Draft Butte resource management plan and environmental impact statement

2007·186.2 MB·English

by  United States. Bureau of Land Management. Butte Field Office

BLM LIBRARY
III 111 111
o C 5165 DRAFT
6 o D

Butte Resource
Management Plan
and
Environmental Impact Statement
VOLUME I
June 2007
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for the stewardship of our public lands. It is committed to manage,
protect, and improve these lands in a manner to serve the needs of the American people for all times. Manage¬
ment is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation’s resources within a framework
of environmental responsibility and scientific technology. These resources include recreation; rangelands; timber;
minerals; watershed; fish and wildlife; wilderness; air; and scenic, scientific, and cultural values.
BLM/MT/PL-07/010+1610
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Take Pride
Butte Field Office in^MERICA
106 North Parkmont
In Reply To: Butte, Montana 59701-3388
1610(070) Telephone: [phone]
http ://ww w. mt.blm. gov/bdo/
June 2007
Dear Reader:
Enclosed for your review and comment is the Draft Resource Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft
RMP/EIS) for the Butte Field Office. The Draft RMP/EIS considers and analyzes four alternatives that address future
management of approximately 302,000 acres of federal surface and 678,000 acres of federal mineral estate in southwest
Montana administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s Butte Field Office. Alternative B is identified as the
agency’s preferred alternative. While a preferred alternative has been identified, a final decision has not been made. The
final decision, which will be documented in a Record of Decision, will be made after consideration of the comments
received on the Draft RMP/EIS and after a Proposed RMP/Final EIS has been released. Additional copies of the
document may be obtained by contacting the Butte Field Office or from the website at
http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/butte_field_office.html.
There are two volumes to the Draft RMP/EIS. Volume I includes an Executive Summary, Chapters 1, 2, 3, and a portion
of Chapter 4. Volume I ends with discussion of environmental consequences of the RMP alternatives. Volume II begins
in the middle of Chapter 4 with the discussion of environmental consequences of site-specific travel plan alternatives for
five Travel Planning Areas. This is followed by Chapter 5, References Cited, Glossary, Index, and Appendices. There is
also a packet of oversized maps with an envelope provided for storage.
Enclosed with the Draft RMP/EIS is a compact disk of “Supplemental Electronic Files”. This disk contains a
“Readme.txt” file and four folders: “Acrobat Reader”, “AMS Figures”, “Grazing Allotment Maps”, and “Travel Plan
Maps”. The “Readme.txt” file contains guidance on the additional information contained on the disk and how to access
it. The “Acrobat Reader” folder contains a version of Adobe Acrobat Reader that will enable you to view the maps in
other folders.
You are invited to review and comment at this time on the Draft RMP/EIS to ensure that your concerns are adequately
addressed in the planning process. The public review period for the Draft RMP/EIS is 90 calendar days from the
publication date of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Additional information on public meeting dates and times to discuss the plan and provide comment will be released via
news media and on the website identified above after publication of the EPA notice. Written comments should be sent to
Tim La Marr, Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, MT 59701, or via email to
Comments will be fully considered and evaluated in the preparation of the Proposed RMP and Final EIS, and all
substantive comments will be addressed.
Comments will be most useful if they are specific, mention particular pages where appropriate, and address one or more
of the following:
• Inaccuracies or discrepancies in information
• Identify new information that would have a bearing on the analysis
• Identify new impacts, alternatives, or mitigation measures
>
i.
• Make specific suggestions for improving management direction
Comments, including name and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Butte Field
Office during regular business hours between 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and
may be published as part of the Final EIS. You may request confidentiality if you are commenting as an individual, but
you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent
!tem has been digitized
allowed by law. 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. Anonymous comments will not be considered. All
submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of
officials or organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.
We appreciate your help in this planning effort and look forward to your continued interest and participation. For
additional information or clarification regarding this document or the planning process, please contact Tim La Marr,
RMP Project Manager, at [phone].
Sincerely,
Richard M. Hotaling
Butte Field Manager
IDS' 1
3

o
S
»1
•
DRAFT
BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND \j
*
r
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
BUTTE FIELD OFFICE
BUTTE, MONTANA
JUNE 2007
ITEM HAS BEEN DIGITIZED
DRAFT
BUTTE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
1. Responsible Agency:
United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management
2. Draft (X) Final ( )
3. Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
4. Abstract: The Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement describes and analyzes
four alternatives for managing the public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management’s Butte
Field Office and located in southwestern Montana in Beaverhead, Broadwater, Deer Lodge, Gallatin, Jefferson, Lewis
and Clark, Silver Bow, Park, and Beaverhead Counties. These alternatives are: Alternative A (continuation of current
management, or the No Action Alternatives); Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) and Alternatives C and D. Major
RMP issues include vegetation communities; wildlife, wildlife habitat, special status and priority plant and animal
species; travel management and access; recreation; and special designations including Areas of Critical Environmental
Concern, National Trails, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Wilderness Study Areas. The alternatives present a range of
management actions to achieve goals and desired future conditions for the Butte Field Office.
5. Comments on the Draft RMP and Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted for 90 days following
publication of the Notice of Availability by the Environmental Protection Agency in the Federal Register. The close of
the comment period will be announced in news releases, newsletters, and on the RMP website at
www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/butte_field_office.html.
6. For further information, contact:
Tim La Marr, RMP Team Leader
Bureau of Land Management, Butte Field Office
106 North Parkmont
Butte, MT 59701
[phone]
[email protected]
ACRONYMS
°c
Degrees Celsius FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class
ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern GIS Geographic Information System
AG Artie Grayling HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
AML Abandoned Mine Lands IGBC Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
AMS Analysis of the Management Situation IM Instructional Memorandum
APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee ITRR The University of Montana’s Institute for
Tourism and Recreation Research
ATV All Terrain Vehicle
KGRA Known Geothermal Resource Area
AUM Animal Unit Month
LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund
B.P. Before Present
MAAQS Montana Ambient Air Quality Standards
BBER The University of Montana’s Bureau of
Business and Economic Research MBF Thousand Board Feet
BCFG Billion Cubic Feet of Gas MBMG Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology
BFO Butte Field Office MBTSG Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group
BLM Bureau of Land Management MCF Thousand cubic feet
BMP Best Management Practice MDEQ Montana Department of Environmental
Quality
BT Bull trout
MFP Management Framework Plan
CCF Hundred Cubic Feet
MFWP Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
MLA Mineral Leasing Act
CFL Commercial Forest Land
MMBF Million Board Feet
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
MMBO Million Barrels Of Oil
CSU Controlled Surface Use Stipulation
mph Miles per hour
DA Decision Area
NA Not Applicable
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
DNRC Montana Department of Natural Resources
NDA No Data Available
DOE Department of Energy
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
DOI US Department of the Interior
NFU Nonfunctioning
EA Environmental Assessment
NL No Lease
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
no2 Nitrogen Dioxide
EMU Elk Management Unit
NOI Notice of Intent
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
NPS National Park Service
ERMA Extensive Recreation Management Area
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
ESA Endangered Species Act
NSO No Surface Occupancy Stipulation
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
NW Northwest
FAMS Facility Asset Management System
OHV Off-Highway Vehicle
FAR Functioning At Risk
PA Planning Area
FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact
FMU Fire Management Unit
Statement
FO Field Office
PILT Payment in Lieu of Taxes
Butte Draft RMP/EIS ACR-1
Acronyms
PM10 Particulate Matter less than 10 micrograms TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
PM2.5 Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micro¬ TPA Travel Planning Area
grams
TPCC Timber Production Capability Classifica¬
ppm Parts per million tion
use
PPS Proposed Planning Scenario United States Code
PSQ Probable Sale Quantity USDA United States Department of Agriculture
R&PP Recreation and Public Purposes USDI United States Department of the Interior
RFD Reasonably Foreseeable Development USFS United States Forest Service
RMP Resource Management Plan USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
RMZ Riparian Management Zone USGS United States Geological Survey
ROD Record of Decision VRM Visual Resource Management
ROS Recreation Opportunity Spectrum VUD Visitor Use Days
ROW Right-of-way WCT Westslope Cutthroat Trout
RTM Recreation Tourism Market WFIP Wildland Fire Implementation Plan
SIMPPLLE Simulating Patterns and Processes at WFU Wildland Fire Use
Landscape Scales
WSA Wilderness Study Area
SLT Standard Lease Terms
WSR Wild and Scenic River
SMRA Special Recreation Management Area
WUI Wildland/Urban Interface
SMZ Streamside Management Zone
YCT Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout
S02 Sulfur Dioxide
TL Timing Limitation Stipulation
ACR-2 Butte Draft RMP/EIS
READER’S GUIDE
Preparation of this document was guided by United Chapter 2 (Alternatives)
States Department of the Interior (USDI) Bureau of
This chapter provides the description of management
Land Management (BLM) planning regulations issued
scenarios proposed for lands managed by the BLM
under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and Man¬
within the Butte Field Office Planning Area. This chap¬
agement Act (FLPMA) of 1976 and federal environ¬
ter explains how alternatives were developed and, pro¬
mental policy under the National Environmental Policy
vides an overview of the four alternatives considered in
Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Draft Resource Management
detail, states the goals for management of resources, and
Plan/Environmental Impact Statement (RMP/EIS) pri¬
describes the management actions by planning issue and
marily focuses on five planning issues and the decisions
management concern for each alternative, those common
needed to resolve them. The issues were identified
to all the alternatives and those common to the action al¬
through public scoping, concerns raised to BLM staff in
ternatives. Alternatives that were considered but not ana¬
interactions with public land users, and resource man¬
lyzed in detail are discussed along with rationale for why
agement concerns of the BLM and cooperating agencies.
they were not considered in detail. Finally, there is a ta¬
The issues are:
ble that shows the management actions in each alterna¬
• vegetation communities; tive for easy comparison, followed by a table comparing
the effects of each alternative.
• wildlife, wildlife habitat, special status and priority
plant and animal species; Chapter 3 (Affected Environment)
• travel management and access;
This chapter describes the current condition of the Plan¬
ning Area. This chapter is organized by resource, re¬
• recreation including national trails, visual resources,
source use, special designation, and social and economic
wild and scenic rivers, and wilderness; and
conditions.
• Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC).
Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences)
Other management concerns were addressed in the
This chapter describes the projected impacts and
RMP, but do not drive the formulation of the alterna¬
changes that would result with implementation of each
tives. To assist agency decision-makers and the general
of the alternatives. There are two fundamental parts of
public in choosing appropriate solutions to the planning
this chapter. The first part of this chapter (in Volume I)
issues, four alternatives were proposed and their impacts
discusses environmental consequences of RMP alterna¬
evaluated. The alternatives were limited to those that
tives. The RMP alternatives section starts with an expla¬
span a reasonable way of managing public lands and
nation of the types of effect discussed, followed by as¬
federal minerals, while offering a broad range of op¬
sumptions that were made in the analysis for each re¬
tions.
source. The effects are organized by resource. Each re¬
DOCUMENT SECTIONS
source section describes direct and indirect effects com¬
mon to all alternatives, effects of Alternative A (No Ac¬
The format of the EIS follows the Council on Environ¬
tion), effects common to the action alternatives, then ef¬
mental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations implementing the
fects of Alternative B, Alterative C and Alternative D.
NEPA (40 CFR 1500). The major sections of the EIS in¬
The cumulative effects section follows, with an
clude:
introduction and listing of activities considered in the
analysis and the cumulative effects. The RMP
Executive Summary
alternatives section closes out with the analysis of
The Executive Summary provides an overview of infor¬ irreversible and irretrievable commitment and
mation detailed in the full document and serves as a
unavoidable adverse impacts. While details of the
synopsis of the planning issues, alternatives and poten¬ impacts are provided in this chapter, the summary table
tial environmental consequences. of impacts is found at the end of Chapter 2.
Chapter 1 (Purpose and Need) The second part of this chapter (in Volume II) discusses
environmental consequences of the alternatives for the
This chapter contains background information on the
five site-specific travel plans, organized by travel plan¬
planning process and sets the stage for the information
ning area. Direct/indirect and cumulative effects on each
that is presented in the rest of the document. The main
resource or resource use are discussed at the scale of
sections in Chapter 1 include the Overview, Purpose and
each travel planning area. The chapter concludes with a
Need for Revising the Plan, Decisions from this Plan,
discussion of cumulative effects of the travel plan alter¬
Description of the Planning Area, Scoping and Planning
natives for all five travel planning areas in aggregate at
Issues, Planning Criteria and Regulatory Requirements,
the Decision Area/Planning Area scales.
Planning Process, Related Plans, Policy, Collaboration
and Overall Vision and Desired Future Conditions.
Butte Draft RMP/EIS R-l
Reader’s Guide
Chapter 5 (Consultation and Coordination) most of the maps are oversized and are provided in a
packet with an envelope. Acreages displayed in this
This chapter describes public involvement efforts and
document should be considered approximations even
collaborative processes, lists of agencies, and organiza¬
when displayed to the nearest acre. Most acreages were
tions receiving the document, and identifies the prepar¬
calculated from GIS coverages and as a result may not
ers of the RMP/EIS.
match acres provided in prior published documents that
contained calculations from master title plats or other
References
base data. In other instances, acres have been rounded as
Scientific publications and other references used as sup¬ analysis was completed. These rounded figures should
porting information are listed in alphabetical order here. also be considered approximations. The data used
throughout this document is for land use planning pur¬
Glossary
poses and not necessarily for actual on-the-ground im¬
Technical terms and phrases with specific policy mean¬ plementation. The precision afforded by GIS calculation
ing or definition are explained in more detail. does not reflect project level accuracy. Acreage figures
provided in this document for land use plan analysis
Index
purposes will be refined as subsequent site specific
Terms frequently referenced are listed along with the analysis is conducted. Data used in development of the
page numbers where they occur. RMP is dynamic. Updating data is considered a plan
maintenance action and will be incorporated over time
OTHER INFORMATION
as the RMP is implemented.
Tables and Figures have been included throughout the Appendices provide more detail on some subjects.
document to display and summarize pertinent informa¬ Some appendices may contain several pieces of informa¬
tion. While several Maps are nested within Volume I, tion related to the appendix topic.
R-2 Butte Draft RMP/EIS