Waterway segments are only recommended for inclusion in the NWSRS or managed to preserve ORVs and the free-flowing characteristics under alternatives A and B. Under alternatives C and D, no waterways in the Planning Area are recommended for inclusion in the NWSRS or managed for the purpose of protecting any WSR-related qualities or characteristics.

Table 4-19 summarizes acreages and allocations associated with resources and resource uses along the waterway segments managed under alternatives A and B. For purposes of comparison, this table also lists the acreages and allocations of these same waterway segments under alternatives C and D; no special management actions are specifically applied to protect the ORVs and other WSR-related qualities under these alternatives.

Source: BLM 2009a

Impacts Common to All Alternatives

The only management common to all the alternatives is the closure of eligible and suitable waterway segments to disposal actions, which would result in an adverse impact to lands and realty by prohibiting land disposals along the waterway corridors identified in Chapter 3. Prohibiting disposals in these areas may result in beneficial impacts to WSR eligible and suitable waterway segments by preventing the disposal of land that could subsequently be used in a manner that diminishes ORVs.

There is no other “common-to-all management” specific to WSR eligible and/or suitable waterway segments. However, any management that results in restrictions on resource use, development, or surface-disturbing activities near to WSR segments may result in beneficial impacts by reducing the potential for impacts on ORVs or the free-flowing or other characteristics of these waterways. Alternatively, management that decreases restrictions in areas near these waterway segments may result in adverse impacts by diminishing ORVs and other characteristics of the waterways.

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the BLM has identified 20 WSR eligible waterway segments (see Chapter 3) and applies interim management to protect their free‐flowing characteristics and ORVs. Under interim management, the qualities that preliminarily qualified the waterway segments as eligible for inclusion in the NWSRS are protected, and the undeveloped nature of the waterways is preserved.

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative A, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are allowed on a case-by-case basis along nine WSR eligible waterways and portions of the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River and White Creek, while such activities are prohibited along the other eligible waterways. Prohibitions against surface disturbance would result in adverse impacts to mineral development, range improvement projects, watershed improvement projects, recreation development, and other types of actions that benefit these resources and resource uses, while case-by-case reviews may result in additional expense and delays for these types of actions. Prohibitions on and, to a lesser degree, case-by-case reviews of surface-disturbing activities would generally result in beneficial impacts to the ORVs and other WSR-related qualities along the eligible waterway segments because activities that degrade these qualities are not allowed.

Under this alternative, the BLM performs a case-by-case review of all proposed actions along all WSR eligible waterways and applies protective management, subject to existing rights, as appropriate. Case-by-case reviews may result in additional expense and delay for some projects, but requiring reviews of all these actions may result in additional mitigation or design considerations that protect the ORVs and other WSR-related qualities of the waterways.

Resource Uses

Management for eligible WSR segments under Alternative A is designed to preserve their ORVs and other WSR-related qualities, but also imposes restrictions that would adversely affect other resources and resource uses. Restrictions on mineral entry, leasing, and disposal under this alternative would result in adverse impacts to mineral resources. Under Alternative A, nine WSR eligible waterways are withdrawn (or partially withdrawn in the cases of Porcupine, Dry Medicine Lodge, and White creeks) from appropriation under the mining laws and administratively unavailable for mineral leasing. Along seven WSR eligible water segments, including portions on the Paint Rock Creek Unit and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, this alternative applies an NSO restriction and a seasonal NSO restriction (in the WFO only) on mineral leasing. Alternative A also limits geophysical exploration along 11 WSR eligible waterway segments, including portions of White Creek and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, to foot access and allows geophysical exploration via existing roads and trails along three other segments. Management under this alternative closes 12 WSR eligible waterway segments, including portions of White Creek and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, to recreational dredging for minerals and mineral materials disposal. Closing the majority of the WSR eligible waterway corridors to mineral entry, leasing, and disposal and applying additional restrictions on exploration and surface occupancy in the remaining areas would result in adverse impacts to mineral resources (see Table 4-19). Restrictions on mineral exploration and development in these areas would reduce adverse impacts to vegetation, wildlife, cultural, and scenic quality-related ORVs.

Closing 13 eligible and suitable WSR waterways, including portions of White Creek and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River, to timber sale or harvesting would result in adverse impacts to forest products and beneficial impacts to these WSR eligible waterways ORVs. Adverse impacts to the use of forest products would result from these restrictions on forest management practices and the extraction of forest products. Closure to timber sale or harvesting would result in beneficial impacts to the protection of ORVs if these closures prevent surface-disturbing activities, habitat loss, damage to cultural resources, degradation of scenic quality, or other ORVs along these waterway segments.

Under Alternative A, the BLM manages four WSR eligible waterways, (including a portion of White Creek), as ROW exclusion areas, nine as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas (including portions on the Paint Rock Creek Unit and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River), and the remainder as open to ROW authorizations subject to case-by-case approval. Management that restricts the ability to grant ROW authorizations would result in adverse impacts to ROW authorizations. Impacts from restrictions on ROW authorizations would be most severe in ROW exclusion areas.

Under Alternative A, five WSR eligible waterway corridors are closed to motorized vehicle use and the use of motorized or mechanized vehicle ground equipment to suppress fires (including a portion of White Creek); nine are limited to designated roads and trails (including a portion of Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River); and the remainder are limited to existing roads and trails. Travel management that restricts motorized vehicle use, particularly through closures or limiting travel to designated routes, would result in adverse impacts to access and recreational motorized travel by eliminating some potential routes.

Alternative A includes management for WSR eligible waterway corridors to prevent an increase in actual grazing use, which may result in adverse impacts to livestock grazing and beneficial impacts to waterway ORVs. Adverse impacts to livestock grazing may result if additional forage becomes available in the WSR eligible waterway corridors and it cannot be allocated to grazing permittees. Beneficial impacts from limiting the amount of grazing use to current levels may include a smaller risk of damage to the ORVs that are vulnerable to invasive species (i.e., scenic, wildlife, and other vegetation-related values) and, in situations where livestock grazing could become concentrated if additional use is allowed, less soil compaction and degradation of riparian/wetland areas.

Special Designations

WSR eligible waterways, where they intersect specially designated areas with additional and more restrictive management, such as WSAs, would be afforded additional protection. In the case of WSAs, Class I VRM objectives and non-impairment standards as directed from the Interim Management Policy and Guidelines for Lands Under Wilderness Review: Update Document H-8550 would benefit the ORVs and the free-flowing character of the waterways and other resources within these corridors, including wildlife, vegetation, soils, watershed, and recreational settings and experiences. However, these additional management prescriptions may preclude other resource management actions that may benefit those resources, for example, watershed development projects and wildlife development projects such as fish barriers.

Resources

Prohibitions on water impoundments, major diversions, or hydroelectric power facilities on all WSR eligible waterways under Alternative A would result in adverse impacts to water development projects and beneficial impacts to the protection of the free-flowing nature of the waterways.

Managing the corridors along two WSR eligible waterway segments as VRM Class IV and 12 segments (including portions on the Paint Rock Creek Unit, White Creek, and Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River) as VRM Class II would result in adverse impacts to resource uses and development, but would benefit certain ORVs (see Table 4-19). Along WSR eligible waterway segments where there is no WSR-specific VRM, visual resources are managed consistent with the underlying VRM classification in consideration of the need to avoid damaging the identified ORVs. Managing visual resources as VRM Class II would restrict the development and use of other resources because the allowable visual contrast would be limited and additional design consideration or mitigation may be required for certain activities. Management under stricter VRM Classes (i.e., Classes I and II) would be beneficial to the protection of scenic, recreational, and other ORVs that may be affected by surface-disturbing and other related activities. WSR eligible waterways are managed as VRM Class I where they intersect WSAs.

Alternative B

Under Alternative B, the BLM recommends to Congress that all 20 waterway segments identified as WSR eligible in Alternative A are suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS (see Chapter 3). To support this recommendation, the BLM applies specific management prescriptions to protect and enhance their free-flowing characteristics, ORVs, and other wild, scenic, or recreational characteristics.

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative B, surface-disturbing and disruptive activities are prohibited along all the WSR suitable segments and impacts would be similar to, but more extensive than, those under Alternative A. Closing lands along the Middle Fork of the Powder River, Paint Rock Creek Unit, and Dry Medicine Lodge Creek and other additional waterways under this alternative would provide only minimal added protection, because the case-by-case authorization of surface-disturbing activities under Alternative A would be used to protect the free-flowing nature and ORVs associated with these waterways.

Where appropriate, Alternative B applies protective management based on case‐by‐case reviews of discretionary actions proposed in the waterway corridors. Generally, the BLM would not approve such actions if they could result in adverse impacts to a WSR suitable waterways free-flowing nature and ORVs.

Resource Uses

Impacts to and from mineral development and timber harvesting under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, except that the extent would be greater because more areas are closed to these activities (Table 4-19). All WSR suitable waterway segments would be withdrawn from appropriations under the mining laws and administratively unavailable for mineral leasing. Unlike Alternative A, Alternative B also would close all segments to geophysical exploration. The management of mineral materials disposal would be the same as under Alternative A, though restrictions to protect other resources would mean more area along suitable waterways would be closed to disposals than under Alternative A. Alternative B also closes all WSR suitable waterway corridors to timber sale or harvesting. Management of minerals and forest products under this alternative would be more effective at protecting and enhancing the ORVs than Alternative A, and would be more effective at preserving the tentative classification of these waterways, especially along Wild and Scenic waterways where watersheds and shorelines are to be maintained in a primitive or largely undeveloped state, respectively.

The BLM manages all WSR suitable waterway corridors as ROW exclusion areas and closes the majority to motorized vehicle use (see Table 4-19). Impacts of ROW management would be similar to those described for Alternative A, although to a greater extent because managing the WSR suitable waterways as ROW exclusion would prohibit ROW authorizations, even if effects on ORVs could be mitigated. Adverse impacts from travel and transportation management designations in along WSR suitable waterways under Alternative B would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, but to a greater extent because of increased restrictions that close or limit travel to designated roads and trails across a larger area. Similar to the beneficial impacts conveyed through more restrictive management of mineral use and forest products, the management of ROWs and CTTM under this alternative would be more effective at maintaining and enhancing the ORVs and tentative classifications of the waterways than management under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, all WSR suitable waterway corridors would be closed to livestock grazing, and adverse impacts to this resource use would be greater than under Alternative A. Closing these areas to livestock grazing would remove AUMs associated with available forage and would result in reduced flexibility and increased operating costs for livestock grazing permittees in affected allotments. Although no conflicts between livestock grazing and the waterway segment ORVs have been identified, a closure may protect against future visual intrusions and impacts to vegetation and soils (e.g., invasive species infestations or damage to riparian/wetland vegetation) that could degrade certain ORVs.

Special Designations

WSR suitable waterways that intersect special designation areas with more restrictive management of resource uses would be afforded additional protection. WSRs, which are managed as VRM Class I to maintain their scenic qualities, would indirectly beneficially affect other resources, such as recreational settings and experiences and wildlife resources and associated habitat on WSR suitable waterways.

Resources

Management of water impoundments, major diversions, or hydroelectric power facilities would be the same as under Alternative A.

Under Alternative B, one WSR suitable waterway segment is managed as VRM Class IV, and the remainder are managed as VRM Class I (11 waterways) or Class II (8 waterways) (see Table 4-19). This management would be more restrictive than management under Alternative A and would effectively limit the types of visual intrusions along the WSR suitable waterways to only very minor activities that would not attract the attention of viewers. This more restrictive management would allow more effective maintenance of these waterways, tentative classifications and would provide additional protection and enhancement of scenic, recreational, and other ORVs that may be affected by surface-disturbing and other related activities compared to Alternative A. Where WSR suitable waterways intersect WSAs, other resource enhancement projects, such as the construction of fish barriers, may be precluded.

Alternative C

Under Alternative C, none of the waterway segments determined to be WSR eligible under Alternative A would be recommend to Congress as suitable, and the impacts to resources and resource uses under alternatives A and B would not occur. These waterway segments are released to other uses and no special management actions are specifically applied to protect the ORVs. Alternative C allows activities that may alter the ORVs identified under Alternative A, depending on restrictions from other program areas.

The BLM would manage the sale and harvest of forest products consistent with other management objectives. This alternative implements the greatest amount of silviculture treatments to actively manage the forests and woodlands and would be less restrictive to the harvest of forest products than the other alternatives. These activities would increase the potential for adverse impacts to the ORVs and other WSR-related values of these waterways.

Alternative C generally includes the fewest restrictions on mineral exploration and development of any alternative and would result in the fewest impacts on minerals development of any alternative, and the largest adverse impacts to the ORVs and other WSR-related values (see Table 4-19).

Under Alternative C, management of ROW authorizations, VRM, and travel is similar but slightly less restrictive than under Alternative A (see Table 4-19) and impacts would generally be similar to those described for that alternative. Alternative C manages a greater area as open or avoidance/mitigation areas for ROW than Alternative A. Alternative C ROW management would result in fewer adverse impacts to the location of ROWs, but greater adverse impacts to ORVs from more ROWs and fewer requirements for mitigation of these adverse impacts. Alternative C closes more acreage to motorized vehicle use than Alternative A and permits motorized vehicle use across a slightly smaller area on existing and designated roads and trails, which may result in a smaller potential for adverse impacts to the preservation of ORVs and other WSR-related qualities from motorized public access. Alternative C would not encourage new recreation opportunities on these waterways to the same degree as alternatives A and B.

Alternative C generally places the fewest restrictions on livestock grazing management and livestock forage production and utilization, and would be least restrictive to livestock grazing management in the waterway segments than the other alternatives. This would minimize the realization of beneficial impacts described for Alternative B.

Some of these waterway segments will remain protected under the management prescriptions of other resource programs such as ACECs and WSAs. However, these prescriptions may be eliminated if Congress decides to release the WSAs within these areas to multiple uses or the BLM does not carry forward these ACECs in future RMP revisions, at which time the waterway segments would lose any protective management prescriptions associated with these designations. Lack of these prescriptions would adversely affect the identified ORVs within the segments, as well as other resources such as wildlife, fisheries, scenic quality, and recreational resources that benefit from these management prescriptions.

Alternative D

Under Alternative D, none of the waterway segments determined to be WSR eligible under Alternative A would be recommend to Congress as suitable, and the impacts to resources and resource uses under alternatives A and B would not occur. As under Alternative C, no special management actions are applied to protect the ORVs. Alternative D allows activities that may alter the ORVs identified under Alternative A, depending on restrictions from other program areas.

Mineral exploration and development under Alternative D is similar to management under Alternative C, and would result in similar types of impacts to the identified ORVs and other WSR-related values (see Table 4-19).

The BLM would manage the sale and harvest of forest products consistent with other management objectives, and the impacts of this alternative on the identified ORVs would be similar to those described for Alternative C. Both the adverse and beneficial impacts from this management would occur to a lesser extent under Alternative D, because fewer acres would be available and timber harvests and treatments would be managed for resource protection and enhancement, in addition to enhancing resource uses.

Under Alternative D, management of ROW authorizations, VRM, and travel is similar to Alternative A (see Table 4-19) and impacts would generally be similar to those identified under that alternative. Alternative D limits motorized vehicles to designated roads and trails on a similar acreage as Alternative A, and manages more area as closed to motorized use than alternatives A and C, but substantially less than Alternative B. In addition, Alternative D manages more acreage as ROW avoidance/mitigation areas than Alternative C, which may reduce adverse impacts to the ORVs and other WSR-related qualities compared to that alternative by giving the BLM more ability to control ROW siting, apply additional mitigation, and close routes that are causing environmental damage. New recreation opportunities would be encouraged similarly to Alternative C.

Alternative D places restrictions on livestock grazing management and livestock forage production and utilization similar to those under Alternative A. However, under Alternative D, these waterways would not be managed to prevent an increase in actual grazing use and the adverse impacts to livestock grazing and beneficial impacts to the ORVs would not occur.

Similar to Alternative C, some of these waterway segments ORVs would be protected under the management prescriptions of other resource programs, such as ACECs and WSAs. The protections from these special designations would be greater under this alternative however, as Alternative D includes a greater number of ACECs than alternatives A or C, but fewer than Alternative B. As described under Alternative C, these protective management prescriptions would not remain in effective if the WSAs or ACEC overlapping the waterway segment were released.