana NPS Pollution Management Plan (Plan) is: 1) 

to inform the state’s citizens about NPS pollution problems; and 2) to establish goals, objectives, and both 

long-term and short-term strategies for controlling NPS pollution on a statewide basis. The goal of 

Montana’s NPS Management Program is to protect and restore water quality from the impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution in order to provide a clean and healthy environment. 

Montana Placer Mining BMPs 

Developed by: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology 

Publication reference: Special Publication 106, October 1993 

Available from: Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Main Hall, Montana College of Mineral Science 

and Technology, Butte MT 59701 

Description: Provides guidelines for planning, erosion control, and reclamation in arid to semi-arid, 

alpine, and subalpine environments, to prevent or decrease environmental damage and degradation of 

water quality. 

Montana Forestry Best Management Practices 

Developed by: Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

Publication reference: Montana DNRC, 2015. Montana Forestry Best Management Practices. 2015. 

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division. Montana 64 p. 

Available from: MSU Extension Forestry, 32 Campus Dr., Missoula MT 59812, OR MSU Extension 

Publications, PO Box 172040 Bozeman MT 59717 OR Montana Department of Natural Resources and 

Conservation http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/forestry/docs/assistance/practices/mt-forestry-managementbest-practices-guide.pdf 

Description: Discusses methods for managing forest land while protecting water quality and forest soils. 

Intended for all forest land in Montana, including non-industrial private, forest industry, and state or 

federally-owned forests. These are preferred (but voluntary) methods that go beyond Montana State Law 

(Streamside Management Zones). Includes definitions, basic biological information, and BMPs for 

Streamside Management Zones; road design, use, planning and locating, construction, drainage, and 

closure; stream crossings, soil, timber harvesting methods, reforestation, winter planning, and clean-up. 

Communication Tower BMPs 

Developed by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Publication reference: Service Guidance on the Siting, Construction, Operation and Decommissioning of 

Communications Towers 

P-8 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Available from: http://www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/com_tow_guidelines.pdf 

Description: These guidelines were developed by Service personnel from research conducted in several 

eastern, midwestern, and southern States, and have been refined through Regional review. They are based 

on the best information available at this time, and are the most prudent and effective measures for 

avoiding bird strikes at towers. 

• Any company/applicant/licensee proposing to construct a new communications tower should be 

strongly encouraged to collocate the communications equipment on an existing communication 

tower or other structure (e.g., billboard, water tower, or building mount). Depending on tower load 

factors, from 6 to 10 providers may collocate on an existing tower. 

• If collocation is not feasible and a new tower or towers are to be constructed, communications 

service providers should be strongly encouraged to construct towers no more than 199 feet above 

ground level, using construction techniques which do not require guy wires (e.g., use a lattice 

structure, monopole, etc.). Such towers should be unlighted if Federal Aviation Administration 

regulations permit. 

• If constructing multiple towers, providers should consider the cumulative impacts of all of those 

towers to migratory birds and threatened and endangered species as well as the impacts of each 

individual tower. 

• If at all possible, new towers should be sited within existing "antenna farms" (clusters of towers). 

Towers should not be sited in or near wetlands, other known bird concentration areas (e.g., State or 

Federal refuges, staging areas, rookeries), in known migratory or daily movement flyways, or in 

habitat of threatened or endangered species. Towers should not be sited in areas with a high 

incidence of fog, mist, and low ceilings. 

• If taller (>199 feet AGL) towers requiring lights for aviation safety must be constructed, the 

minimum amount of pilot warning and obstruction avoidance lighting required by the FAA should 

be used. Unless otherwise required by the FAA, only white (preferable) or red strobe lights should 

be used at night, and these should be the minimum number, minimum intensity, and minimum 

number of flashes per minute (longest duration between flashes) allowable by the FAA. The use of 

solid red or pulsating red warning lights at night should be avoided. Current research indicates that 

solid or pulsating (beacon) red lights attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than white 

strobe lights. Red strobe lights have not yet been studied. 

• Tower designs using guy wires for support which are proposed to be located in known raptor or 

waterbird concentration areas or daily movement routes, or in major diurnal migratory bird 

movement routes or stopover sites, should have daytime visual markers on the wires to prevent 

collisions by these diurnally moving species. (For guidance on markers, see Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1994. Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of 

the Art in 1994. Edison Electric Institute, Washington, D.C., 78 pp, and Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices/or Raptor Protection on Power Lines. 

Edison Electric Institute by Raptor Research Foundation, Washington, D.C; 128 pp. Copies can be 

obtained via the Internet at http://www.eei.org/resources/pubcat/enviro/ or by calling 1-800/334-

5453). 

• Towers and appendant facilities should be sited, designed and constructed so as to avoid or 

minimize habitat loss within and adjacent to the tower "footprint." However, a larger tower 

footprint is preferable to the use of guy wires in construction. Road access and fencing should be 

P-9 
Bureau of Land Management 

minimized to reduce or prevent habitat fragmentation and disturbance, and to reduce above ground 

obstacles to birds in flight. 

• If significant numbers of breeding, feeding, or roosting birds are known to habitually use the 

proposed tower construction area, relocation to an alternate site should be recommended. If this is 

not an option, seasonal restrictions on construction may be advisable in order to avoid disturbance 

during periods of high bird activity. 

• In order to reduce the number of towers needed in the future, providers should be encouraged to 

design new towers structurally and electrically to accommodate the applicant/licensee's antennas 

and comparable antennas for at least two additional users (minimum of three users for each tower 

structure), unless this design would require the addition of lights or guy wires to an otherwise 

unlighted and/or unguyed tower. 

• Security lighting for on-ground facilities and equipment should be down-shielded to keep light 

within the boundaries of the site. 

• If a tower is constructed or proposed for construction, Service personnel or researchers from the 

Communication Tower Working Group should be allowed access to the site to evaluate bird use, 

conduct dead-bird searches, to place net catchments below the towers but above the ground, and to 

place radar, Global Positioning System, infrared, thermal imagery, and acoustical monitoring 

equipment as necessary to assess and verify bird movements and to gain information on the impacts 

of various tower sizes, configurations, and lighting systems. 

• Towers no longer in use or determined to be obsolete should be removed within 12 months of 

cessation of use. 

GRAZING MANAGEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 

(Guidelines) 

Guidelines for grazing management are the types of grazing management methods and practices 

determined to be appropriate to ensure that rangeland health standards can be met or significant progress 

can be made toward meeting the standards. Guidelines are best management practices (BMP), treatments, 

and techniques and implementation of range improvements that will help achieve rangeland health 

standards. Guidelines are flexible and are applied on site specific situations. 

Montana/Dakotas Standards for Rangeland Health and Guidelines for Livestock Grazing Management. 

USDI BLM, Montana State Office. August 1997. 22 pp. 

BLM BMPs 

The website below provides an introduction to BLM BMPs with links to BLM contacts, General BMP 

Information, BMP Frequently Asked Questions, BMP Technical Information, Oil and Gas Exploration— 

The Gold Book, Specific Resource BMPs, and, other BLM links. 

• http://www.blm.gov/bmp/ 

Storm Water BMPs 

The website below provides BMPs designed to meet the minimum requirements for six control measures 

specified by the EPA’s Phase II Stormwater Program. 

• http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm 

P-10 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

National Range and Pasture Handbook 

The website below provides procedures in support of NRCS policy for the inventory, analysis, treatment, 

and management of grazing land resources. 

• http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1 

043084 

Montana Nonpoint Source Management Program 

The website below provides links to information on funding for implementing nonpoint source controls, 

examples of control projects, and Montana’s current Nonpoint Source Management Plan. This plan 

identifies and provides details for BMPs to improve and maintain water quality. 

• http://www.deq.mt.gov/wqinfo/nonpoint/nonpointsourceprogram.mcpx 

The following would be applied, if warranted, to any BLM authorized activity. 

• The total disturbance area would be minimized and to the extent possible. 

• Surface disturbances would be co-located in areas of previous or existing disturbance to the extent 

technically feasible. 

• Linear facilities would be located in the same trenches (or immediately parallel to) and when 

possible, installed during the same period of time. 

• Plans of development would be required for major ROWs, renewable energy and minerals 

development. Such plans would identify measures for reducing impacts. 

• Where the federal government owns the surface and the mineral estate is in nonfederal ownership, 

the BLM would apply appropriate fluid mineral BMPs to surface development. 

• Remove facilities and infrastructure when use is completed. 

• Vegetation would be removed only when necessary. Mowing would be preferred. If mowed, when 

possible work would be performed when vegetation is dormant. 

• Two-track (primitive) roads would be used when possible. 

• Utilization of the Surface Operating Standards and Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development (i.e., The Gold Book) shall be utilized for the design of roads, utilities, and oil and gas 

operations. 

• Directional drilling, drilling multiple wells from the same pad, co-mingling, recompletion, or the 

use of existing well pads would be employed to the extent technically feasible to minimize surface 

impacts from oil and gas development. 

• Utilities would be ripped or wheel-trenched whenever practical. 

• Remote telemetry would be used to reduce vehicle traffic to the extent technically feasible (e.g., 

monitoring oil and gas operations). 

• Perennial streams would be crossed using bore crossing (directional drill) or other environmentally 

sound method. 

• For activities resulting in major surface-disturbance as determined by the AO, a mitigation 

monitoring and reporting strategy would be developed and implemented (see the Reclamation 

Appendix for further guidance). 

P-11 
Bureau of Land Management 

• Operations would avoid sensitive resources including riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains, 

waterbodies and areas subject to erosion and soil degradation. 

• The BLM would, on a case-by-case basis, use temporary or permanent enclosures (e.g., in woody 

draw or riparian areas) to promote species diversity, recruitment, and structure. 

• Accelerated erosion, soil loss, and impacts to water quality would be reduced by diverting 

stormwater and trapping sediment during activity. 

• Pitless or aboveground closed-loop drilling technology would be used to the extent technically 

feasible. Recycle drilling mud and completion fluids for use in future drilling activities. 

• Where needed, pits would be lined with an impermeable liner. Pits would not be placed in fill 

material or natural watercourses, and pits may not be cut or trenched. 

• Fertilizer would not be applied within 500 feet of wetlands and waterbodies. 

• Vehicle and equipment servicing and refueling activities would take place 500 feet from the outer 

edge of riparian areas, wet areas, and drainages. 

• Activity may be restricted during wet conditions. Mechanized equipment use would be avoided if 

the equipment causes rutting to a depth of 4 inches or greater. 

• Vehicle wash stations would be used prior to entering or leaving disturbance to reduce the transport 

and establishment of invasive species. 

• Invasive species plant parts would not be transported off site without appropriate disposal measures. 

• Use alternative energy (solar or wind power) to power new water source developments. 

• Overhead power lines, where authorized would follow the recommendations in the most recent 

guidance from the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (1994, as amended 2006, 2012). 

• Weed management prescriptions would be included in all new treatment projects and incorporated 

into existing contracts, agreements, task forces, designated weed-free management areas, and land 

use authorizations that resulted in ground-disturbing activities. 

• Whenever possible, ROWs would be constructed within or next to compatible ROWs, such as 

roads, pipelines, communications sites, and railroads. 

• The operator shall be responsible for locating and protecting existing pipelines, power lines, 

communication lines, and other related infrastructure. 

• Potential changes in climate would be considered when proposing restoration seedings when using 

native plants. Collection from the warmer component of the species current range would be 

considered when selecting native species. 

Wildland Fire Management 

• When Minimum Impacts Suppression Tactics (MIST) are used during wildfire suppression 

operations, follow guidance on pages 97-98 in the 2018 Incident Response Pocket Guide (IRPG) 

(PMS 461/NFES 001077) or most current version of the IRPG. 

• BLM is a member and participates in the Montana Idaho Airshed Group, which through the Airshed 

Management System, manages smoke impacts from prescribed fires. 

P-12 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

INFISH. Inland Native Fish Strategy: Interim Strategies for Managing Fish producing Watersheds in 

Eastern Oregon and Washington, Idaho, Western Montana and Portions of Nevada 

Developed by: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Intermountain, Northern, and Pacific 

Northwest Regions 

Publication reference: 1995 

Online at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3844529.pdf 

Description: This document is intended to provide interim direction to protect habitat and populations of 

resident native fish outside of anadromous fish habitat in eastern Oregon, eastern Washington, Idaho, 

western Montana, and portions of Nevada. This interim direction is in the form of riparian management 

objectives, standards and guidelines, and monitoring requirements. 

P-13 

Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Appendix Q: Land Tenure 

RMP Land Tenure Allocation Categories 

Category 1(Retention): 

• BLM managed lands identified for retention and include lands with high resource values. 

• These lands tend to be fairly blocked in terms of land pattern. 

• Included are areas such as WSAs, NHTs, ACEC’s., and Lands acquired with LWCF funding. 

• Acquisition of lands or interest in lands will receive priority if located within and /or adjacent to 

BLM managed lands in Category 1 provided lands meet one or more of the criteria in Land 

Ownership Adjustment Criteria. (See below for criteria) 

Category 2 (Retention-Limited Disposal): 

• Land generally for retention in public ownership. 

• Includes BLM managed lands that are fairly well blocked as well as smaller parcels. 

• Lands will not be available for sale under FLPMA. 

• Lands could be exchanged for lands or interest in lands. 

• Parcels may be identified for transfer under Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP) Act. Such 

recreation or public purpose use could be considered on a case-by-case basis such as schools or 

other public administration, parks or recreation areas, or historic preservation. 

• Lands could be considered for airport purpose under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, or 

for public agency jurisdictional transfer, 

• Lands may contain significant resource values protected by law or policy, and any disposal action is 

contingent upon prior review and approval. If action cannot be taken to adequately mitigate impacts 

from deposal of those lands, the parcels would be retained. 

• Acquisition of lands or interest in lands located within and /or adjacent to BLM lands in Category 2 

will be considered in accordance with the Land Ownership Adjustment Criteria (See below for 

criteria). 

• Transfers to other public agencies will be considered where improved management efficiency 

would result. 

Category 3 (Disposal): 

• Lands are identified for disposal through any method, including sale. 

• Lands generally are surrounded by private land with no legal access. 

• Have been selected for disposal by BLM due to management issues. 

• Land are relatively smaller in size. 

• Disposal of lands by exchange will have priority over disposal by sale. 

Q-1 
Bureau of Land Management 

• In addition, parcels may be identified for transfer under R&PP Act. Such recreation or public 

purpose use could be considered on a case-by-case basis such as schools or other public 

administration, parks or recreation areas, or historic preservation. 

• Lands could be considered for airport purpose under the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, or 

for public agency jurisdictional transfer on a case- by case basis. 

• Transfers to other public agencies will be considered where improved management efficiencies 

would result. 

Criteria for Land Ownership Adjustments 

Areas of National Significance 

• Areas that have national environmental significance include wilderness, wilderness study areas, 

former wilderness studied for protective management 

• ACECs 

• Areas that have national cultural and recreational significance include lands nominated or eligible 

for the National Register of Historic Places or designated as National Scenic and Historic Trails. 

• Areas that have important wildlife features such as threatened and endangered species habitat, 

prime fisheries habitat, big game seasonal habitat, waterfowl and upland game bird habitat and 

habitat for sensitive species including raptors and other nongame species. 

• Areas that have important watershed features such as strategic tracts along rivers, streams, lakes, 

ponds, and springs. 

Areas Important to BLM Programs 

• Areas that have important recreational and cultural features such as hunting and fishing sites, 

snowmobile trails, and areas that contribute significantly to the interpretive potential of cultural 

resources already in public ownership. 

• Areas include tracts of public land that are consolidated enough to make management of their 

resources cost effective, and have physical and legal access. 

• Access generally should allow for public use but, at the least, should allow administrative access to 

manage the resources. 

• Provides access to other public lands with high resource values. 

• Access to private lands will not be restricted without coordinating first with the private landowner. 

• Areas usually contain a combination of multiple use values and have characteristics that facilitate 

BLM priorities on the national, state, and local level. 

• Areas may have improvements that represent public investments; be encumbered by R&PP leases, 

withdrawals, mining claims, etc.; or be managed by cooperative agreements with other agencies. 

Areas Important to the Economy 

• These areas include tracts having mineral potential, forestlands, rangelands and others that 

contribute to the stability of the local economy by virtue of federal ownership and preservation of 

working lands. 

Q-2 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Other Criteria 

• Federal minerals underlying nonfederal surface would generally be retained in federal ownership. 

However, an exchange of this type of mineral estate may be considered on a case-by-case basis if 

found to be in the public interest. The sale of this type of mineral interest under section 209(b) of 

FLPMA could be considered only if the requirements of this same section were met. Conversely, 

the acquisition of patented mining claims would also be addressed on a case-by-case basis. 

Further Guidance for Lands allocated as available for disposal 

The BLM develops The BLM develops most RMPs to guide management of land over 20 or more years. 

The Secretary’s policy is, generally, not to dispose of public lands. However, for long term planning 

purposes, the situation may arise, especially in areas where public land tracts are isolated and difficult to 

manage, where it is useful for BLM to identify these areas as suitable for leaving public ownership. Any 

decision regarding whether or not to dispose of a particular parcel under any particular authority, whether 

by sale under section 203 of FLPMA; exchange under section 206 of FLPMA; or patent under the 

Recreation and Public Purposes Act of 1926, as amended, for instance, would require site-specific 

consideration and analysis, including, but not limited to considerations of access, popular recreational 

uses, the existence of cultural resources or habitat for species, and whether or not such a parcel, isolated 

from the rest of the public lands, might be better suited for non-federal ownership. 

Section 203 of FLPMA specifies that BLM may only sell a tract of public land under section 203 if the 

tract is identified as a result of land use planning, pursuant to section 202 of FLPMA, as meeting one or 

more of the disposal criteria listed in section 203. The RMP determination that a particular tract meets 

one or more of the criteria for disposal through sale does not necessarily mean the BLM will sell or 

dispose of the land by another means. Rather, the process for disposing of public lands under FLPMA 

Section 203 (Sales) or Section 206 (Exchanges) or any other authority is a lengthy multi-decisional 

process requiring comprehensive site-specific analysis, and cadastral, cultural and other resource surveys, 

when necessary, prior to the sale or disposition of a tract of public land. BLM bases the determination 

whether a tract meets one or more of the section 203 disposal criteria on its ongoing inventory of all 

public lands and their resources conducted pursuant to section 201 of FLPMA. The requirement under 

section 203 that this determination be made through land use planning is consistent with the section 202 

requirement to manage public lands under land use plans, where these represent a broader scope, longerterm approach to management of public lands in an entire planning area that takes into account a wide 

variety of possible uses of the public lands. 

In preparation for this land use planning initiative, the BLM conducted an inventory of the public land in 

the planning area to determine whether there are any tracts that meet one or more of the FLPMA section 

203 criteria for disposal out of Federal ownership: 

(1) Such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as 

part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or 

(2) Such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any 

other Federal purpose; or 

(3) Disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion 

of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other 

than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, 

recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership. 

Q-3 
Bureau of Land Management 

The legal descriptions outlined below provides a list of tracts in the planning area identified as meeting 

one or more of these criteria, with an explanation for the basis for the BLM’s determination. 

Category 3 Legal Description and Acres 

Legal Description Recorded 

Acres 

Criteria (1, 2, 

or 3) 

T. 5 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, lot 1, 40.4 1,3 

T. 6 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 12, E1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE1⁄4, 160 1,3 

T. 6 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, lot 7, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 116.7 1,3 

T. 6 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 8, S1⁄2NE1⁄4,SE1⁄4, 240 1,3 

T. 6 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 22, SE 1⁄4 SE 1⁄4, Sec. 26, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, sec. 27, 

lots 3-8, N1⁄2NE1⁄4 , NE1⁄4NW1⁄4 , S1⁄2NW1⁄4 , SW1⁄4 , sec. 34, lot 2, 

NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, N1⁄2NW1⁄4, 

842.4 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 4, T. 7 N, R. 13 W., lot 2 and 10, 12.2 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 6, 1 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 7, 0.3 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 8, 1.2 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 10, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 11, 0.1 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 13, 0.04 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 14, 25 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 17, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 18, 2.6 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 19, sec. 30, lot 8 and 9, 37.5 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 20 and 21, sec. 30 lot 6, 8.6 1,3 

T. 7 N.., R. 13 W., sec. 24, lot 2, 0.03 1,3 

T. 7 N.., R. 13 W., sec. 24, lot 12, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N.., R. 13 W., sec. 30, lot 2,, 0.08 1,3 

T. 7 N.., R. 13 W., sec. 31, lot 9 0.02 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., sec. 31, lot 11 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., sec. 31, lot 10 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., sec. 31, lot 14, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 10, 4.2 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 11, 0.7 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 12, 0.6 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 14, 16 and 17, T. 7 N, R. 13 W., lot 

9, 

48.9 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 18, 20, and 21, sec. 31 lots 2 and 7, 118.5 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 22, 0.7 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 4, 0.4 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 5, 8 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 6, 3.2 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 8 and 9, 0.03 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 15, 0.8 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 19, 0.1 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 31, lot 30, 0.6 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 3, lot 8, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, lot 4, 0.2 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 5, sec. 25 lot 15, 16, 20, 24, and 25, 11.6 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 11 and 12, 4.5 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W.,P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 13, 0.9 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 14, 0.1 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 15, 0.6 1,3 

Q-4 
Missoula Resource Management Plan DEIS 

Legal Description Recorded 

Acres 

Criteria (1, 2, 

or 3) 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, lot 6, 0.6 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, lot 13, .005 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, lot 15, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, lot 20, 0.01 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, lot 22, sec. 30 lot 16 0.7 1,3 

T. 7 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 30, lot 1, 1.2 1,3 

T. 8 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 16, lots 1 and 2, S1⁄2NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 

W1⁄2SE1⁄4, 

304.1 1,3 

T. 8 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 8 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, NW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec.17, NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec.19, lots 1 and 2, 78.4 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec. 19, E1⁄2E1⁄2NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 20 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec.27, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 11 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, NE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 11 W., P.M.M., sec. 27, S1⁄2 SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 20 1,3 

T. 9 N, R. 11 W., P.M.M., sec. 27, lot 8, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE 1⁄4 SE1⁄4, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

E1⁄2SE1⁄4SE 1⁄4 SE1⁄4, 

54.9 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 27 and 34, MS 7238 20.5 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 32, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 9 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 34, MS 7237 18.11 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 6 W., P.M.M., sec.11, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 6 W., P.M.M., sec.21, lots 4, 10.4 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 6 W., P.M.M., sec.22, lots 9, 0.6 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 6 W., P.M.M., sec.22, Senator Lode, 81.6 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 6 W., P.M.M., sec.27, lots 10-13, inclusive, 62.4 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 7 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, lots 14, 1.2 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 7 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, lot 20, 23.9 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 7 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, lot 23, 0.3 1,3 

T. 10 N., R.7 W., P.M.M., sec. 7, lot 6, 5.4 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 8 W., P.M.M., sec. 13, lots 9 and 12, 44 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 8 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 8, 0.1 1,3 

T. 10 N, R. 8 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, lot 9, 1.6 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec. 10, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, E1⁄2SE 1⁄4, 120 1,3 

T. 10 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec. 10, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 11 N., R. 9 W., P.M.M., sec. 28, SW1⁄4, 160 1,3 

T. 11 N., R. 09 W., P.M.M., sec. 34, W 1⁄2SW1⁄4NE 1⁄4 NE1⁄4, 

E 1⁄2SE1⁄4NW 1⁄4 NE1⁄4, 

10 1,3 

T. 11 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 12, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 11 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, SE1⁄4, 160 1,3 

T. 11 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 6, lot 3, 38.7 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 9 W., P.M.M., sec. 11, lots 6 and 12, 7.6 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 9 W., P.M.M., sec. 24, MS 4381 4.2 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 12 W., P.M.M., sec. 8, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 160 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 5, lot 8, 0.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 5, lot 12, sec. 8, lot 4, 0.5 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 5, lot 14, sec. 8, lot 2, 1.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 5, lot 15, 0.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 5, lot 17, sec. 8, lot 9, 6.2 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 13 W., P.M.M., sec. 5, lot 18, 0.2 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 2, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

Q-5 
Bureau of Land Management 

Legal Description Recorded 

Acres 

Criteria (1, 2, 

or 3) 

T. 12 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 3, lot 9, 0.3 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 3, lot 15, 0.3 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 3, lot 22, 0.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 3, lot 27, 0.01 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 20 E1⁄2 NW1⁄4SE1⁄4, 20 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 18, lot 1, and NE1⁄4NW 1⁄4, 93.8 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 19 lot 18, 0.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 24 E1⁄2 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, 20 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 15 W., P.M.M., sec. 32 NE1⁄4SW1⁄4, S1⁄2 SW1⁄4, 120 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.18, lot 28, sec. 19, lots 21and 13, 2.3 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec. 17, lot 1-3, E1⁄2NW1⁄4, NW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 

E1⁄2SW1/4, T. 12 N, R. 17 W., P.M.M., sec. 18, lots 13-32, sec. 19 lots 1,2, 

8-11, 18, 

455.3 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.18, lot 9, 1.2 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec. 18, lot 16, 2.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.18, lot 18 and 27, 6.7 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.18, lot 28, sec. 19, lots 21and 13, 2.3 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.18, lot 30, .03 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.18, lot 31, 0.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec. 19 lot 9, 0.1 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.19, lot 10, .01 1,3 

T. 12 N., R. 16 W., P.M.M., sec.19, lot 11, .02 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec. 17, lots 3-6, 107.3 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec. 17, lots 7,8 and 10; sec. 2, lots 2,3 and 6-8, 

sec. 29, lot1 , 

212.3 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 10 W., P.M.M., sec. 27, E1⁄2SW1⁄4, 120 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 11 W., P.M.M., sec. 32, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4, T. 12 N, R. 11 W., P.M.M 

sec. 6, lots 1 and 4, SE1⁄4NW1⁄4, SW1⁄4NE1⁄4, 

205.5 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 25, W1⁄2NW1⁄4, 80 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 26, NE1⁄4NW1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 27, SE1⁄4NE1⁄4,E1⁄2SE1⁄4, 120 1,3 

T. 13 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 28, SE1⁄4SE1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 14 N., R. 21 W., P.M.M., sec. 10, (not allotted) 52.5 1,3 

T. 14 N., R. 21 W., P.M.M., sec. 26, (not allotted) 16.1 1,3 

T. 16 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 4, N1⁄2SW1⁄4, N1⁄2SE1⁄4, 160 1,3 

T. 16 N., R. 14 W., P.M.M., sec. 10, SW1⁄4NW1⁄4, 40 1,3 

T. 26 N., R. 33 W., sec. 24, (not allotted) 4.1 1,3 

T. 29 N., R. 27 W., sec. 15 and 16, MS 6182 20.7 1,3 

T. 31 N., R. 33 W., sec. 18 lot 11, 0.3 1,3 

Total 5,455 1,3 

Source: Master Title Plats. Legal Recorded Acres, 5,455, GIS acres 5,445. 

Q-6 
Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment 

Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands3. Water Quality4. Air Quality5. Habitat for NativePlants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

Antelope Creek East 17322 I Yes No No Yes No No 1, 4 2019 2007 180 

Trees dropped over 

crk & built water gap 

(Action Taken) 

Antelope Creek South 3106 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2019 2007 430 

Riparian making 

progress - season of 

use adjusted 

Arrastra Creek 1499 I Yes No No Yes No No 1,2,4 2020 2012 1200 Rest sec 17 add t&c 

Bearmouth 7112 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2008 131 Continue current 

management 

Belmont 17127 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2025 2011 5630 Continue current 

management 

Blackfoot City 17212 M Yes No Unk Yes Yes Yes 3 2022 2004 1839 

Continue current 

management -

Riparian making 

progress 

Black Canyon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2020 2020 652 Recently acquired 

lands 

Bonita-Clinton 7101 I Yes Yes Unk Yes Yes Yes 2022 2005 3793 Continue current 

management 

Braziel 17207 M Yes No No Yes Yes No 1 2017 2013 8565 

Carpenter Creek 7501 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2004 44 Continue current 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-1
Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands 3. Water Quality 4. Air Quality 5. Habitat for Native Plants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

management 

Clark Fork Forty 17209 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2008 40 Continue current 

management 

Coloma 7106 I Yes Yes Unk Yes Yes Yes 2020 2005 3937 Continue current 

management 

Copper Ck 17307 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2010 565 Continue current 

management 

Cottonwood Creek 17219 I Yes No No Yes No No 1, 4 2017 2013 1600 

Proposed fence and 

restoration (Action 

Taken) 

Deer Gulch 17117 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2012 1,669 Continue current 

management 

Deer Park 17221 C Yes No No Yes Yes No 1, 4 2017 2013 640 

Devil Mt 17201 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2017 2013 160 Continue current 

management 

Dry Mulkey 7105 I Yes Yes Unk Yes Yes Yes 2020 2005 889 Continue current 

management 

Duck Point 17315 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2019 2007 142 Continue current 

management 

Elk Creek 7123 M 6231 Rx Grazing Only 

Elliot Airfield 17124 C No Yes Yes Yes No No 1,4, 5 2026 2015 5 

Pipeline & old fairway, 

priv Lnd contributes to 

weeds w/ horses. 

Eyebrow 17308 C No N/A N/A Yes No No 1 2022 2003 160 modified T&C (Action 

Taken 2011) 

Five Mile Ck 7118 M Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1 2025 2010 480 Fish Habitat 

progressing 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-2 
Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands 3. Water Quality 4. Air Quality 5. Habitat for Native Plants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

Gold Ck 17203 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2020 2001 925 Continue current 

management 

Hamilton Gulch 17326 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2020 2012 16 Continue current 

management 

Henderson Cliffs 7113 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2023 2010 100 

Continue current 

management - Revise 

T&C (Action Taken) 

Kershaw Mountain 17228 C Yes No No Yes No Yes 1, 4 2020 2010 80 

Continue 

management -

Riparian & Fish 

habitat progressing 

King Mountain 983 I Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 2022 2005 720 

Standards 2 & 3 

progressing - built 

slash fence 

Kleinschmidt Lake 17230 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2010 22 Continue current 

management 

Lincoln Gulch 17233 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2020 2010 25 Continue current 

management 

Lone Point 17231 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2010 336 Continue current 

management 

Lower Smart Ck 983 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2001 594 Continue current 

management 

Lower Willow Ck 17302 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2001 175 Continue current 

management 

Marcum 17213 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2006 5894 Continue current 

management 

McCormick 17218 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2010 25 Continue current 

management 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-3 
Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands 3. Water Quality 4. Air Quality 5. Habitat for Native Plants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

McElwain Ck 7119 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2025 2011 4200 T&C added 

Medicine Tree 7111 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2010 80 Continue current 

management 

Microwave Hill 17225 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2023 2001 40 

Continue current 

management - Revise 

T&C 

Montgomery Gulch 17303 M Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 1 2019 2007 77 

Continue 

management -

Riparian/Water 

making progress 

Mulkey East 7108 I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2009 2005 2758 Not leased 

Mulkey Gulch 1556 M Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2006 440 Continue current 

management 

Mulkey West 7104 I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2009 2005 7888 Not leased 

Mullan Road 17107 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2010 25 Continue current 

management 

Murry/Douglas Ck 7109 I Yes No No Yes No No - 1 2025 2012 7630 Douglas Ck Passed, 

Murray Ck Did Not 

Nevada Creek 17216 M Yes Met Yes Yes Yes Yes 2023 2011 275 

Riparian making 

progress - Revised 

T&C 

Nirling Hill 17317 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2020 2001 215 Continue current 

management 

Papoose Gulch 17327 C Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 2019 2007 80 

Continue current 

management -

Riparian making 

progress 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-4 
Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands 3. Water Quality 4. Air Quality 5. Habitat for Native Plants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

Pikes Ck 17214 C Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2020 2001 158 Continue current 

management 

Pinegrass 3154 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2001 282 2011 EA 

Puzzle Creek 17229 M Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes 2020 2004 320 Continue current 

management 

Ram Mountain 17316 M No No No Yes No No 1 2022 2008 3,914 

EA complete. Fenced 

Scotchman, 

Suspended AUMs 

Ram/ Homestead 01601 M No No No Yes No No 1 2022 2008 238 

Recent allotment 

division (Ram 

Mountain) 

Ravenna 7103 C No No Yes Yes Yes No 4,5 2022 2006 160 

Road near riparian, 

weeds currently being 

treated 

Sawmill Creek 1486 I Yes No No Yes Yes No 2 2020 2006 480 Collect additional 

riparian data 

Sawpit Gulch 952 C Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 1 2019 2007 943 

Continue current 

management - Willow 

creek fence exclosure 

Sluice Gulch 17314 M Yes Yes Yes Yes No No 1 2019 2011 601 

Fish Habitat needs 

improvement - existing 

exclosure 

Spring Creek 17324 I Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2019 2007 1,362 Continue current 

management 

Spring Gulch 7115 M No N/A N/A Yes Yes No 5 2022 2006 1040 

Weeds currently being 

treated. 80 ac did not 

meet Std. 1 

Starvation 17116 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2010 50 Continue current 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-5 
Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands 3. Water Quality 4. Air Quality 5. Habitat for Native Plants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

management 

Stewart Lake 17320 M Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2001 2175 Continue current 

management 

Sturgeon Ck 7222 C Yes No No Yes No No 1,5 2025 2011 206 

Riparian fenced, 

trespass livestock & 

by upstream activities 

Sunrise Eleven 17323 M Yes Yes N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2001 454 Continue current 

management 

Ten Mile 7102 I Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2005 1320 

Riparian making 

progress - Continue 

current management 

Tigh Creek 7114 C Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2010 240 Continue current 

management 

Upper Smart Ck 17311 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2022 2003 522 Continue current 

management 

Upper Willow 17312 I Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2019 2007 1,080 Adjusted season of 

use 

Ward Creek 1479 I No Yes Yes Yes No Yes 2 2020 2006 1120 Collect additional data 

for uplands & habitat 

Warm Springs 17224 M Yes No No Yes Yes No 1 2021 2013 7516 Warmsprng crk not 

progressing 

West Fork 17319 M Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2019 2007 960 Continue current 

management 

White Rock Mtn 963 I Yes No No Yes Yes No 1,4 2017 2013 160 Light road 

sedimentation 

Windlass Gulch 953 C Yes No Yes Yes No No 1 2019 2007 800 Continue current 

management - monitor 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-6 
Allotment Name Number 

Ranking11. Uplands2. Riparian Wetlands 3. Water Quality 4. Air Quality 5. Habitat for Native Plants/Animals

Passed 

Yes/No2 

Permit 

Renewal 

Year 

Year Assessed Acres Assessed Comments, Actions, 

Guidelines 

riparian grazing 

Wyman Ridge 17309 M Yes N/A N/A Yes Yes Yes 2022 2003 1061 Continue current 

management 

Yourname Ck 7121 M Yes No No Yes No No 1 2025 2010 1264 

Catherine crk FAR no 

trend. Fish Habitat 

not met 

Source: BLM (2016) 

1

Maintain (M), Improve (I), Custodial (C). 

2

If no: 1-Cattle, 2- Logging, 3-Mining, 4-Roads, 5-Other 

*Determination not complete 

Appendix R- Rangeland Health Assessment R-7